2014 engines - a further technical appraisal

Showing 1-34 of 34 messages
2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Dave Baker 2/25/14 4:02 AM
Two years ago I posted an initial appraisal of how the new rules would
affect engine power and this can be read here.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.autos.sport.f1/_mAb0s-dZQY

I'm now going to look at the question of just how much power the engines
will actually need to be as fast as last year's ones. The minimum car weight
has increased from 645 kg to 690 kg but this is less important than it might
appear. The amount of fuel the cars can use is now limited to 100 kg whereas
last year a full race took about 160 kg. So in fact at the start of a race
the 2014 cars will actually be lighter, 790 kg compared to 805 kg. If we
make a rough assumption that fuel is burned off at a steady rate the average
race weight of this years cars will be (690 + 790) / 2 = 740 kg and last
year it would have been (645 + 805) / 2 = 725 kg so not really a big
difference. It will also make it easier for the designers to get the
suspension to cope with the difference between high and low fuel loads as
these are now much closer together.

The fuel flow limit increases linearly up to 10,500 rpm and then stays the
same all the way to the rev limit of 15,000 rpm. Power will therefore also
peak at 10,500 rpm and stay more or less constant until 15,000 rpm barring
gradually increasing frictional losses inside the engine which will steadily
reduce it a bit. Below 10,500 rpm the power will fall in a straight line
proportional to rpm. Torque will therefore stay more or less constant below
10,500 rpm because power = torque x rpm. So this will look nothing like a
conventional normally aspirated power curve which I hope most people are
familiar with. Plenty of examples on Google anyway if you aren't.

To obtain maximum acceleration from any engine it is desireable to hold rpm
as close as possible to that where peak power is obtained. In this case
power is constant all the way from 10,500 rpm to 15,000 so it makes little
difference where abouts in that range the engine is used. In practice there
will be no point revving it any higher than to ensure the revs drop back to
10,500 at each gearchange. With 8 gears the rev drop will be small enough
that there will be no point going past about 12,000 rpm.

In fact to rev any higher would increase unreliability and power would be
falling anyway due to frictional losses. So in effect these engines will
always be operating at a roughly constant peak power output, whatever that
turns out to be.

The 2103 engines were nothing like this. Previously allowed to rev to 19k
rpm, power would actually still have been climbing at the later 18k rev
limit and would drop markedly as revs dropped below that i.e. on each gear
change. With revs dropping to between 15,500 and 16,000 rpm at each gear
change, power would have fallen by over 100 bhp from the peak at 18k of
about 750 bhp. So the average power being delivered would have been much
lower than the actual peak of 750 bhp. This gives an immediate advantage of
50 bhp or more to the new engines operating at a single constant peak output
all the time.

Factoring in all these things to a detailed computer simulation program I
compared the acceleration of the old cars at an average weight of 725 kg
with the new ones at 740 kg. To obtain equivalent acceleration all the way
to about 190 mph it turns out that the new engines only need to produce
about 515 bhp from the base engine, plus the 160 bhp from ERS for a total of
675 bhp to be fully competitive with the old engines at 750 bhp but only
actually producing that briefly at every red line.

That 515 bhp is almost exactly what I calculated the new engines might be
able to produce two years ago from the fuel flow limits.

It is likely that other factors such as drag and downforce have also changed
but there is not enough information yet to estimate these. Given that both
have probably fallen somewhat the new cars may even be a tad faster in a
straight line than the simulation predicts.

One thing that immediately showed up was how pointless it is to have an 8
speed gearbox with engines that have a totally flat power delivery. In fact
I tried restricting them to only 5 gears and it made hardly any difference
to acceleration. It just meant they had to be revved a bit higher so the rpm
still fell back to 10,500 at each gear change with the larger rev drop. Yet
another pointless FIA complication when they keep saying how they are trying
to restrict costs but never do.

The other thing the drivers will immediately notice is that there is no rev
limiter to bounce off any more and choosing the exact gearing will be very
uncritical compared to last year. With most gear changes at about 12k rpm
but with another 3k left over to be used if necessary the cars will continue
to be able to accelerate right up to every braking point regardless of DRS
use, slipstreaming, tail winds and weight falling as the fuel burns off.

