What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

It would be surprising if they do. The systems to have is variable lift and timing in 2013. Pneumatic springs are a reliability issue if you do not need it. The seals can fail as we saw this year with Ferrari and you can get completely unforced DNFs. I would not risk it.

[xpensive]

Will the engines continue to use pneumatic springs?
10,000 - 12,000 rpm doesn't make it necessary. Maybe there is an advantage to have the pneumatic springs at lower rpm, since the stiffness is variable?

There's also the lesser power-loss of a pneumatic system, due to the absence of hysteresis, to consider.

[strad]

It's just like the guy that suggested nitro...Do any of you realize how slow nitro burns?
In a top fuel or funny car you have to run 70° of advance...70°!!
Makes you wonder about those pre-war Mercs and Auto-Union that ran on a blend that included not only toluene but nitromethane.
They will still run pneumatic valve springs if nothing else because they close the valve without so much valve bounce..and I believe the system weighs less over all...Where the air bags have seals to fail and leak down,,the springs used would lose strength as the race went on and performance would deteriorate. Not to mention that they break..suck keepers etc.

[WhiteBlue]

Considering the different news and the figuring by members I would summarize the discussion so far:

• 1.6L four cylinder turbo charged engine with either V4 or L4 configuration limited to 3 bar intake pressure and 10,000 or 10,500 rpm
• fuel and/or fuel flow limit to reduce max engine power to 650 bhp, 115 kg race fuel likely target (- 25% compared to 2010)
• direct injection with high tech spray guided injector valves, variable valve timing and lift and throttle less engine management likely
• compression ratio beyond 10.5:1 likely
• heat recovery of 65 to 100 bhp from wasted exhaust energy feasible by mechanical or electrical turbo compounding, but spec turbo being discussed
• KERS system for 2.2 MJ/lap kinetic energy recovery and 150 bhp electric power for 19s/lap appears to be the target
• AWKERS most likely solution to achieve KERS harvesting target
• improved engine efficiency including KERS (excluding HERS by turbo compounding) not sufficient to support current drag
• chassis must reduce drag (possibly by more ground effect) if engine power remains at 650 bhp primary power

[ringo]

Considering the different news and the figuring by members I would summarize the discussion so far:

• 1.6L four cylinder turbo charged engine with either V4 or L4 configuration limited to 3 bar intake pressure and 10,000 or 10,500 rpm
• fuel and/or fuel flow limit to reduce max engine power to 650 bhp, 115 kg race fuel likely target (- 25% compared to 2010)

Well the engine wont be at 650hp the whole race to achieve that 115kg. It reaches that value before 1 hr into the race!
I've struck a balance witht engine, i take it that 10% is loss to friction, so i put the boost at 2.5 bar gauge, so we get ~ 670hp.

*ignore the power graph, i'm using my power and engine data* Obviously max power is not seen all the time, even at full throttle, and using the diagram above I'll try a little guesstimation.
19.8% is closed throttle, assume lean burning here so equivalence ratio 0.98, idle air coming in alone as if engine is at 1500rpm.

the fuel flow i get with this assuming the boost is about 0.1 bar??.
is 0.0017 kg/s

63.6% full throttle, assume equivalence ratio at bout 1.15 for maximum power
assuming the engine accelerates instantly to 10,000 rpm and stays there all the time for the duration:
0.0407 kg/s

16.6% part throttle, say stoichometry, since this is not steady running like on a highway, i wont expect the kinds of low lean burn ratios that the DI can give.

I'll use air flow for around 5500rpm assuming the drivers don't want the maximum torque then. Also boost drops to 2 bar from 2.5; don't know for sure, engineers decide that.
flow is 0.017 kg/s

so in total, for a 80minute race:

0.198 * 4800s * 0.0017kg/s = 1.615kg
0.636 * 4800s * 0.0407kg/s = 124.24kg
0.166 * 4800s * 0.017kg/s = 13.5kg total = 139.4kg higher than 115

This is if 650hp is the minimum. KERS would be additional power to get to 800.
If the KERS 150hp is used with the engine to bring up the power to 650 instead of adding to it,then it's an engine power of 500hp. this is only done at 19s a lap for an 80s lap 60 lap race, 23.75% of the race. ( 23.75% , this is why WB choses 19s, to drop consumption )

engine at 500hp : 0.2375 * 4800 * 0.0265 = 30.21kg
engine at 650hp: (0.636-0.2375) * 4800* 0.0407 = 77.85kg

total = 108kg + 1.615 + 13.5 = 123kg

very difficult to drop to 115kg, but it can be done, maybe on a track with less full throttle. For instance a track with 50% full, 30.2part the result is:


closed: 0.198 * 4800s * 0.0017kg/s = 1.615kg
kers + full: 0.2375 * 4800 * 0.0265 = 30.21kg
full: (0.500-0.2375) * 4800* 0.0407 = 51.282kg
part: 0.302 * 4800s * 0.017kg/s = 24.64kg total = 107kg

But the way i see it, it's too much torture to do all this to meet an arbitrary number of 115kg. Chances are a race using KERS like this ie not using it to increase power but save fuel, will increase race time from the 80minutes anyway.

