Potential F1 engines beyond the 2013 1.6L turbo L4

[747heavy]

but it does not take away the option, that they can do it.
so if they sign off on it (the drive train rules), they have to bear part of the
responsibility for it.
So the FIA/WMSC is partly to "blame" for the rules we have, they have the power to stop them, if they make use of the power or not, and why not is a different matter.
It does not take away from the fact, that the WMSC can stop any proposal of any working group if they chose to.

The FIA is also the governing body for motor sport worldwide. It administers the rules and regulations for all international four-wheel motor sport including the FIA Formula One World Championship, FIA World Rally Championship and FIA World Touring Car Championship.

ARTICLE 2 : GENERAL PRINCIPLES
2.1 Role of the FIA :
The following technical regulations for Formula One cars are issued by the FIA.

All cars are consequently expected to feature double-diffusers from the outset this year, but following a reunion of FOTA's Technical Working Group, it has been unanimously agreed to outlaw the contentious concept from 2011, subject to the approval of the F1 Commission and FIA World Motor Sport Council (WMSC)

as for the claim, that the FIA has no part in the drafting of new technical rules,
it´s a quite funny statement, considering that they have a representive in the F1 Working Group

Whiting’s current work goes way beyond the race weekend. He is responsible for the safety, inspection and homologation of all F1 test and race tracks, and is chairman of the F1 Technical and Sporting Working Groups. He also is in charge of the FIA F1 technical department and is a member of the FIA Research Group, the FIA Safety Commission and the FIA Circuits Commission.

According to a BBC exclusive, the quest for closer, more exciting and more cost-effective racing has been passed to respected designers Patrick Head and Rory Byrne, who will produce a blueprint for future technical regulations for discussion by the teams and F1's Technical Working Group early next year. The draft regulations are being drawn up at the behest of the FIA, and should be in the hands of the men charged with making them reality some time before Christmas, prior to a meeting of the TWG in January.

APPENDIX 5
RULE CHANGES
1. Changes to the Technical Regulations will be proposed by the Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of one senior technical representative from each team and chaired by a representative of the FIA.
2. Changes to the Sporting Regulations will be proposed by the Sporting Working Group (SWG) consisting of one senior representative from each team and chaired by a representative of the FIA.
3. Decisions in the TWG and SWG will be taken by a simple majority vote.
The FIA representative will not vote unless the teams’ representatives are equally divided, in which case he will exercise a casting vote.
4. Proposals from the TWG and the SWG will go to the Formula One Commission consisting of six representatives from the teams, five representatives from the race promoters and one representative each from the Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA. At least two race promoters must be from Europe and at least two from outside Europe. Decisions of the Commission will be by simple majority. The FIA will have a casting vote in the event of equality.
5. The Formula One Commission may accept or refuse a proposal of the TWG or the SWG, but not amend it. A proposal which is refused may be sent back to the relevant Working Group for further consideration.
6. Proposals accepted by the Formula One Commission will be put before the World Motor Sport Council for a final decision. Proposals which are not accepted by the World Motor Sport Council may be sent back to the Formula One Commission and the relevant Working Group for further consideration.
7. Changes required for safety reasons will be considered separately by the FIA, which will take into account any representations made by the TWG or SWG.
The TWG and the SWG will be consulted on any proposal for change to the Technical Regulations or Sporting Regulations which did not originate in either Group and their comments, if any, will be made available to the World Motor Sport Council when such proposal is discussedU.

That should bring a end to this discussion.

[andrew]

Surely it is only a matter of simple basic logic that the rules of an FIA sanctioned series, where the FIA has to enforce said rules and dish out punishments in accordance with said rules are given the seal of approval by the FIA and set by the FIA.

The FIA have the final say and have the power to veto (this was formely outsourced to Ferrari by the MrM as part of his obsession with cost savings) and add rules.

Perhaps WhiteBlue may wish to provide some form of evidence to back up their claim or are we just to admit defeat and run the risk of throwing accuracy, attention to detail and respect of factual information out the window.