So this is a pretty bizarre set of technical regulations. A gearbox that no
one needs and a 15,000 rpm limit that no one will ever use. I wonder how
long it will take them to change these.
--
Dave Baker

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Sir Tim 2/25/14 4:43 AM
On 25/02/2014 12:02, Dave Baker wrote:

> One thing that immediately showed up was how pointless it is to have an
> 8 speed gearbox with engines that have a totally flat power delivery. In
> fact I tried restricting them to only 5 gears and it made hardly any
> difference to acceleration. It just meant they had to be revved a bit
> higher so the rpm still fell back to 10,500 at each gear change with the
> larger rev drop. Yet another pointless FIA complication when they keep
> saying how they are trying to restrict costs but never do.

Interview at Jerez:

Kravitz: "What about the torque?"

Hamilton: "Yeah,in the past we used 1st and 2nd through corners; we're
now using 4th and 5th."

Kravitz: "What are you using at the hairpin?"

Hamilton (shrugs): "4th and 5th"


--
Henry Birkin, Bt.
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Lord Charles 2/25/14 5:11 AM
Sir Tim scribbled...
The 2014 gearbox has fixed ratios for the season.  I guess the lower
gears will be useful at Monaco and the higher at Monza.

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal News 2/25/14 5:39 AM
So, a three-speed (starting gear and two track gears) is all that's
necessary.
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Dave Baker 2/25/14 12:48 PM

"Sir Tim" <Gongo...@monza.com> wrote in message
news:W_KdnUfMTe1hEpHOnZ2dnUVZ7oqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
That's all rather more complex than just the base power and torque of the
new engines. It's largely about ERS which is capable of dumping an extra 160
bhp in pretty much regardless of rpm. As torque and bhp are related by rpm,
160 bhp extra at 6000 rpm represents twice as much torque input as 160 bhp
at 12,000 rpm. So if the new engines drop out of what would have been the
"powerband" in a peaky normally aspirated engine to go through a slow corner
for example the ERS can just haul them out again.

As an experiment I looked at both cars in the same overall gear, one geared
for 160 mph at the respective redlines of 18,000 last year and what I
contend will be the actual normal redline this year of about 12,500 rpm.
This gear, 5th in my program, would normally be used between about 140 and
160 mph outside of which you'd want to change up or down.

If for whatever reason you have to stay in that gear at a much lower speed
than usual, I took the 80 to 100 mph increment as an example, the effect on
performance is quite marked. Last year's car would be well outside its
powerband at such a low speed and would take a massive (for F1) 1.47 seconds
to accelerate over that increment compared to 0.79 seconds if it were in the
ideal gear (3rd) - nearly twice as long. This would feel like an eternity on
the track and every other car would just piss past you. The 2014 car with
ERS dumping so much power and torque in would only take 0.99 seconds. In
fact it's not much slower than if you were in the next gear down which would
take 0.91 seconds or the 0.79 seconds of the ideal gear (same as the old
car).

The drivers will be feeling this as much more low rpm torque than they're
used to and much less need to try and keep the engine boiling as close as
possible to its peak power rpm all the time. You can be at least one gear
too high, maybe two and still not really lose much track time.

It's going to take the drivers and engineers a long time to work through all
this and find the best gearing and gear change strategies because it's all
so different to what they're used to. Without the simulation program doing
millions of calculations and working it all out for me it would be extremely
difficult to see any of this intuitively. It's certainly fascinating having
that facility though and being able to explore these differences.
--
Dave Baker

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal John 2/25/14 9:00 PM
Cant decide which is the most lame part of the 2014 engine rules.  But I'll give it to the cylinder count.  Whit dishonorable mention going to rev limit and displacement.
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Bruce Hoult 2/25/14 9:54 PM
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:00:00 PM UTC+13, John wrote:
> Cant decide which is the most lame part of the 2014 engine rules.  But I'll give it to the cylinder count.  Whit dishonorable mention going to rev limit and displacement.

