xpensive wrote:Not really, the problem was to present your estimations in both a scientific as well as comprehesible way.
Simplification is not unscientific IMO. Engineers do it all the time to get estimations of a problem. Please present a better model which you think is "scientific". To this point you have only used maximum power of the engine in your considerations and ignored the fact that the fuel consumption isn't represented by maximum but by average power. If we want to make "scientific" comparisons of engines with different efficiencies, different maximum power and with consideration of KERS we need to compute the average and not the peak power.
Aesop wrote:Hic Rhodus, hic saltus!
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:
The current V8 figures look like this:
race fuel 150 kg
top engine power 750 bhp
If I replace it with a 750 kW L4 turbo engine that saves 11% of the fuel I get:
race fuel 133.5 kg
race fuel energy 6.14 GJ
L4 (750 bhp) efficiency 32.9%
I'm sorry but I see 560HP (750KW) and 750HP.
And, if you have the same power using 11% less fel, you have a 12.35%more efficient engine, that's simple arithmetics and you really don't need to go all this way to measure it.
It's like computing fuel usage:
a)by integrating the fuel flow over time and
b)by weighing the fuel tank before and after the race.
[/list]
Both will give the same amount.
It was a typo. I'll edit it for correction.
Btw, your efficiency calculation is wrong. If your basic efficiency is somewhere at 1/3 your fuel savings improve efficiency also with a third of the fuel saving percentage.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:
[*]top engine power 750 bhp
[*]power at full throttle (percentage 65% of 750 bhp) -> 488 bhp
[*]power at off throttle (percentage 15% of 0 bhp) -> 0 bhp
[*]power at part throttle (percentage 20% of 375 bhp) -> 75 bhp
[*]average engine power 563 bhp or 420 kW
Just xplain the above figures, because I simply don't get it. Sorry.
Not so difficult.
Engine spends 65% on full throttle. 65% of 750 bhp = 488 bhp.
Engine is 15% of time off throttle. 15% of 0 bhp = 0 bhp
Engine is 20% of time on half throttle 20% of 375 bhp = 75 bhp
Total average power is 488 + 75 = 563 bhp = 420 kW which is a 75% part load of the maximum engine power. Average fuel use is calculated from average power use.
Scotracer wrote:Where on earth did you get the 11% value from? Your ass?
It is a compound value which I think is a very conservative assumption. I estimate totally eliminating throttle losses and reduced pumping losses by variable valve timing and lift at 3%, spray guided direct injection is a minimum of 5% fuel reduction compared to port injection. I have not included laser ignition which should be worth another 3%. The other 3% fuel reduction I attribute to the energy recovery from the turbo. So all together very conservative. I reckon that one could reach 15-20% with some advanced technologies. This would push the engine up to 36% percent efficiency.
Look WB, can't you see I'm trying to be nice with you, but when you persist with defending your home-made "calculations", I just have to read you the act in so many words;
Your "calculations" are so full of wild assumptions and un-scientific approaches it becomes very obvious you are not an engineer by a long-shot, like when time spent on full throttle becomes percentage of horsepower?
So when you obviously cannot tell the difference beween percentage and percentage-units, it's case closed.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
I'm fully aware that full throttle is not equal to full power. I just made a simplified model which actually provides plausible efficiencies for the base line of the V8. If we disregard your rhetorics the bottom line is you can not do it any better. Your judgmental remarks sound desperate and like sour grapes.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:
The current V8 figures look like this:
race fuel 150 kg
top engine power 750 bhp
If I replace it with a 750 kW L4 turbo engine that saves 11% of the fuel I get:
race fuel 133.5 kg
race fuel energy 6.14 GJ
L4 (750 bhp) efficiency 32.9%
I'm sorry but I see 560HP (750KW) and 750HP.
And, if you have the same power using 11% less fel, you have a 12.35%more efficient engine, that's simple arithmetics and you really don't need to go all this way to measure it.
It's like computing fuel usage:
a)by integrating the fuel flow over time and
b)by weighing the fuel tank before and after the race.
[/list]
Both will give the same amount.
