F1technical.net

Porsche has developed a 6 stroke ICE. Would be curious to read what the engineers here at F1 tech think of this technology. It seems very creative and ingenious with incredible potential for development. Maybe an option for F1 down the road?

Chuckjr wrote: ↑

25 Oct 2024, 09:17

Porsche has developed a 6 stroke ICE. Would be curious to read what the engineers here at F1 tech think of this technology. It seems very creative and ingenious with incredible potential for development. Maybe an option for F1 down the road?

https://youtu.be/uMEegb-IrRQ

Wouldn’t the shorter, less powerful strokes cause a bunch of vibrations? I can’t see an engine like this working well with an F1 car without a huge weight penalty.

this engine has inherently ....
greater expansion ratio than compression ratio ....combined with ....
the presence of the 2nd stroke seemingly somewhat conserving energy ie reduced heat take by coolant

the 2nd etc stroke (eg because of retention of 1st stroke exhaust gas) seems likely to allow combustion by detonation
(current F1 has combustion initiated by spark but completed by detonation (only possible via fancy injection technology )

a friend c 40 years ago thought diesel combustion (detonative) inherently gave more efficiency than SI combustion (deflagrative)
now to me this seems wrong ....
because most of the diesel's fuel cannot immediately combust as it's not immediately in contact with oxygen

I understand Porsche expect a 50% efficiency and we all know how hard they had to work for that percentage efficiency in the current iteration, and they did it by adding a ton of weight, size, complexity, and toxic batteries to the cars and now they have goofy looking obese boats. It seems if they have this kind of efficiency with a 6 stroke ICE, that there could be some serious viability to increase that 50% efficiency even more by adding turbos while nixing heavy batteries. Think of the weight savings. Think of the better racing. Certainly this paired with what are accepted as environmentally friendly fuels, could germinate an option that would be viable and worth addressing the inherent vibration issue with the new design. This would remove a ton of battery weight if not remove batteries all together, and return to a more pure racing formula, while downsizing power system size and complexity. All would be better for F1. Smaller cars and lighter cars we all want. Less complexity we all want. Better sound we all want.

Every once in a while somebody makes a Solidworks animation of a positive displacement pump, sticks it on youtube, and then gathers likes. How is its durability? Don't you think those little gear teeth might have a hard time? Are they spur gears, noisy, or hypoids, inefficient? Where's the published dyno information, or is just simulations?

What?

Porsche applied for patents so obviously Porsche are serious or why apply for patents and go to the trouble of spending all the hours it took to develop the concept? If it’s fragile and unwieldy, why bother? I think the engineers in Stuttgart have a good idea what they are doing.

I’ve no answers for your questions. That’s why I brought the concept here to a tech forum in hopes those gifted in engineering would discuss it as a 50% efficiency rating is nothing to shake a stick at. It maybe I was hoping too much.

Sorry. Delete.

Repeated message.
Delete.

No, early career engineers often develop silly ideas and patent them more or less for fun and brownie points. Sometimes somebody higher up takes them seriously and they actually get into production (Revo Knuckle for example, developed by 2 of my colleagues). https://www.autoline.tv/journal-wp-cont ... nuckle.pdf

But an engine without hardware is just an animation.

Of course I may have to eat my hat, but given the 7 year timeframe to get an engine into production, and the EV laws coming in, I doubt that half a billion dollars is seen as a viable investment.