Not sure what you mean, given that they're probably going to end up about the same speed as last year's cars, despite half the cylinders, 2/3 the displacement, and probably 2/3 the RPM most of the time. Seems like a massive achievement to me.
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal ~misfit~ 2/25/14 10:12 PM
Don't forget they're also about 5/2 the cost.....

Not that I'm complaining. Most exciting thing to happen to F1 since
pre-Schumacher days IMO.
--
</Shaun>

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1).


Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Edmund 2/26/14 12:54 AM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:12:01 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:00:00 PM UTC+13, John wrote:
>>> Cant decide which is the most lame part of the 2014 engine rules. But
>>> I'll give it to the cylinder count.  Whit dishonorable mention going
>>> to rev limit and displacement.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean, given that they're probably going to end up
>> about the same speed as last year's cars, despite half the cylinders,
>> 2/3 the displacement, and probably 2/3 the RPM most of the time. Seems
>> like a massive achievement to me.
>
> Don't forget they're also about 5/2 the cost.....

Right LOL.
>
> Not that I'm complaining. Most exciting thing to happen to F1 since
> pre-Schumacher days IMO.

I second that! Although the regulations ... limiting the fuel flow above
10500 revs  tjeezzz
Now we have to wait and see if they manage the same -race pace- as before.



Edmund

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Sir Tim 2/26/14 1:10 AM
"John" has never been known to say anything positive about F1. Take no
notice.
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Bigbird 2/26/14 2:00 AM
John wrote:

> Cant decide which is the most lame part of the 2014 engine rules.

Then you really haven't been paying attention.

> But I'll give it to the cylinder count.  Whit dishonorable mention
> going to rev limit and displacement.

None of those.
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Dave Baker 2/26/14 4:49 AM

"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:lei0o8$lci$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Two years ago I posted an initial appraisal of how the new rules would
> affect engine power and this can be read here.

BTW, there's one more very basic measure of how much base power the current
engines might produce which doesn't even require any great technical
knowledge to evaluate or understand. The current rules restrict total fuel
usage over a race to about 2/3 of what the teams were using last year with
750/760 bhp.

Common sense tells you that if the current base engines (ignoring ERS or
KERS) can achieve similar fuel conversion efficiency to the old ones then
over a race distance if they put out more than about 2/3 of the previous
base power on average then they're going to run out of fuel. That puts us
right back to the 500/510 bhp ish figure I concluded with in my evaluation
two years ago using different measures.

Let's not forget that fuel efficiency was a big consideration last year too
or indeed at any time. The engine designers weren't throwing any of that
away for the sake of it when it could potentially mean starting off each
race with a smaller fuel load and a lighter car. Direct injection might have
made a small difference to fuel conversion efficiency but there are no magic
routes to suddenly producing a lot more power from the energy contained in a
given amount of fuel.

The ERS system, just like the old KERS system only recovers waste energy. It
doesn't magically make the base engine itself any more fuel efficient or
thermally efficient or frictionally efficient internally. All we're really
doing this year is using less base power and recovering more wasted power.

So 500 ish bhp it is then until someone proves me wrong and with the ERS
added in similar overall short burst performance to last year although I
still suspect it will be a bit down over a race distance. I also suspect
we'll see a lot of cars having to back off dramatically towards the end of
races just to make sure they finish them having used too much power and fuel
early on.
--
Dave Baker

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Edmund 2/26/14 9:28 AM
Of course there will be no magic involved with the new engines.
However if you think they will be not more fuel efficient then the old
engines, we differ from opinion for a few reasons.
1 Smaller engines tent to have less friction losses.
2 Turbo engines can be more fuel efficient
3 Direct injection improves fuel efficiency
So far on what you call the base power and "only" recover wasted power is
quite an understatement, the exhaust typically throws away some 30 %.
I don't know what is allowed and what not and I don't know if it is
allowed to use the electric generated power directly or that it first
must be stored. ( I have seen more stupid regulations ) Anyway the amount
of "recovered" energy can be very significant.
>
> So 500 ish bhp it is then until someone proves me wrong and with the ERS
> added in similar overall short burst performance to last year although I
> still suspect it will be a bit down over a race distance. I also suspect
> we'll see a lot of cars having to back off dramatically towards the end
> of races just to make sure they finish them having used too much power
> and fuel early on.