It was a typo. I'll edit it for correction.
Btw, your efficiency calculation is wrong. If your basic efficiency is somewhere at 1/3 your fuel savings improve efficiency also with a third of the fuel saving percentage.
It is, it is not, I don't care I didn't take my time to write it down and check.
The fact is all that energy use calculation is useless for the purpose of fuel efficiency and that fuel efficiency is not important at all for Formula 1. There are plenty of low fuel endurance challenges to take care of this kind of competition.
rjsa wrote:The fact is all that energy use calculation is useless for the purpose of fuel efficiency and that fuel efficiency is not important at all for Formula 1.
I believe that your opinion is flawed. Fuel efficiency has always played an important role in F1. Why do you think that Ferrari abandoned their 12 cylinder design in 1996 after they had been sticking to it for eight years? It wasn't for lack of grunt, as everybody can tell you. The engine was just too thirsty and had to carry too much fuel weight even with pit stops.
Today with the refueling ban fuel efficiency is an even more important factor for winning. In 2013 this will be emphasized again by the introduction of several efficiency generating technologies and fuel limiting rules. So drive train and chassis efficiency will be a huge factor for winning races.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
rjsa wrote:The fact is all that energy use calculation is useless for the purpose of fuel efficiency and that fuel efficiency is not important at all for Formula 1.
I believe that your opinion is flawed. Fuel efficiency has always played an important role in F1. Why do you think that Ferrari abandoned their 12 cylinder design in 1996 after they had been sticking to it for eight years? It wasn't for lack of grunt, as everybody can tell you. The engine was just too thirsty and had to carry too much fuel weight even with pit stops.
Today with the refueling ban fuel efficiency is an even more important factor for winning. In 2013 this will be emphasized again by the introduction of several efficiency generating technologies and fuel limiting rules. So drive train and chassis efficiency will be a huge factor for winning races.
May be my memory does not serve me right but the move to the V10 was regulated.
Having a x% efficiency improvement from scraping the V8 and jumping into a I4 or even a V6 is a bad move from the show point of view. And F1 is a show after all.
The first move should be to release the engine freeze and bring the fuel limit to 140KG let's say.
Then after a couple of years make the engine format free.
rjsa wrote:The fact is all that energy use calculation is useless for the purpose of fuel efficiency and that fuel efficiency is not important at all for Formula 1.
I believe that your opinion is flawed. Fuel efficiency has always played an important role in F1. Why do you think that Ferrari abandoned their 12 cylinder design in 1996 after they had been sticking to it for eight years? It wasn't for lack of grunt, as everybody can tell you. The engine was just too thirsty and had to carry too much fuel weight even with pit stops.
Today with the refueling ban fuel efficiency is an even more important factor for winning. In 2013 this will be emphasized again by the introduction of several efficiency generating technologies and fuel limiting rules. So drive train and chassis efficiency will be a huge factor for winning races.
May be my memory does not serve me right but the move to the V10 was regulated.
Having a x% efficiency improvement from scraping the V8 and jumping into a I4 or even a V6 is a bad move from the show point of view. And F1 is a show after all. The first move should be to release the engine freeze and bring the fuel limit to 140KG let's say. Then after a couple of years make the engine format free. Scraping another engine design is just stupid.
1. V10 were not regulated in 1996. In 1995 capacity was reduced from 3.5L to 3.0L. The engine design was at total liberty except for the displacement limit until 2001 when the FiA banned the use of beryllium in engines. Still the layout and geometry choices were free until 2006. Then the 2.4L V8s were introduced with a bunch of restrictions to reduce the areas of development and expenditure. You see that you do not have a leg to stand on. Ferrari abandoned the V12 because V10 engines were more fuel efficient. It shows that fuel efficiency has played an important role in F1. You cannot ignore that.
2. So you think all the guys of the engine working group are stupid? Not very convincing.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 12 Sep 2010, 17:48, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:2. So you think all the guys of the engine working group are stupid? Not very convincing.
You just saw what the overtaking working group achieved...
