Potential F1 engines beyond the 2013 1.6L turbo L4

[WhiteBlue]

I have come across a dual fuel engine which has the leanness of a diesel and the cleanness of a petrol engine Source. The engine is basically a high compression diesel engine but it runs on compressed natural or bio gas. Ignition is provided by injecting diesel or bio diesel with 10% of the total fuel budget at the time of ignition. This will self ignite the gas mixture. Compared to best diesel engines the fuel use can be reduced by 25%. Due to the fuel used the emissions are very low and no catalytic converters are needed as in diesel engines. The engine can run totally on bio fuel that does not compete with food production or on natural gas which is captured at the oil production instead of being flared off. The lack of catalytic converters make the engine suitable for the noise lovers. I reckon that this engine will reach 40% efficiency before turbo compounding and perhaps 45% after turbo compounding. Existing prototypes of the automotive industry are already exceeding 2020 emission standards.

[Formula None]

Interesting. I don't think any of us would mind seeing that on the grid, but will a case be made against it that it is not relevant to production automobiles?

Speaking of injecting multiple gases and production irrelevance...

I've wondered how much smaller an ICE could be if the intake valves were eliminated and replaced with oxygen injectors fed from an on-board LOx tank. Currently the intake charge is only about 20% oxygen, so wouldn't taking out all of that pesky nitrogen allow the working volume to be much smaller while achieving the same power output and similar fuel consumption?

Surely work has been done on such a concept? Use hydrogen as the fuel, liquid oxygen as the well, you know what.

Of course I wouldn't be against kerosene or other fuels as they are easier to store.

Such an engine would also probably be a 2-stroke with 4 exhaust valves and headers exiting both sides of the combustion chamber. Call it the widowmaker.

[hecti]

My choice isnt up there.....

[CMSMJ1]

I voted No - stop farting about trying to make F1 seem to be road relevant. It is not relevant now, it never has been and should not be in the future.

All these effiency ideas are peeing in the wind in an open wheeled racing formula.

Next you'll be wanting enclosed wheels...

Can we please leave F1 to be the pinnacle of high speed racing?

Let the GT cars drive efficiency and road relevant technology.

[ESPImperium]

Why not just limite each engine manufacturer to a set standardised horsepower, say 800hp, but they can make it up however they see fit with their engine doing the lions share or having a 500hp engine with a 300hp KERS and HERS system.

As long as the fuel tank is homologated to 100kg for a race distance for each car.

If it was like that id be happy to open engine regs right up and allow that to happen.

Thus allowing the most fuel efficent car to be the winner ultimatly.

[Tamburello]

I voted No - stop farting about trying to make F1 seem to be road relevant. It is not relevant now, it never has been and should not be in the future.

All these effiency ideas are peeing in the wind in an open wheeled racing formula.

Next you'll be wanting enclosed wheels...

Can we please leave F1 to be the pinnacle of high speed racing?

Let the GT cars drive efficiency and road relevant technology.

As long as an F1 car is the fastest vehicle around a given circuit the series will remain the pinnacle of motorsport. So lets relax.

[Pingguest]

Why not just limite each engine manufacturer to a set standardised horsepower, say 800hp, but they can make it up however they see fit with their engine doing the lions share or having a 500hp engine with a 300hp KERS and HERS system.

As long as the fuel tank is homologated to 100kg for a race distance for each car.

If it was like that id be happy to open engine regs right up and allow that to happen.

Thus allowing the most fuel efficent car to be the winner ultimatly.

With an absolute limit to power a fuel consumption limit may not be necessary, as manufactures could only compete on driveability, reliability and fuel mileage.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm pretty sure that the principle of fuel limitation is going to stay in F1 from now on. It will only become more restrictive IMO. Officially the target in the next concord period is 50% of the 2010 race fuel which is approximately 75 kg or 2.3 TJ.

I see no problem to switch to an energy content instead of a mass restriction. So fundamentally dual fuel or different fuels could be legal in the framework of the FiA objectives. Currently they do not consider diesel engines due to their negative impact on the noise. If emission standards are met they would be too quiet for the fans. With 90% CNG/10% fuel oil there would be no concern for emissions or quietness.