Very possible

Edmund

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal WrongWayWade 2/26/14 10:59 AM
In article <8bb9f9fd-2b74-48e8-ae38-da5a03fb7457@googlegroups.com>,
qwrt...@gmail.com said...
>
>Cant decide which is the most lame part of the 2014
engine rules.  But I'll give it to the cylinder count.  Whit
dishonorable mention going to rev limit and displacement.

Do you think it will be a problem for the drivers this year to be
choosing when to engage ERS, now that they have so much more to work
with (33 seconds, I believe)?



Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal John 2/26/14 6:10 PM
You must be one of Bernies bitches.

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Dave Baker 2/26/14 11:30 PM

"Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lel87o$3kb$2@dont-email.me...
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:49:49 +0000, Dave Baker wrote:

> Of course there will be no magic involved with the new engines.
> However if you think they will be not more fuel efficient then the old
> engines, we differ from opinion for a few reasons.
> 1 Smaller engines tent to have less friction losses.

Wrong. Obviously they have lower absolute frictional (and thermal) losses
because the bits are smaller but in proportion to the power generated the
losses are usually bigger and hence the BSFC is worse. The most fuel
efficient engines in the world are the ultra large prime movers in ships
such as the Sulzer diesels with cylinders you can stand inside.

> 2 Turbo engines can be more fuel efficient

Wrong, in this application at least with petrol engines. Turbos utilise
otherwise wasted exhaust energy to increase the density of the inlet charge
but impose flow restrictions on the inlet and exhaust systems due to the
extra pipework the various flows have to go through and that creates pumping
losses which reduce efficiency and BSFC. At high specific outputs they also
generally require over-rich fuel / air mixtures to cool the combustion
chambers which seriously reduces BSFC. They are better suited to diesel
engines for economy purposes.

> 3 Direct injection improves fuel efficiency

I mentioned that specifically but I fear you misunderstand how direct
injection benefits anything. Its forte is at low load, part throttle
operation where it allows very lean mixtures to still ignite and burn
properly. At full throttle operation the air / fuel mixture still has to
revert to the optimum 12.6 by mass to get best power which applies
regardless of whether the fuel is squirted in at high pressure, low pressure
or in vaguely atomised droplets from something as ancient as a carburetor.

The direct injection will no doubt help economy a bit under safety car rules
and marginally at part throttle during cornering but we're talking the odd
percent or two here not some big chunk of magically found extra BSFC or
power from a given amount of fuel. It won't materially increase the
potential base power the engine can create from the mandated 100kg/hour fuel
flow limit. It 'may' allow a tiny bit more full power operation per race due
to the fuel savings when full power is not being used.

> So far on what you call the base power and "only" recover wasted power is
> quite an understatement, the exhaust typically throws away some 30 %.
> I don't know what is allowed and what not and I don't know if it is
> allowed to use the electric generated power directly or that it first
> must be stored. ( I have seen more stupid regulations ) Anyway the amount
> of "recovered" energy can be very significant.

What the ERS is allowed to do is thoroughly documented but you fundamentally
misunderstand the differences between waste energy recovery, base engine
power potential and BSFC. Again none of this affects the 500 bhp base power
of the engine I calculate they'll be able to produce from the mandated fuel
flow limit.
--
Dave Baker

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Edmund 2/27/14 3:33 AM
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:30:24 +0000, Dave Baker wrote:

> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lel87o$3kb$2@dont-email.me...
>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:49:49 +0000, Dave Baker wrote:
>
>> Of course there will be no magic involved with the new engines.
>> However if you think they will be not more fuel efficient then the old
>> engines, we differ from opinion for a few reasons.
>> 1 Smaller engines tent to have less friction losses.
>
> Wrong. Obviously they have lower absolute frictional (and thermal)
> losses because the bits are smaller but in proportion to the power
> generated the losses are usually bigger and hence the BSFC is worse.

As always there are a million conflicting/opposite effects with just
about everything. What factor(s) will be dominant is not always so easy
to predict.
Smaller engines do have less frictional losses as you just admitted so
don't tell me I am wrong about that part.
There are -no doubt- other effects that MIGHT sort more opposed effects
but I am not aware of this, are you?
Then I have problem with your stone aged :-) units BSFC???
Is that something like "specific consumption"?, a literal translation
from dutch.

> The
> most fuel efficient engines in the world are the ultra large prime
> movers in ships such as the Sulzer diesels with cylinders you can stand
> inside.

I know, but that is a bit of a stretch comparing those to F1 engines.
What I do know about such ship engines is that they where solely designed
for fuel efficiency and not for maximum power.
At some time there was a demand for more power and such engines where
"tuned", increasing the RPM from 80 to 120, and thereby doubling it power
and quadrupling its fuel consumption.
>
>> 2 Turbo engines can be more fuel efficient
>
> Wrong, in this application at least with petrol engines. Turbos utilise
> otherwise wasted exhaust energy to increase the density of the inlet
> charge but impose flow restrictions on the inlet and exhaust systems due
> to the extra pipework the various flows have to go through and that
> creates pumping losses which reduce efficiency and BSFC.

It is how you want to look at it, turbos using wasted energy to get more
oxygen in the cylinder, which improves combustion and therefore improves
efficiency.
In addition they boost the pressure which is another factor that improves
efficiency.

> At high  specific outputs they also generally require over-rich fuel /
> air  mixtures to cool the combustion chambers which seriously reduces
> BSFC.

That might be "generally" so but there are other ways to cool an engine.

> They are better suited to diesel engines for economy purposes.
>
>> 3 Direct injection improves fuel efficiency
>
> I mentioned that specifically but I fear you misunderstand how direct
> injection benefits anything.

You think?

> Its forte is at low load, part throttle
> operation where it allows very lean mixtures to still ignite and burn
> properly. At full throttle operation the air / fuel mixture still has to
> revert to the optimum 12.6 by mass to get best power which applies
> regardless of whether the fuel is squirted in at high pressure, low
> pressure or in vaguely atomised droplets from something as ancient as a
> carburetor.

So following your hypothesis, injection doesn't help anything because the
ratio oxygen/benzine is always fixed FOR MAXIMUM power.
However, atomization in very tine droplets seems to help in more
effective combustion which means better efficiency.
Direct injection helps even more for a number of reasons.
Then they will not constantly use a mixture for maximum power, it will be
more like a "lean burn" engine for a part of the race.

>
> The direct injection will no doubt help economy a bit under safety car
> rules and marginally at part throttle during cornering but we're talking
> the odd percent or two here not some big chunk of magically found extra
> BSFC or power from a given amount of fuel. It won't materially increase
> the potential base power the engine can create from the mandated
> 100kg/hour fuel flow limit. It 'may' allow a tiny bit more full power
> operation per race due to the fuel savings when full power is not being
> used.
>
>> So far on what you call the base power and "only" recover wasted power
>> is quite an understatement, the exhaust typically throws away some 30
>> %.
>> I don't know what is allowed and what not and I don't know if it is
>> allowed to use the electric generated power directly or that it first
>> must be stored. ( I have seen more stupid regulations ) Anyway the
>> amount of "recovered" energy can be very significant.
>
> What the ERS is allowed to do is thoroughly documented

No doubt but I didn't read it!
But can you tell me if it is allowed to directly use the electrical power,
is that mentioned at all? If not, it's allowed :-)

> but you
> fundamentally misunderstand the differences between waste energy
> recovery, base engine power potential and BSFC.

No I don't, maybe I didn't make myself clear but that might be because I
am lousy in languages and English is not my native language.

> Again none of this
> affects the 500 bhp base power of the engine I calculate they'll be able
> to produce from the mandated fuel flow limit.

I agree with you that given the max flow limit we can make a guess/
estimation about the max power which can be produced. My guess will be a
fair amount higher then yours because I DO believe in more efficiency
with those new engines, maybe not from day one but later this season,
sure! Yes I'm talking about the "base" power from the combustion part
alone.

BTW an interesting and easy question, what efficiency do these engines
have with 500 HP at a fuel flow limit of 100kg/hour?