There is no shame in admitting your wrong. Heck, others might warm to someone who admits they're wrong.

[WhiteBlue]

but it does not take away the option, that they can do it.
so if they sign off on it (the drive train rules), they have to bear part of the
responsibility for it.
So the FIA/WMSC is partly to "blame" for the rules we have, they have the power to stop them, if they make use of the power or not, and why not is a different matter.
It does not take away from the fact, that the WMSC can stop any proposal of any working group if they chose to.
That should bring a end to this discussion.

The F1 rule making process is obviously a process of shared power. The teams, the FiA and the FOM are the main participants and the result is implemented and administered by the FiA. I do not deny at all that FiA representatives are involved at all important steps of creating the rules, interpreting and applying them.

What I object to is the reflexive allocation of blame of all rules that are not liked to the FiA. The current FiA president has been extremely uninvolved in all things F1 and has given the teams ample opportunity to shape the rules to their own objectives. A good example for this is KERS in 2010. The teams decided not to use it. The FiA was absolutely against the ban. In the end FOTA and the teams got what they wanted. KERS was in the rules, but it was not used. The KERS story continued to be controversial between teams and although the FiA had pushed for a much more powerful KERS for 2011 the balance of power in the FOTA came up with the lame compromise to keep the 2009 spec and allow development on that rather useless specification. I'm 100% sure that KERS would have looked a lot more useful if the FiA had had the power to implement their plans. As it stands the systems are stagnating on a specification that was supposed to be used for 2008 with rapid development towards much more powerful systems. For 2010 the original road map of the FiA had called already for 120 kW which is now being discussed for 2013.

Another question that was solved with the teams power was the selection of the tyre supplier from this season. Todt has publicly pushed for Michelin and the team majority was firmly in the Pirelli camp. In the end Pirelli was elected although the FiA has a formal right to do a public tender and Todt threatened to go through the whole process. In the end he backed down and accepted the choice of the teams.

I'm explaining all of this to demonstrate how the teams majority has ample opportunity to prevent rules that they don't like and even ban things that are allowed in the rules if they are unanimous about it. IMO it is important to understand that power when we discuss the engine formula beyond the 1.6L turbos.

Although gas turbines could be fascinating and might have efficiency potential beyond the current known data we should be aware that no stake holder in F1 would be a champion of the technology. They are not relevant in the foreseeable future to the motor industry which would not qualify them for FiA support. They might spring a surprise inventor who runs away with a huge competitive advantage and trigger massive costs to catch up. This will make them unloved by the teams. And the sound of gas turbines does not appeal to the fans and noise lovers which makes them unloved by the commercial side of FOM as well. So where should the support for gas turbines in F1 come from? These are factors one needs to consider.

Nevertheless a technical discussion can always be fascinating if people with an understanding of gas turbine technology want to show us some basic specifications that might meet the F1 requirements.

[andrew]

The current FiA president has been extremely uninvolved in all things F1...

True but sadly the previous FIA administration did things differently. F1 is still suffering from the fall out of MrM and will continue to do so for some time.

[machin]

WB; u don't think a very small high output power source is something the motor industry wants??? Less engine bay = more internal space.

Running some quick dirty calcs on a real in-service Shaft drive GT and scaling it for power output shows you could make a weight saving on a par to compensate
For the loss in power the efficiency would dictate if total fuel load were stipulated... And that's before the F1 teams get hold of it and start stripping weight out.... And that's not taking into account aero savings... In a future F1 where active aero will become more prevalent the drag from cooling will become a much higher percentage of total drag than it is now and savings in this area are not to be sniffed at...

[WhiteBlue]

WB; u don't think a very small high output power source is something the motor industry wants??? Less engine bay = more internal space.

Running some quick dirty calcs on a real in-service Shaft drive GT and scaling it for power output shows you could make a weight saving on a par to compensate
For the loss in power the efficiency would dictate if total fuel load were stipulated... And that's before the F1 teams get hold of it and start stripping weight out.... And that's not taking into account aero savings... In a future F1 where active aero will become more prevalent the drag from cooling will become a much higher percentage of total drag than it is now and savings in this area are not to be sniffed at...

I think that the GT would have to meet the fuel limit which also applies to ICEs. If this can be met by reducing the chassis power demand and producing less power than a competing ICE the decision would be subject to the team politics. I reckon that side impact protection will lead to an increase of mandatory side pot rules. At least that is what we have heard from the technical working group that looked at 2013 chassis rules. I would be skeptical about rules that introduce new technology with a run away potential. Teams are very conservative and restrictive if we go by almost 30 years of experience.

Something that is very likely to happen is a continuous shift to more electrical power in F1. If that trend is accelerating I can imagine that GTs are the first engines to power a car with 100% electrical drive. But it will be a race with fuel cells I imagine and I think that it is not going to come before 2020.

So a potential road map I see beyond 2013 is one more ICE with radically reduced carbon footprint and 50% regenerated power. After that they may do the switch to full electric drive fed by generators or fuel cells.

[747heavy]

now, after we have established that the FIA is a stakeholder and therefore has to take (part) responsibility for the current powertrain situation, as she (FIA)is the only one holding vetoing power, let´s come back to the technical side of things.

For reasons we know it´s unlikely that FOTA in it´s current composition would propose a GT - and that´s logical and understandable.

Let´s look at your dual fuel proposal.
Do you have any reference to back your claim in regards of reduced fuel consumption, for your proposed dual fuel engine?

Compared to best diesel engines the fuel use can be reduced by 25%.

I ask because other people, involved in building these engines have a slightly different view on the topic.

When Natural gas replaces 90% of the diesel through Dual-Fuel™ it can reduce CO2 emissions by up to 25%, yet fuel-efficiency and power remain equivalent to that of the original diesel engine.
http://www.cleanairpower.com/duel-technology.php

If I´m not mistaken, it is the company you have linked to in your opening post.
So do you mix energy efficiency with reduced Co2 emission here?

BTW, your proposed engine in it´s current form, does not look any closer to the 2015 engine solution, as does a gas turbine.
It´s a far cry from a 450-500kw engine weigthing 75kg and burning 170g/kWh



Now, before we run all off in different directions, we may need to agree on a metrics, which we will use to compare engines.
In the moment I see that we start mixing different arguments and metrics together.

What do we want to see?

- use of regenerating engergy sources?
- a reduction in energy consumption?
- a reduction in costs?
- a reduction in the Co2 footprint? etc etc.

I see that your proposed engine, holds perhaps an advantage in terms of Co2 reduction, but I fail to see a technical reason for your claimed reduction in in overall energy consumption on a kg/kWh basis, when compared to a diesel engine for example, taking all practical aspects for use in a (race)car into consideration.

I´m aware of the fact, that seen in isolation the engergy density of CNG/LNG or Methane gas is higher (on a kg/kWh basis) then the one of Gasoline or Diesel/Kerosene.
OTAH Hydrogen has a energy density which is >2x CNG/LNG/Methane

Why not just run the current/or 2013+ turbo engines on CNG/LNG instead?
The resistance to self ingnition of CNG should let itself nicely to higher compression ratios/boost levels. - No?

How about Fords proposed BobCat concept based on E85/Ethanol injection?

..... Ford is developing an engine which might offer a powerful alternative to diesels at a lower price. Codenamed Bobcat, the gasoline-powered engine allegedly begins with Ford's EcoBoost architecture and then, with the help of ethanol injection, goes places turbocharged engines can't normally venture. By using a secondary set of injectors to shoot ethanol from a separate tank into the combustion chamber, compression ratios can be drastically raised without pre-ignition, thus boosting fuel economy another 10 percent and overall power output quite a bit ......

Having been involved in a project in 1999/2000 running a race car on CNG in a long distance race, I can tell you that making enough power from the 2 ltr. turbo engine was never a problem, compared to everything else.

[WhiteBlue]

Let´s look at your dual fuel proposal.
Do you have any reference to back your claim in regards of reduced fuel consumption, for your proposed dual fuel engine?

Compared to best diesel engines the fuel use can be reduced by 25%.

I ask because other people, involved in building these engines have a slightly different view on the topic.

When Natural gas replaces 90% of the diesel through Dual-Fuel™ it can reduce CO2 emissions by up to 25%, yet fuel-efficiency and power remain equivalent to that of the original diesel engine.

If I´m not mistaken, it is the company you have linked to in your opening post.
So do you mix energy efficiency with reduced Co2 emission here?

BTW, your proposed engine in it´s current form, does not look any closer to the 2015 engine solution, as does a gas turbine.
It´s a far cry from a 450-500kw engine weigthing 75kg and burning 170g/kWh. Now, before we run all off in different directions, we may need to agree on a metrics, which we will use to compare engines. In the moment I see that we start mixing different arguments and metrics together.

What do we want to see?

- use of regenerating engergy sources?
- a reduction in energy consumption?
- a reduction in costs?
- a reduction in the Co2 footprint? etc etc.

I see that your proposed engine, holds perhaps an advantage in terms of Co2 reduction, but I fail to see a technical reason for your claimed reduction in in overall energy consumption on a kg/kWh basis, when compared to a diesel engine for example, taking all practical aspects for use in a (race)car into consideration.

I´m aware of the fact, that seen in isolation the engergy density of CNG/LNG or Methane gas is higher (on a kg/kWh basis) then the one of Gasoline or Diesel/Kerosene.
OTAH Hydrogen has a energy density which is >2x CNG/LNG/Methane

Why not just run the current/or 2013+ turbo engines on CNG/LNG instead?
The resistance to self ingnition of CNG should let itself nicely to higher compression ratios/boost levels. - No?

I haven't looked into the details of methane burning properly. My initial figure of fuel saving came from a publication of the Duisburg university.

http://www.uni-due.de/~hk0378/studien/2 ... ie_CNG.pdf



This is actually a chart showing the CO2 reduction which shows a good advantage compared to the petrol and diesel engines. I may have mis read the legend for fuel reduction instead of CO2 reduction because usually in petrol engines they are the same. It appears that methane has less carbon atoms in the molecular composition than the usual petrol and diesel fuel. This would indicate that the reduction of thermal energy would be much smaller than the 24% shown for the CO2 reduction.

CNG or methane could be used in the 2013 turbo engine, I agree with that view. But the compression would not be radically different from the current crop of sports car DI engines AFAIK. We would have to expect 12.5:1 like the Ferrari 458 Italia.

Diesel engines have higher compression up to 18:1 and would probably have a higher efficiency with dual fuel use. I don't think that you can run an engine designed for 12.5:1 CR at 18:1. It would not work without a redesign of most main components.

The use of ethanol in a dual fuel engine would be troubled by the old conflict between food production and fuel production. I don't think that ethanol would be good for F1. Methane based fuels are mainly generated from waste bio materials or natural gas that has also been wasted for a long time by flaring. I see no food vs. fuel conflict there. It also looks like fuel cell technology may be more based on CH4 instead of H2. So in the more distant future methane could become a fuel of choice for many reasons.

[747heavy]

CNG or methane could be used in the 2013 turbo engine, I agree with that view. But the compression would not be radically different from the current crop of sports car DI engines AFAIK. We would have to expect 12.5:1 like the Ferrari 458 Italia.

Diesel engines have higher compression up to 18:1 and would probably have a higher efficiency with dual fuel use. I don't think that you can run an engine designed for 12.5:1 CR at 18:1. It would not work without a redesign of most main components.

Yes, I agree with your observation here, but the reason we see the "lowish" CR´s in gasoline engines, has it´s origine in the fuel used.
CNG/LNG would have a much higher MON (~120) and more resistance to self ignition.
So if someone was to design a engine which runs purely on CNG/LNG, this would be taken into consideration - IMHO.

Today there are not many pure CNG/LNG engines used, most are Bi-Fuel engines which need to work either with Gasoline (SI) o Diesel (CI) as "back-up".
From this follows that a Diesel engine is more efficient in Dual-Fuel mode, as the base engine is more efficient.

Do make maximum use of the characteristics of CNG/LNG one would need to run high CR´s &/or high boost pressures - I agree with that view.
This will result in a "heavier" engine, as diesels/turbo´s tend to be heavier as N/A gasoline engines.

The remaining question is, would a dual fuel engine based on the proposed CNG/LNG with diesel concept be able to run at 10-12k rpm?
Part of the higher efficiency for diesel engines lies (IMHO) in the fact that they tend to run at much lower rpm´s (even if you take the race diesels in LeMans into consideration) compared with a F1 engine.

As there where arguments from a show/spectacle (noise lovers) PoV against the use of Diesel engines in F1, the question would be, which efficiency would a CNG/LNG engine have when running at 10-12krpm compare to a "race diesel" running at 5-6k rpm?

IMHO- the attraction of CNG/LNG at the moment, especially for heavy vehicles, lies in the reduction of emissons (and the abbility to meet stricter emmisson standards wirh such a concept) as well as, the lower price of CNG/LNG compare to Diesel.

If the last points remains this way, needs to be seen in light of increasing demand. The same goes for electricity prices in light of more EV´s.
Increased demand normally tends to increase prices as well, in a "open/free market".

But let´s keep the discussion focused on the technical aspects for such an engine/solution.
Would the Diesel injected into such an engine at 10-12k rpm have "enough" time to self ignite and iginte the surrounding CNG/LNG mixture?
What is the rpm limit for a Diesel engine, based on "flame speed" or "burn rate"?


you may find this an interesting read WB
Enjoy

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func ... Id=1762733

[Scania]

no turbo pressure limt + fuel flow limet = super lean burn engine?

[WhiteBlue]

Yes, I agree with your observation here, but the reason we see the "lowish" CR´s in gasoline engines, has it´s origine in the fuel used.
CNG/LNG would have a much higher MON (~120) and more resistance to self ignition.
So if someone was to design a engine which runs purely on CNG/LNG, this would be taken into consideration - IMHO.

Today there are not many pure CNG/LNG engines used, most are Bi-Fuel engines which need to work either with Gasoline (SI) o Diesel (CI) as "back-up".
From this follows that a Diesel engine is more efficient in Dual-Fuel mode, as the base engine is more efficient.

Do make maximum use of the characteristics of CNG/LNG one would need to run high CR´s &/or high boost pressures - I agree with that view.
This will result in a "heavier" engine, as diesels/turbo´s tend to be heavier as N/A gasoline engines.

The remaining question is, would a dual fuel engine based on the proposed CNG/LNG with diesel concept be able to run at 10-12k rpm?
Part of the higher efficiency for diesel engines lies (IMHO) in the fact that they tend to run at much lower rpm´s (even if you take the race diesels in LeMans into consideration) compared with a F1 engine.

As there where arguments from a show/spectacle (noise lovers) PoV against the use of Diesel engines in F1, the question would be, which efficiency would a CNG/LNG engine have when running at 10-12krpm compare to a "race diesel" running at 5-6k rpm?

IMHO- the attraction of CNG/LNG at the moment, especially for heavy vehicles, lies in the reduction of emissons (and the abbility to meet stricter emmisson standards wirh such a concept) as well as, the lower price of CNG/LNG compare to Diesel.

If the last points remains this way, needs to be seen in light of increasing demand. The same goes for electricity prices in light of more EV´s.
Increased demand normally tends to increase prices as well, in a "open/free market".

But let´s keep the discussion focused on the technical aspects for such an engine/solution.
Would the Diesel injected into such an engine at 10-12k rpm have "enough" time to self ignite and iginte the surrounding CNG/LNG mixture?
What is the rpm limit for a Diesel engine, based on "flame speed" or "burn rate"?

Thanks for the paper on gas engines. It has some nice characterizations of methane and it's use in engines but unfortunately it does not cover some of the important dual fuel points.

Bi-fuel should be avoided obviously in a racing engine and that is the reason why a dedicated engine with high CR and self ignition by injection of a 5-10% pilot charge of diesel or bio diesel should be the design principle.

I expect that the dual fuel method of self ignition using a very small pilot with wide spray delivery will result in the cleanest and most thorough ignition. Methane has a slow burn rate and a very thin diesel spray cloud will accelerate the combustion massively. Compared to diesel this method also has the advantage that extremely small amounts of diesel fuel will be injected and injection times will be very short. This ignition method should avoid the use of catalytic converters for unburned methane or NOx and should allow a relatively high air fuel ratio. All the negative effects of gas in diesel engines like throttle losses should be avoided and the engine should run throttle less.

I don't expect engine speed to be as high as in the 2013 turbo petrol engine. I hope this engine would be running faster than a current racing diesel but significantly slower than 12,000 rpm. Perhaps 7,500 rpm is achievable. The power generation should come much more from the torque than from the rev side. With the expected decrease in fuel use the primary engine would run in lower power regime and max power should be something like 10% less than 2013 targets. If we see 440 kW for 2013 the engine power for this engine should be around 400 kW. Power delivery by KERS and compounding should rise to 175 kW.

[WhiteBlue]

here The engines will be getting smaller like 1.6litre engines with 12.000 rpm limit. One day be like little 1.0 engines i know they still have lot or perforance but still pisses me off, it shouldnt be about fuel and o2 emmisons who gives a --- about that. [...] so --- global warming bring back 3.0v10 1000bhp+ engines etc

Engines that have o2 emissions are actually a neat idea. Sounds like reverse combustion were you produce fuel and oxygen from CO2 and heat. Please PM me with the details so I can claim a patent. I'm willing to share the proceeds.

[marekk]

Maybe no engine at all ?
With no engine, gearbox, fuel and radiators there is some 300kg to spare in current F1 car, and current Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries are specified at 2 MJ/kg.
Just one big (300-400kW) KERS preloaded at the start of the race (source of energy as green as you want it to bee - solar, wind, nuclear...).
And powerfull speakers to emulate engine sound of your preferred classic V10's

[Edis]

Quite contrary the current crop of micro turbines seem to be of the axial variety and use steel for the rotors.

Nickel based super alloys, not steel tend to be the standard.

The biggest problem still seems to be turbine inlet temperature (TIT) which is 1,500°C for ceramic and probably 1,100°C or lower for metallic rotors.

Using nickel or cobolt based single crystal super alloys you're good for a turbine inlet temperature of about 1500 degC. This is the solution used by the latest gas turbines.

I'm surprised that all the UAVs the military and civil operators use are fitted with piston engines and wankels then. Normally you would expect them to use turbines as in manned vehicles, but turbines don't seem to be able to reach the efficiency requirements for that application. So one wonders why such a strong commercial demand with a turbine friendly customer has not led to a viable solution?
75 kg/h at 440 kW means 170 g/kWh which is a long way away from current MGT territory.

That most small UAV's are fitted with piston engines are hardly surprising. Most of these engines are in a power class where a small gas turbine engine would not be competitive compared to a small piston engine and turbojet or turbo fan propulsion is simply not efficiennt due to the low speed of the aircraft.

Now, larger and faster UAV's are different situation and most of these, like the Reaper or the Neuron demo use turbofans like most other aircraft.

[riff_raff]

I did not read back through all of the posts, so if this idea has already been brought up I apologize. But how about this for an F1 drivetrain: a small turboshaft engine and a high speed PM electric motor coupled through a differential gearset. The differential gearset output would connect to the rear final drive.

The turboshaft engine could run at constant speed and variable load. The electric motor would run at variable speed and variable load. The electric motor's input speed, and even direction of rotation, would determine the output speed of the combining gearset. It would be a form of CVT.

Heck, you wouldn't even need a clutch. If the electric motor input to the differential gearset was the same speed as the turboshaft input, but in the opposite direction, then the differential gearset output speed would be zero.

The turboshaft engine would burn most any fuel you prefer. Lots of high speed gears would be needed too.

How about it? Is my idea stupid?