What will come after the 2.4 V8?

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

Rotary has a long narrow combustion chamber that needs two spark plugs at the best of times.
Low octane petrol has less chance of detonation in a rotary because of this.
Rotary is potentially a much better engine than an ancient reciprocating IC engine, even one in F1.
All a rotary needs, is for the unburnt fuel and chemicals to be burnt in an exhaust fitted turbo generator to produce electrical energy and you can then forget the reciprocating units from the 19th century.

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

Autogyro, the problem of unburnt fuel/air mixture exiting the ports of either a two stroke or rotary have been solved, I introduced the Orbital air/fuel direct injection several years ago to the F1Technical forum and Flyfrog started a recent thread with an article about more recent developments:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7051&start=0
Featuring an extensive article:
http://twostrokemotocross.com/2009/06/t ... rike-back/
Concentrating on the Orbital direct injection system:
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/direct ... erview.htm
Other articles and systems:
http://corp.brp.com/NR/rdonlyres/3F0275 ... rounder.pd
http://www.snowgoer.com/output.cfm?id=1836523
http://www.synerject.com/
Retrofit System: May be used on 2-strokes and probably a rotary engine:
http://www.envirofit.org/?q=our-product ... -injection
Retrofit Development:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17130401/De ... t-Injectio
I hope this material is of interest.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

autogyro wrote:Rotary has a long narrow combustion chamber that needs two spark plugs at the best of times.
Low octane petrol has less chance of detonation in a rotary because of this.
Rotary is potentially a much better engine than an ancient reciprocating IC engine, even one in F1.
All a rotary needs, is for the unburnt fuel and chemicals to be burnt in an exhaust fitted turbo generator to produce electrical energy and you can then forget the reciprocating units from the 19th century.
why waste your time with a rotary and a recovery turbine when you could just use a turbine. You are essentially using an IC engine as a boiler. Not to mention all of the added complexity and moving parts.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

Carlos wrote:Autogyro, the problem of unburnt fuel/air mixture exiting the ports of either a two stroke or rotary have been solved, I introduced the Orbital air/fuel direct injection several years ago to the F1Technical forum and Flyfrog started a recent thread with an article about more recent developments:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7051&start=0
Featuring an extensive article:
http://twostrokemotocross.com/2009/06/t ... rike-back/
Concentrating on the Orbital direct injection system:
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/direct ... erview.htm
Other articles and systems:
http://corp.brp.com/NR/rdonlyres/3F0275 ... rounder.pd
http://www.snowgoer.com/output.cfm?id=1836523
http://www.synerject.com/
Retrofit System: May be used on 2-strokes and probably a rotary engine:
http://www.envirofit.org/?q=our-product ... -injection
Retrofit Development:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17130401/De ... t-Injectio
I hope this material is of interest.

check out mercerys new boat engines

cleaner faster and better emmisions than the 4 stroke counter parts
http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/outboards/optimax/

not to mention much fewer moving parts

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

The problem of unburnt fuel and chemicals in the exhaust of the rotary, is because rotary engines are set to run rich for seal cooling/wear reasons. In a long narrow combustion chamber, the result is inevitably more unburnt fuel, even with the very best type of injection and ignition.
It is easy to burn all the fuel at high temperature in a two stroke using forms of stratified charge injection and even plasma ignition coupled to good port valve design and materials, I agree.
However it is still a two stroke cycle that is forced to use low compression and an exhaust / inlet overlap that will always result in a dirty induction charge.

I once built a Rover V8 outboard, with the engine stood on it's nose, with load bearings and oil system mods, driving an outboard leg. Turbocharged for 600bhp it was only a little heavier than the Mercury used on the OZ inshore cat that it was designed for.
I put buoyancy chambers under it to help when stationary and designed a ball mounted transom bracket for it that tilted the engine into the turn and the prop thrust line out but with the correct geometry to keep the tilt the same.
Turned much better than a conventional mount with far more power.
Work it out? We could make a fortune.
If the guy who ran the boat had not got back his Mercury sponsorship, it would have beaten Mercury into a cocked hat. two strokes pahhh

Please explain how you would use 'just a turbine'.
This has been tried on countless occasions and has always been wasteful on fuel and hopeless on tractability.

Giblet
Giblet
5
Joined: 19 Mar 2007, 01:47
Location: Canada

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

I would like to know what people think about Turbo Compounding.

A second turbo scavenging the unused energy in the exhaust, feeding back into the engine's intake, like the primary turbo, but the second impeller feeds back into the drive train via either a transmission or a hydraulic feed.

Flying Frog and I had a good back and forth about it, but it was more about me defending it's merits, or trying to with limited understanding of the systems.

My understanding is that a compound turbo setup in parallel can deliver 10% more power on the same engine that has one turbo, but the system was used in Allison aircraft engines, and the transfer setup was likely as big as a whole F1 lump.

This is not the same as a twin turbo setup.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

Giblet wrote:I would like to know what people think about Turbo Compounding.