Edmund









Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal build 2/27/14 9:07 PM
OK Dave, would you care to take a bet in public? I say 600 or closer than 500'ish, so a 1k spread.

Do we have a bet? or are you as weak as BB who refused my bet on single exhausts?

Your court.



Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Dave Baker 2/28/14 2:42 AM

"Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:len7r3$vrm$1@dont-email.me...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:30:24 +0000, Dave Baker wrote:

> As always there are a million conflicting/opposite effects with just
> about everything. What factor(s) .....

<huge snip>

I'm not going to get sucked in to arguing with, or even correcting the
ramblings of, someone who clearly doesn't know enough about engines to
debate them with me. Go away.
--
Dave Baker

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Bigbird 2/28/14 3:35 AM
Ha ha,

common sense tells me something different.
ReBuild the LIAR is back. (was 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal) Bigbird 2/28/14 3:38 AM
build wrote:

> OK Dave, would you care to take a bet in public? I say 600 or closer
> than 500'ish, so a 1k spread.
>
> Do we have a bet? or are you as weak as BB who refused my bet on
> single exhausts?
>
> Your court.

Oh dear, not back two minutes and the lies flow.

You lied then you are lying now. Same subject, new lies.

You were wrong then about single exhausts and nothing has changed...
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Edmund 2/28/14 3:58 AM
Wow, that is a bold statement, and so mature!
Which make me wonder what kind of things you have achieved or even was
remotely involved concerning engine development in your entire life.
Let me guess :  nothing at all, ever!
As long as you are happy with yourself, fine with me.

Edmund

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Sir Tim 2/28/14 10:38 AM
Knowing Dave's background, i'd be a little careful about making a statement
like that ;-)
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Edmund 3/1/14 2:21 AM
Proof me wrong!
Stupid unmotivated statements like a smaller engine doesn't have less
friction losses ( WRONG he said, then he said I was right :-) ) or turbo
engines cannot be more fuel efficient doesn't impress me a bit. Comparing
a 2 stroke Sulzer diesel ship engine with a formula 1 engine, well, I am
impressed, NOT.
If you want to speak for him. OK lets hear it what has he achieved in
engine development in his entire life?
I have a hard time believing someone so arrogant and making such stupid
claims actually knows what he is talking about.
He made very clear that he has no clue about the effects and
possibilities of direct injection or high pressure injection in general.
OK, details like combustion speed, flame front (or whatever the correct
English terms may be ) and all things related to that is a bit much for
this F1 group but dumbing it down to his level..... that's too much.

For your information, I do know a thing or two about combustion engines
and although I don't read F1 regulations and don't know what is allowed
and what isn't, I do know there are still possibilities in engine
efficiency improvement.
BTW this is exactly why I am so against all limiting and obligated
regulations. I'm all for a fuel limit but apart from that, let the teams
decide HOW the design the car and engine. Let the best team win, I don't
care if it is a 16 cylinder, a one cylinder or a rotation engine that
wins.
Such regulations will benefit the world/environment a lot more then the
Renault Clio sort of regulation that they do not want to abandon.

Edmund








Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Mower Man 3/1/14 12:38 PM
When it comes to efficiency, ANY engine can be compared, be it a current
or past F1 engine, a lawnmower or a marine diesel, how ever many
combustion chambers it has (sometimes said to be cylinders - but in a
rotary or a Stirling for instance that would not a correct expression)
whether two stroke four stroke, super/turbo charged or normally
aspirated. Even the fuel used is irrelevant when calorific values are
taken into account.

I'm emphatically not an engineer but I did as a teenager read a lot of
Riccardo. That stuff still holds good. (It's flame front travel (speed)
BTW.)

A good no - brilliant - read is LJK Setright's 1975 "Some Unusual
Engines" - if you can find a copy or having found one afford it! There
are some still in public libraries. (Oh, have just found a cheap copy
via ABE books at £83.22 + £11.35 shipping... but there's a copy in
London Merton Library, up 20 miles up the road from here. Think I'll
scan the whole thing!)