The question of liberating all engine types and fuels is more a question of cost and legislation against one manufacturer team running away with a competitive advantage. In the current climate I don't see it happening. But I see a pretty big chance that they would go for a substantial efficiency increase which will soon be used by the automotive industry on a large scale. The bio methane aspect is actually very positive and could be a reason in itself to switch to such an engine.

[ringo]

1 number and 2 words: 1000hp Gas Turbines.

It's only a matter of time.

[Saribro]

Warp cores, definitely.

[WhiteBlue]

Source
As an example, a Rolls Royce Avon Mk 60 turbojet consume about 1.5 kg fuel per second at full power, the compressor supplies 78 kg/s, so there is more than 50 kg air per kg fuel. Infact, only part of the airflow is supplied to the combustion chambers in the engine. Most of the air go around the combustion chambers in order to cool them while only a small part of the air enter in front of the flame holder, used to supply the combustion with oxygen. But all of the air will go through the turbines (which is not the case with a turbofan).

The efficiency of a small gas turbine isn't that great either. For instance a Garrett JSF100, a small 37 kg 90 hp gas turbine (one stage centrifugal compressor, one stage axial turbine and one stage axial power turbine) consume 800 g/kWh. That is roughly an efficiency of 10%. An Allison 250, a 62 kg 317 hp helicopter engine is better, but it still consumes 430 g/kWh, an efficiency of slightly below 20%.

With this kind of efficiency turboshafts will not be attractive.

[andrew]

Bit early to start a thread that will generate 2 years worth of speculation until the FIA decide what will be.

Here's a crazy idea though - why not just stick with the same engine format and continue developing it? Changing the engine format every 3 or 4 year is just plain stupid and generates unnecessary costs.

[WhiteBlue]

Bit early to start a thread that will generate 2 years worth of speculation until the FIA decide what will be.

Here's a crazy idea though - why not just stick with the same engine format and continue developing it? Changing the engine format every 3 or 4 year is just plain stupid and generates unnecessary costs.

To use a dual fuel engine you do not need to change the formula. It needs a re design of the petrol type of engine to a diesel structure.

[ringo]

Source
As an example, a Rolls Royce Avon Mk 60 turbojet consume about 1.5 kg fuel per second at full power, the compressor supplies 78 kg/s, so there is more than 50 kg air per kg fuel. Infact, only part of the airflow is supplied to the combustion chambers in the engine. Most of the air go around the combustion chambers in order to cool them while only a small part of the air enter in front of the flame holder, used to supply the combustion with oxygen. But all of the air will go through the turbines (which is not the case with a turbofan).

The efficiency of a small gas turbine isn't that great either. For instance a Garrett JSF100, a small 37 kg 90 hp gas turbine (one stage centrifugal compressor, one stage axial turbine and one stage axial power turbine) consume 800 g/kWh. That is roughly an efficiency of 10%. An Allison 250, a 62 kg 317 hp helicopter engine is better, but it still consumes 430 g/kWh, an efficiency of slightly below 20%.

With this kind of efficiency turboshafts will not be attractive.

Cherry picking i see, we had this discussion already. There are multi stage gas turbines with Intercool and reheat that greatly increase the efficiency.
What's more GT can use any fuel. When this is coupled with a KERS system we get even better mileage.
The aero dynamic benefits will also reduce drag, and reduce the dependence on wings to create downforce.
The GT can easily have a fan attachment that sucks air from underneath the car creating down-force.

A GT car wont need water radiators, only oil coolers. In the case of inter-cooled GTs, the fan can be used to cool the compressed air between compressor stages.

we're talking about 1000hp for a GT here, not a little 90hp machine.

[andrew]

Bit early to start a thread that will generate 2 years worth of speculation until the FIA decide what will be.

Here's a crazy idea though - why not just stick with the same engine format and continue developing it? Changing the engine format every 3 or 4 year is just plain stupid and generates unnecessary costs.

To use a dual fuel engine you do not need to change the formula. It needs a re design of the petrol type of engine to a diesel structure.

So this is just pure speculation on your part that dual fuel engines will be introduced. I'll believe when I see it but I doubt it will happen within the next 5 years at least. Developing something suitable for F1 use that is not too bulky or heavy would be an expensive exercise which could well be a wild goose chase.