A second turbo scavenging the unused energy in the exhaust, feeding back into the engine's intake, like the primary turbo, but the second impeller feeds back into the drive train via either a transmission or a hydraulic feed.

Flying Frog and I had a good back and forth about it, but it was more about me defending it's merits, or trying to with limited understanding of the systems.

My understanding is that a compound turbo setup in parallel can deliver 10% more power on the same engine that has one turbo, but the system was used in Allison aircraft engines, and the transfer setup was likely as big as a whole F1 lump.

This is not the same as a twin turbo setup.
I believe the Allison system you mention was only useable at cruise or set rpm/power values for aircraft use. The restriction on the turbine from the drive output (mechanical or hydro/pneumatic), would prevent any rapid response and make it unsuitable for vehicle application. (a turbo generator could be magneticaly clutched to overcome the problem).
The twin mechanical supercharger system used by the far more powerfull RR Merlin and Griffon engines was superior in the altitude and fuel saving applications anyway.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

autogyro wrote:The problem of unburnt fuel and chemicals in the exhaust of the rotary, is because rotary engines are set to run rich for seal cooling/wear reasons. In a long narrow combustion chamber, the result is inevitably more unburnt fuel, even with the very best type of injection and ignition.
It is easy to burn all the fuel at high temperature in a two stroke using forms of stratified charge injection and even plasma ignition coupled to good port valve design and materials, I agree.
However it is still a two stroke cycle that is forced to use low compression and an exhaust / inlet overlap that will always result in a dirty induction charge.

I once built a Rover V8 outboard, with the engine stood on it's nose, with load bearings and oil system mods, driving an outboard leg. Turbocharged for 600bhp it was only a little heavier than the Mercury used on the OZ inshore cat that it was designed for.
I put buoyancy chambers under it to help when stationary and designed a ball mounted transom bracket for it that tilted the engine into the turn and the prop thrust line out but with the correct geometry to keep the tilt the same.
Turned much better than a conventional mount with far more power.
Work it out? We could make a fortune.
If the guy who ran the boat had not got back his Mercury sponsorship, it would have beaten Mercury into a cocked hat. two strokes pahhh

Please explain how you would use 'just a turbine'.
This has been tried on countless occasions and has always been wasteful on fuel and hopeless on tractability.
Just a turbine like almost every commercial jet liner uses for power. Or any commercial power plant.

I guess you are right 5 times the moving parts two forms of power transmission sound much simpler and likely to work that’s why people are doing this every where.

Maybe your poor sap driving your boat was worried that your one off engine might blow and he would be without an engine for the rest of the season.

not sure where you are getting two strokes are low compression. I am running very high compression in mine the alky motors are much higher. Not to mention the revs you can do when you dont have to worry about the piston hitting the valve train.

xxChrisxx
xxChrisxx
44
Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 19:22

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

flynfrog wrote: Just a turbine like almost every commercial jet liner uses for power. Or any commercial power plant.
Or the M1 Abrams, 1500HP multi fuel gas turbine engine.

Giblet
Giblet
5
Joined: 19 Mar 2007, 01:47
Location: Canada

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

I thought the turbine was banned at Indy for the sole reason cars following were in a huge hot wash of air.

There were complaints from other drivers about massive amounts of dust and debris being shot at them like a small sandstorm, but some think that they just wanted the turbine banned and would say anything to do so.

Image
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

its was not banned exactly they kept shrinking the intake size of the turbine till it wasn't competitive any more. The sand wasn't really a big deal its not like the sucker car where the intake was coming from the ground. And the cars were already going of 200mhp

think of the extra df the car behind could get from the jet wash

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

flynfrog wrote:
autogyro wrote:The problem of unburnt fuel and chemicals in the exhaust of the rotary, is because rotary engines are set to run rich for seal cooling/wear reasons. In a long narrow combustion chamber, the result is inevitably more unburnt fuel, even with the very best type of injection and ignition.
It is easy to burn all the fuel at high temperature in a two stroke using forms of stratified charge injection and even plasma ignition coupled to good port valve design and materials, I agree.
However it is still a two stroke cycle that is forced to use low compression and an exhaust / inlet overlap that will always result in a dirty induction charge.

I once built a Rover V8 outboard, with the engine stood on it's nose, with load bearings and oil system mods, driving an outboard leg. Turbocharged for 600bhp it was only a little heavier than the Mercury used on the OZ inshore cat that it was designed for.
I put buoyancy chambers under it to help when stationary and designed a ball mounted transom bracket for it that tilted the engine into the turn and the prop thrust line out but with the correct geometry to keep the tilt the same.
Turned much better than a conventional mount with far more power.
Work it out? We could make a fortune.
If the guy who ran the boat had not got back his Mercury sponsorship, it would have beaten Mercury into a cocked hat. two strokes pahhh

Please explain how you would use 'just a turbine'.
This has been tried on countless occasions and has always been wasteful on fuel and hopeless on tractability.
Just a turbine like almost every commercial jet liner uses for power. Or any commercial power plant.

I guess you are right 5 times the moving parts two forms of power transmission sound much simpler and likely to work that’s why people are doing this every where.