It's an unnecessary statement to save a few kg of fuel. Might as well carry the extra 22kg of fuel and run full blast at 650hp+150hp of KERS and overtake the fuel savers.

[WhiteBlue]

There are many assumptions which make no sense in your calculation.

• the throttle profile is typical of the turbos of the eighties, even current engines have better drivability. Future turbos are supposed to improve on that.
• By cross checking with efficiency we have already established that mean engine power utilization today is typically 75% of max power (for 150L race fuel).
• AFR is way out for the target engine. The operating lambda is expected between 1.4 for 2,000 rpm and 0.98 for 10,000 rpm

Here are some figures which have been established before:

• KERS target energy is 2.2 MJ/lap at 0.1119 MW (150 bhp) power. -> 19.7 s KERS activation in push to pass mode
• KERS in dual torque mode would have a peak power of 49.2 bhp and an average of 36.9 bhp. This assumes a 75% ratio of max to average power like the engine.
• Total peak power in push to pass mode would be 800 bhp, in dual torque mode 699.2 bhp

[riff_raff]

ringo,

There are several advantages with a pneumatic valve spring, even at lower revs. The pneumatic system is lighter and more compact overall, it is immune to fatigue, it is somewhat self damping so has fewer natural frequency issues, and has less inertia. Most importantly, the system feed pressure can be changed on the fly, thus it always provides close to the optimum spring force in relation to engine speed and reduces the friction losses in the valve train at speeds below the max RPM.

The cost difference is negligible, since a 2.4L V8 size metal valve spring capable of sustained operation at 12,000 rpm would have a fatigue life of only about 1 race and would be very expensive to manufacture.

The only downside to a pneumatic system is that it is not operationally fail safe. A loss of system pressure or chamber sealing usually results in a catastrophic (valve to piston contact) failure.

riff_raff

[xpensive]

Before taking the historical reference of the Honda RA168E too far, we should try and analyse those graphs;

a) 460 kW for 1.5 liter at 12 kRpm and 2.5 Bar absolute (not boost!) is no more than 14 Hp per liter, Bar and kRpm.

b) A fuel consumption of 275 g of fuel per kWh of "clutch-energy" produced at 12 kRpm. If this would be regular gasoline, that's 12.5 MJ per mechanical kWh (3.6 MJ), a total efficiency of 29%, which I think is reasonable for the time.

Remember, this engine is technology from a quarter of a century ago, why I think the power would be far more today.

@riff_raff:
The biggest advantage for the pneumatic valve is that it operates with a constant force, hence it is not really a "spring".

[WhiteBlue]

A fuel consumption of 275 g of fuel per kWh of "clutch-energy" produced at 12 kRpm. If this would be regular gasoline, that's 12.5 MJ per kWh (3.6 MJ), a total efficiency of 29%, which I think is reasonable for the time.

The Honda engine had a race fuel consumption of 150L of fuel for a peak power of 605 bhp. The fuel was almost completely composed of toluene which has a specific weight of 0.8669 kg/L. Race fuel was 130 kg. Modern engines produce 750 bhp peak power with 150 kg race fuel for comparison.

The 275 g/kWh is an optimum which has to be seen with a value of 300 for 10 kRpm and 350 at idle. So the true value in reality for average conditions was probably something like 295 g/kWh. If I follow xpensive's specific energy of 45.5 KJ/kg I get 13.4 MJ/kWh consumption.

I assume an average power level of 75% of the peak power of 451 kW (605 bhp) which gives me 338.3 kW average power. This translates to 1.624 GJ mechanical race energy.

Using 45.5 KJ/kg specific energy and 130 kg race fuel I arrive at 5.92 GJ race fuel energy. I get 27.4% efficiency which has to be compared to 29.5% which would be typical for todays engines. The 2013 engine is likely to reach 33.5% efficiency before it is even turbo compounded. Including 10% turbo compounded power I would put the 2013 engine at 36.3% efficiency.

The difference in efficiency for an engine using all efficiency technologies available today would be 8.9%.