--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Mower Man 3/1/14 12:48 PM
On 01/03/2014 10:21 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:38:46 -0600, Sir Tim wrote:
>
>> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:42:41 +0000, Dave Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:len7r3$vrm$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:30:24 +0000, Dave Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As always there are a million conflicting/opposite effects with just
>>>>> about everything. What factor(s) .....
>>>>
>>>> <huge snip>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not going to get sucked in to arguing with, or even correcting the
>>>> ramblings of, someone who clearly doesn't know enough about engines to
>>>> debate them with me. Go away.
>>>
>>> Wow, that is a bold statement, and so mature!
>>> Which make me wonder what kind of things you have achieved or even was
>>> remotely involved concerning engine development in your entire life.
>>> Let me guess :  nothing at all, ever!
>>> As long as you are happy with yourself, fine with me.
>>
>> Knowing Dave's background, i'd be a little careful about making a
>> statement like that ;-)
>
> Proof me wrong!
> Stupid unmotivated statements like a smaller engine doesn't have less
> friction losses ( WRONG he said, then he said I was right :-) ) or turbo
> engines cannot be more fuel efficient doesn't impress me a bit. Comparing
> a 2 stroke Sulzer diesel ship engine with a formula 1 engine, well, I am
> impressed, NOT.
> If you want to speak for him. OK lets hear it what has he achieved in
> engine development in his entire life?
> I have a hard time believing someone so arrogant and making such stupid
> claims actually knows what he is talking about.
> He made very clear that he has no clue about the effects and
> possibilities of direct injection or high pressure injection in general.
> OK, details like combustion speed, flame front (or whatever the correct
> English terms may be ) and all things related to that is a bit much for
> this F1 group but dumbing it down to his level..... that's too much.
>
> For your information, I do know a thing or two about combustion engines
> and although I don't read F1 regulations and don't know what is allowed
> and what isn't, I do know there are still possibilities in engine
> efficiency improvement.
> BTW this is exactly why I am so against all limiting and obligated
> regulations. I'm all for a fuel limit but apart from that, let the teams
> decide HOW the design the car and engine. Let the best team win, I don't
> care if it is a 16 cylinder, a one cylinder or a rotation engine that
> wins.
> Such regulations will benefit the world/environment a lot more then the
> Renault Clio sort of regulation that they do not want to abandon.
>
> Edmund
>

Here's a review of Setright's book from Amazon (4 used from £96.72 2
collectible from £145.00)

"First off, let's set Amazon's record straight. This was written by
Leonard Setright and the graphic design was done by Michael
Worthington-Williams.
Secondly, this book is in a strange niche between a technical textbook
on engine design and a popular treatment. It expects you to know what
they mean by bmep and sfc but is content with a quick discussion of
torque curves rather than actually having graphs, so from that vantage,
any reader will probably be disappointed.
It's also somewhat out of date; many neat things have happened since 1971.
However, the incredibly erudite prose by Setright, and the sheer variety
of weird designs he explores, makes this worthwhile. If you've ever
thought "hey I bet an engine that has <x feature> would be really cool"
-- he probably has it in here.
What struck me most about this is his presentation of turbocharger
technology, the development of free-piston engines (wherein power is
derived from the turbo/compressor rather than from the crankshaft of the
engine, it serving just as a source of hot air) and the development of
turbines from this -- a smooth, gradual evolution from the reciprocating
engine to the jet, rather than the revolutionary change we tend to think
about when we look at a 747 and a Cessna.
If you can find a copy of this (good luck) it's worth reading."

I'd add only that it was an eye opener for me, forty or more years ago.


--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Edmund 3/2/14 7:01 AM
New post, I don't see my reply from yesterday.


> When it comes to efficiency, ANY engine can be compared,

yes is can but it is pretty useless.
Marine engines are designed for an entire different purpose then F1
engines. As said, tuning such engines for more power resulted is a fuel
efficiency that was cut in half.

>be it a current
> or past F1 engine, a lawnmower or a marine diesel, how ever many
> combustion chambers it has (sometimes said to be cylinders - but in a
> rotary or a Stirling for instance that would not a correct expression)

A stirling engine has a working cylinder which is a perfect cylinder
shaped cylinder so why not?