That was a good try! The difference is the aero people in the overtaking working group were more concerned with conserving their own significance to F1 and less with overtaking. It is recorded fact that Brawn advised them about the double diffusor loop hole in the wording of the regulation and proposed a different wording. It was voted down. So one can speculate whether this was by following an agenda or by stupidness. I rather think they simply had the agenda to avoid a physical limit on downforce which had been proposed by the FiA for several years and keep their jobs important for some more years.
I believe that Marmorini (Ferrari), Cowell (MBHPE), Simon (FiA), Baretzky (Audi) and White (Renault) are all very intelligent and clever people. They do not make many dumb decisions. Going for more fuel efficient F1 engines with equal performance target will help all of them to improver their employer's brand image with the automotive users. Not such a bad thing to do.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:2. So you think all the guys of the engine working group are stupid? Not very convincing.
You just saw what the overtaking working group achieved...
That was a good try! The difference is the aero people in the overtaking working group were more concerned with conserving their own significance to F1 and less with overtaking. It is recorded fact that Brawn advised them about the double diffusor loop hole in the wording of the regulation and proposed a different wording. It was voted down. So one can speculate whether this was by following an agenda or by stupidness. I rather think they simply had the agenda to avoid a physical limit on downforce which had been proposed by the FiA for several years and keep their jobs important for some more years.
I believe that Marmorini (Ferrari), Cowell (MBHPE), Simon (FiA), Baretzky (Audi) and White (Renault) are all very intelligent and clever people. They do not make many dumb decisions. Going for more fuel efficient F1 engines with equal performance target will help all of them to improver their employer's brand image with the automotive users. Not such a bad thing to do.
I just see a group of smart well intentioned group of people going adrift on wrong premisses, just like that other time.
if the I4 is the most effcient engine under this new regulations, there is no need to mandate it. People will converge to the most efficient design automaticly, as your Ferrari V12 vs. V10 example proves. Just define the engine volume and a fuel flow and/or total fuel load and let people be creative.
Maybe a I3 is the way to go. A mandatory I4 layout is just another needless limit.
If Ferrari wants to built a V6, let them built a V6 and see what happens.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
747heavy wrote:if the I4 is the most effcient engine under this new regulations, there is no need to mandate it. People will converge to the most efficient design automaticly, as your Ferrari V12 vs. V10 example proves. Just define the engine volume and a fuel flow and/or total fuel load and let people be creative.
Maybe a I3 is the way to go. A mandatory I4 layout is just another needless limit.
If Ferrari wants to built a V6, let them built a V6 and see what happens.
This ^ =D>
I was checking back on SAE Formula 1 Technology by Wright and indeed Ferrari's move from the V12 to the V10 was spontaneous, but that time the RPM race was touching the 19000 rpm band and it was expected that Ferrari would move back to V12s as the 20000 rpm barrier was crossed. The V10 was mandated, right? I'm pretty sure the V10 made to the rules.
At 747, I believe your proposal is shared by Cosworth and in fact it makes a lot of sense if the fuel limitation is taken seriously. There are two obstacles to the plan though. The GRE proponents want to tie F1 to the 1.6L L4 format and Ferrari will not agree to have a free choice either.
Personally I think that V4 or W4 could be a very good format as well.
The independent teams like Williams and Red Bull are the strong house of F1 politics at the moment. My guess is that they are supporting the GRE proposal in order to quickly level the engine performance and to maximize the number of engines on offer. VW/Audi/Porsche and Hyundai are looking at supplying F1 if the cost and format is right. McLaren and Aston Martin could be other logical candidates. If there are eight or nine engine manufacturers offering engines the better teams could be in a position to get free works deals. And they would not be so much in danger of being stuck with an inferior engine as Red Bull is currently.
How do you like the list of potential 2013 power train suppliers?
Ferrari
Mercedes
Renault
Cosworth
McLaren
Audi (batched Porsche)
Porsche
Hyundai
Saab
Aston Martin
Perhaps we could even see BMW, Honda and Toyota back in F1.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 12 Sep 2010, 20:07, edited 3 times in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