[ACRO]

Considering the different news and the figuring by members I would summarize the discussion so far:

• 1.6L four cylinder turbo charged engine with either V4 or L4 configuration limited to 3 bar intake pressure and 10,000 or 10,500 rpm
• fuel and/or fuel flow limit to reduce max engine power to 650 bhp, 115 kg race fuel likely target (- 25% compared to 2010)
• direct injection with high tech spray guided injector valves, variable valve timing and lift and throttle less engine management likely
• compression ratio beyond 10.5:1 likely
• heat recovery of 65 to 100 bhp from wasted exhaust energy feasible by mechanical or electrical turbo compounding, but spec turbo being discussed
• KERS system for 2.2 MJ/lap kinetic energy recovery and 150 bhp electric power for 19s/lap appears to be the target
• AWKERS most likely solution to achieve KERS harvesting target
• improved engine efficiency including KERS (excluding HERS by turbo compounding) not sufficient to support current drag
• chassis must reduce drag (possibly by more ground effect) if engine power remains at 650 bhp primary power

slowly slowly dude...

especially in the last pages here the dicussion drifted to teletubbie-like wishes and visions , do not mess mess this as "facts" that the 2013 engine will look this.

especially the fancy compounding and e-turbocharging i would quickly put away, surely nothing of this.

further:

*compression unlikely beyond 10.5:1 since the higher the engine boosted the lower the compression required. fine that the panamera as a raod car is in that region, but its another story, with a far less boost so a relative high compression. especially at a turbo this value is a resulting one from other parameters.

*3 bar boost- maybe, may not be, it depends what the core engine will look like and what boost is needed for the hp that it should develop.

*variable valve lift...also may be or not be, i did not read any official statements, they are still discussing the peripherals. we still do net even know if pneumatic or conventional valves.

looking at this for real it will most likely be a inline4 ( not a V4 ) 1.6L direct injection twin turbocharged intercooled engine with KERS and electical brake energy storage.

one more word to some fancy compound solutions: it is a thing of the past. the designs shown here are from unknown visionary companies without any provement , NOBODY of the serious car and engine makers digs in this region. they all go in downsizing the core and boost high. surely the f1 will follow solutions of renown enginemakers and not some visionary artists.

[Steven]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5556&p=200171#p200171

We have a dedicated topic on biofuel from algae for some years now. Unfortunately it has been moved to off topic chat, which is undeserved and inappropriate. This could well be the source for F1 fuel in some years, but 2013 would be a bit early.

WB, your efforts to keep things on topic are interesting, but have you considered that it would be possible to change these rules with the new engine formula in 2013? Although I think it will be unlikely as it would reduce road relevancy, I don't see a problem in discussing it here (at least not references or possbilities, deeper analysis should go there).

The thread your are talking about is also not moved to off-topic chat, but to "Automotive technology", as it currently is not allowed in F1. We are talking future in this very thread...

[WhiteBlue]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5556&p=200171#p200171

We have a dedicated topic on biofuel from algae for some years now. Unfortunately it has been moved to off topic chat, which is undeserved and inappropriate. This could well be the source for F1 fuel in some years, but 2013 would be a bit early.

WB, your efforts to keep things on topic are interesting, but have you considered that it would be possible to change these rules with the new engine formula in 2013? Although I think it will be unlikely as it would reduce road relevancy, I don't see a problem in discussing it here (at least not references or possbilities, deeper analysis should go there).

The thread your are talking about is also not moved to off-topic chat, but to "Automotive technology", as it currently is not allowed in F1. We are talking future in this very thread...

Actually it was in off topic chat until yesterday. Mx_tifosi has moved it on my request. Big thank you to him for that. I believe that few bio fuels have a better eco balance than the fossil fuels in current use and until that changes there is not much point in making bigger percentages of bio fuels mandatory on the road and in F1. Naturally others may have different views on that.

[WhiteBlue]

one more word to some fancy compound solutions: it is a thing of the past. the designs shown here are from unknown visionary companies without any provement , NOBODY of the serious car and engine makers digs in this region. they all go in downsizing the core and boost high. surely the f1 will follow solutions of renown enginemakers and not some visionary artists.

Turbo compounding either electric or mechanical is not a question of the past or the future IMO. It is a question of physics and engineering. Sooner or later F1 will do the reasonable thing. If not in 2013 it will come later.

[autogyro]

Hopefuly the new regulations will allow fully open development of both turbo and KERS.
If they do not, F1 will loose any relevent technical importance.

[autogyro]

It is just a shame that the ic engine cannot be a wankel rotary.
This would remove the need for reciprocation and take development back into a reasonable direction.