> whether two stroke four stroke, super/turbo charged or normally
> aspirated. Even the fuel used is irrelevant when calorific values are
> taken into account.
>
> I'm emphatically not an engineer but I did as a teenager read a lot of
> Riccardo. That stuff still holds good. (It's flame front travel (speed)
> BTW.)
>
> A good no - brilliant - read is LJK Setright's 1975 "Some Unusual
> Engines" - if you can find a copy or having found one afford it! There
> are some still in public libraries. (Oh, have just found a cheap copy
> via ABE books at £83.22 + £11.35 shipping... but there's a copy in
> London Merton Library, up 20 miles up the road from here. Think I'll
> scan the whole thing!)

If you find something interesting let us know, I don't expect much news
from 1975 but surprise me.

Edmund




Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Dave Baker 3/3/14 3:47 AM

"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:lei0o8$lci$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Two years ago I posted an initial appraisal of how the new rules would
> affect engine power and this can be read here.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.autos.sport.f1/_mAb0s-dZQY

Also I just remembered the following thread where I discovered the engines
would not need to use the full 15k rpm limit.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.autos.sport.f1/7T-aK9Uo8Ms/eRoWIMP50_wJ

I'd forgotten that wasn't part of the original technical evaluation thread.
--
Dave Baker

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Dave Baker 3/3/14 12:38 PM

"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:lei0o8$lci$1@speranza.aioe.org...

> To obtain maximum acceleration from any engine it is desireable to hold
> rpm as close as possible to that where peak power is obtained. In this
> case power is constant all the way from 10,500 rpm to 15,000 so it makes
> little difference where abouts in that range the engine is used. In
> practice there will be no point revving it any higher than to ensure the
> revs drop back to 10,500 at each gearchange. With 8 gears the rev drop
> will be small enough that there will be no point going past about 12,000
> rpm.

I posted a brief synopsis of the various threads I've discussed this on here
to James Allen's website with links to the Google Groups thread urls. James
has just replied that he's received confirmation that this analysis is
correct.
"James Allen Reply:
March 3rd, 2014 at 3:19 pm

Thanks

I've now learned that it's more like 11,000 rpm for most of the time."
--
Dave Baker

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal build 3/4/14 12:54 AM
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 04:28:24 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
> I don't know if it is
> allowed to use the electric generated power directly or that it first
> must be stored.
> Edmund

That is an interesting point and from my memory it is not prohibited and if so it will be used. Well spotted, you should post the question to someone who'd know, perhaps Scarbs, JA, etc?

BTW. From my knowledge and as you say turbo charging and direct injection are more efficient.

beers,

Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal ~misfit~ 3/4/14 2:03 AM
Somewhere on teh intarwebs build wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 04:28:24 UTC+11, Edmund  wrote:
>> I don't know if it is
>> allowed to use the electric generated power directly or that it first
>> must be stored.
>> Edmund
>
> That is an interesting point and from my memory it is not prohibited
> and if so it will be used. Well spotted, you should post the question
> to someone who'd know, perhaps Scarbs, JA, etc?

I know. The power generated can either be used directly or stored - or even
a little of both at the same time. There are no restrictrions regarding
this. (From watching Scarbs explain the systems on youtube.)

> BTW. From my knowledge and as you say turbo charging and direct
> injection are more efficient.

Both are under certain circumstances. However simply having one or both
doesn't automatically equal better efficiency. It's all in how they're used.
--
</Shaun>

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1).


Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Mower Man 3/7/14 12:31 PM
Prepare to be amazed... http://tinyurl.com/lsowdgm
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal ~misfit~ 3/7/14 4:15 PM
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Mower Man wrote:
[snip]
> Prepare to be amazed... http://tinyurl.com/lsowdgm

Woot!! TYVM. :)
Re: 2014 engines - a further technical appraisal Mower Man 3/8/14 10:33 AM
On 08/03/2014 12:15 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Mower Man wrote:
> [snip]
>> Prepare to be amazed... http://tinyurl.com/lsowdgm
>
> Woot!! TYVM. :)
>

:-)
More topics »