Conceptual engine regulations

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
jjn9128
752
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

IL4 driving the front axle and an IL 4 driving the rear - each canted over at 45deg to make a "V8" along the car.

To be serious I think F1 missed a trick not harvesting from the front axle - maybe even deploying too.

F1 can either open the rules to get multiple different configurations like LMH but by limiting power/energy or do as the FIA do now and force a cylinder count/capacity/bore/stroke...etc Regulating F1 so it's at least relatively fair is always tricky.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:33 am
IL4 driving the front axle and an IL 4 driving the rear - each canted over at 45deg to make a "V8" along the car.

To be serious I think F1 missed a trick not harvesting from the front axle - maybe even deploying too.

F1 can either open the rules to get multiple different configurations like LMH but by limiting power/energy or do as the FIA do now and force a cylinder count/capacity/bore/stroke...etc Regulating F1 so it's at least relatively fair is always tricky.
70% they missed out on

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 6:01 pm
vorticism wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:39 pm
.... limit boost onset and target its increase to ensure high RPM operation. ....
....anything like a monotonic rise in boost from 0 at x rpm to infeasible at y rpm.....
yes they did that, starting nearly 100 years ago (before turbocharging) ....
driving eg a centrifugal supercharger at some fixed multiple of engine rpm
never winning a real GP though

'they' being famously Duesenberg and Miller and Novi etc - and BRM in Europe
(Tony Bettenhausen's Novi Monza lap record stands for all time)

also millions of such aircraft engines
Good reminder there, you're a trove. The Novi looked remarkably similar to the Merc turbo 1.6 l. In some regards, fwiw.

Image

Image

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 10:31 am
Just a constructive comment Stu, too many minimums and maximums to be eligible for this thread :wink:
😂😂🤣🤣
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

gruntguru
gruntguru
547
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

vorticism wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:39 pm
Eventually the boost level and engine speed correlation gets absurd with f.e. 7,5 bar MAP at 22k RPM.
Absurd? Sounds eminently sensible to me. Should be quite powerful - 4,000 hp or so?
je suis charlie

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 12:04 am
vorticism wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:39 pm
Eventually the boost level and engine speed correlation gets absurd with f.e. 7,5 bar MAP at 22k RPM.
Absurd? Sounds eminently sensible to me. Should be quite powerful - 4,000 hp or so?
Absurd as in likely infeasible i.e. that which provides the upper limit, not the practical, which would be at a lower value in the specified intake mass flow rate curve yet still by decree high in the rev range of a multicylinder. Painting with prescriptions is the theme of the thread as it relates to the current sport's governing body. If spec bodywork styling, then also spec audio. If so, then do it with some artistry instead of spinning one's wheels in a grovel trap.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Percentage of a theoretical perfect inlet fill event by a novel gas exchange design.
The best 4 valve engines achieve high 30's%
Actual flow at 10 inches = 246cfm
Image

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:52 am
Percentage of a theoretical perfect inlet fill event by a novel gas exchange design.
The best 4 valve engines achieve high 30's%
Actual flow at 10 inches = 246cfm
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca88777 ... eGLgM3efCo
Well when you say novel I guess you really mean it--this being an atypical valve arrangement? What else can you tell us about this?

User avatar
Big Tea
95
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Sorry guys, decided it was too close to off topic so moved it to the interesting stuff thread
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
Zynerji
108
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

I've mentioned this before, but I'll do it again.

Single front electric MU-K only. Torque vectoring differential.

Single rear electric MU-K only. Torque vectoring differential.

Single turbo-jet setup with twin turbo, twin MGU-H.

MGU-H's directly power the MU-K's. In a diagonal fashion, the torque vectoring will be controlled with triggers on the wheel that changes the balance of the power distribution (FR+10%<->LR-10%).

Maybe a 1-2 MJ battery for some hysteresis in the charging system (startup, throttle response).

Powered with EU approved, Green CNG in hot-swappable fuel pods for pit change with tyres.

It's loud, it's fast, it's agile, it has thrust!

Oh, and it's ALL under the drivers direct control with minimal electronics.
Last edited by Zynerji on Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:53 am
I've mentioned this before, but I'll do it again.

Single front electric MU-K only. Torque vectoring differential.

Single rear electric MU-K only. Torque vectoring differential.

Single pulse-jet setup with twin turbo, twin MGU-H.

MGU-H's directly power the MU-K's. In a diagonal fashion, the torque vectoring will be controlled with triggers on the wheel that changes the balance of the power distribution (FR+10%<->LR-10%).

Maybe a 1-2 MJ battery for some hysteresis in the charging system (startup, throttle response).

Powered with EU approved, Green CNG in hot-swappable fuel pods for pit change with tyres.

It's loud, it's fast, it's agile, it has thrust!

Oh, and it's ALL under the drivers direct control with minimal electronics.
That would be entertaining to drive, watch (including pitstops) and engineer...
do you think the sports betting people would run odds on explosions? :wink:

User avatar
Zynerji
108
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:23 am
Zynerji wrote:
Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:53 am
I've mentioned this before, but I'll do it again.

Single front electric MU-K only. Torque vectoring differential.

Single rear electric MU-K only. Torque vectoring differential.

Single pulse-jet setup with twin turbo, twin MGU-H.

MGU-H's directly power the MU-K's. In a diagonal fashion, the torque vectoring will be controlled with triggers on the wheel that changes the balance of the power distribution (FR+10%<->LR-10%).

Maybe a 1-2 MJ battery for some hysteresis in the charging system (startup, throttle response).

Powered with EU approved, Green CNG in hot-swappable fuel pods for pit change with tyres.

It's loud, it's fast, it's agile, it has thrust!

Oh, and it's ALL under the drivers direct control with minimal electronics.
That would be entertaining to drive, watch (including pitstops) and engineer...
do you think the sports betting people would run odds on explosions? :wink:
Maybe. Grosjean might have had an effect on that.

But think of the weight savings. No engine, water, radiators, side pods, anticilleries. We could go back to 500kg with safety!

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Creative spin on things there, Zynerji. A turbo assisted pulse jet, I don't think has ever existed (the pulse jet inefficiencies will be pointed out). My take on it would be to replace the combustors on a turbojet with pulse jets. This would be for an aesthetic touch not necessarily a performance gain--again we're in the age of race cars with styling ballast. Although, higher combustion pressures in the combustor might be valuable. It could provide an entertaining sound if tuned properly--most pulsejets I've heard are relatively low Hz. If ganged up in multiples and timed with spark ignition or valve control you could increase the pitch of the pulses to approximate an F1 NA sound. So, one MGUH-turbo-multi-pulsejet (MGUPJ?) driving your axle MGUs.

You need to dump braking MGU energy somehow if you're going to have motor braking, possibly through driving the MGUPJ and porting the MGUPJ compressor outfeed forward for a small reverse thrust. The only cooling you'll need will be for the motors, control electronics, and oil. Relatively small radiators.

Otherwise I'm in support of this as the nemesis EV. The CEV -- combustion electric vehicle.* Mwahaha. All though this is actually the definition of all EVs after the green paint is removed.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

vorticism wrote:
Thu Sep 08, 2022 9:00 pm
johnny comelately wrote:
Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:52 am
Percentage of a theoretical perfect inlet fill event by a novel gas exchange design.
The best 4 valve engines achieve high 30's%
Actual flow at 10 inches = 246cfm
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca88777 ... eGLgM3efCo
Well when you say novel I guess you really mean it--this being an atypical valve arrangement? What else can you tell us about this?
In development at dyno stage.
I am retired from the project
Air cooled, showing one advantage of methanol.
Top fuel drag bike application.

Single rotary valve for gas exchange.
For cylinder fill it is like opening the garage door, so in the early stages it only needed 22 psi.(supercharger superceded with turbo)
2.3 litre swept. 10.5 static.
500bhp @ 5000 rpm on the dyno for a 10000rpm engine
Methanol with nitro up the sleeve, twin fuel injectors with a normal return to tank system.
The drawback with a rotary valve is it compromises the chamber shape.
The key to rotary valves is the seal design, this one worked and worked well.
Twin flame ignition which needed only 26 degrees advance, greatly reducing what we call pumping losses.
BSFC numbers are sad which relates to the proposed F1 fuel specs
Last edited by johnny comelately on Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zynerji
108
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

vorticism wrote:
Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:19 am
Creative spin on things there, Zynerji. A turbo assisted pulse jet, I don't think has ever existed (the pulse jet inefficiencies will be pointed out). My take on it would be to replace the combustors on a turbojet with pulse jets. This would be for an aesthetic touch not necessarily a performance gain--again we're in the age of race cars with styling ballast. Although, higher combustion pressures in the combustor might be valuable. It could provide an entertaining sound if tuned properly--most pulsejets I've heard are relatively low Hz. If ganged up in multiples and timed with spark ignition or valve control you could increase the pitch of the pulses to approximate an F1 NA sound. So, one MGUH-turbo-multi-pulsejet (MGUPJ?) driving your axle MGUs.

You need to dump braking MGU energy somehow if you're going to have motor braking, possibly through driving the MGUPJ and porting the MGUPJ compressor outfeed forward for a small reverse thrust. The only cooling you'll need will be for the motors, control electronics, and oil. Relatively small radiators.

Otherwise I'm in support of this as the nemesis EV. The CEV -- combustion electric vehicle.* Mwahaha. All though this is actually the definition of all EVs after the green paint is removed.
Zero brake recovery. All carbon/carbon deceleration. 😋

I meant turbo jet... 😬

Just imagine this with current F1 turbos. Especially with VNT for more control.

Last edited by Zynerji on Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.