Maybe your poor sap driving your boat was worried that your one off engine might blow and he would be without an engine for the rest of the season.

not sure where you are getting two strokes are low compression. I am running very high compression in mine the alky motors are much higher. Not to mention the revs you can do when you dont have to worry about the piston hitting the valve train.
Compression ratio may be high in your two stroke and even higher in the alky one. The actual combustion chamber pressure will however, always be lower than a four stroke because induction air has to be used to scavenge exhaust gas from the cylinder. We do have an Italian two stroke four cylinder radial in a prototype aircraft however, that has a built in crankcase supercharger. This does produce high power figures by overcoming this failing to a large extent. Reliability then falls radically though.

Turbines are just about usable for racing cars that do not have to go round corners, or things like Abrahams Tanks that use complete oil fields for re fueling.
Of course we do not all live in American cloud cuckoo land.

Oh and it was not my boat and the V8 outboard and mount was and is very successful.
The guy in question died in a boat racing accident using a Mercury engine.

Giblet
Giblet
5
Joined: 19 Mar 2007, 01:47
Location: Canada

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

How about solid fuel rocket 'commitment' engines mounted on the (beefed up) rear wing?
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

Giblet wrote:How about solid fuel rocket 'commitment' engines mounted on the (beefed up) rear wing?
Nah, those wonderful guys working out the fluid dynamics could never calculate the turbulence. They would loose their F1 monopoly.
Hahaha

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Sensible ideas for what will happen after the 2.4 V8?

Post

autogyro wrote:
flynfrog wrote:
autogyro wrote:The problem of unburnt fuel and chemicals in the exhaust of the rotary, is because rotary engines are set to run rich for seal cooling/wear reasons. In a long narrow combustion chamber, the result is inevitably more unburnt fuel, even with the very best type of injection and ignition.
It is easy to burn all the fuel at high temperature in a two stroke using forms of stratified charge injection and even plasma ignition coupled to good port valve design and materials, I agree.
However it is still a two stroke cycle that is forced to use low compression and an exhaust / inlet overlap that will always result in a dirty induction charge.

I once built a Rover V8 outboard, with the engine stood on it's nose, with load bearings and oil system mods, driving an outboard leg. Turbocharged for 600bhp it was only a little heavier than the Mercury used on the OZ inshore cat that it was designed for.
I put buoyancy chambers under it to help when stationary and designed a ball mounted transom bracket for it that tilted the engine into the turn and the prop thrust line out but with the correct geometry to keep the tilt the same.
Turned much better than a conventional mount with far more power.
Work it out? We could make a fortune.
If the guy who ran the boat had not got back his Mercury sponsorship, it would have beaten Mercury into a cocked hat. two strokes pahhh

Please explain how you would use 'just a turbine'.
This has been tried on countless occasions and has always been wasteful on fuel and hopeless on tractability.
Just a turbine like almost every commercial jet liner uses for power. Or any commercial power plant.

I guess you are right 5 times the moving parts two forms of power transmission sound much simpler and likely to work that’s why people are doing this every where.

Maybe your poor sap driving your boat was worried that your one off engine might blow and he would be without an engine for the rest of the season.

not sure where you are getting two strokes are low compression. I am running very high compression in mine the alky motors are much higher. Not to mention the revs you can do when you dont have to worry about the piston hitting the valve train.
Compression ratio may be high in your two stroke and even higher in the alky one. The actual combustion chamber pressure will however, always be lower than a four stroke because induction air has to be used to scavenge exhaust gas from the cylinder. We do have an Italian two stroke four cylinder radial in a prototype aircraft however, that has a built in crankcase supercharger. This does produce high power figures by overcoming this failing to a large extent. Reliability then falls radically though.

Turbines are just about usable for racing cars that do not have to go round corners, or things like Abrahams Tanks that use complete oil fields for re fueling.
Of course we do not all live in American cloud cuckoo land.

Oh and it was not my boat and the V8 outboard and mount was and is very successful.
The guy in question died in a boat racing accident using a Mercury engine.
You are wrong on the chamber pressure its no different than a 4 stroke with a high overlap cam. It explains why I have to use 110 octane lead fuels. Its also why the AMA outlawed leaded fuels so they could keep the 3 year old two stroke bikes from beating honda newest 4 stroke time bomb

yes you can super charge 2 strokes GMC had the super charged and turboed 2 stroke semi engines. These engines were pretty reliable in there day less moving parts ect. than there 4 stroke counter parts not to mentions twice as many power cycles per rev.

Maybe you missed the part where the Abrams has 1500 hp and a bazillion ftlbs of torque so it might take a little more fuel than a prius. And who said you need on that big with electic coupling you could down size your turbine quite a bit and make up the rest with a battery reserve. You could then run the turbine at max load and peak effectiveness.

You are also wrong on the corner part. The Granitlli(sp?) turbines should have won Indy I believe it broke the rear end with only a few laps to go with a multiple lap lead.

We all know that in boats engines are often the cause of fatalities. Your success must have been great since you are cranking out boat engines left and right unlike mercury. :roll: