flynfrog wrote:Or an even easier plan limit air the way LMS or FSAE does. If they are turbo engines why not limit boost. In the end it doesn't mater you are simply limiting one chemical in a reaction.
I disagree very much with the view. The AFR can vastly change according to technology and operating mode of the engine. Hence controlling the air will never be as efficient as controlling the fuel flow.
yet on a real race engine that has a chance of making it onto a track I doubt you will see much difference. These engine are still going to be tuned for power not fuel economy
You will see it in 2013. The fuel will be limited and the winner will be the team making the most power out of the given fuel.
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)
You could argue that the 2006-2007 engines were "air limited" -the bore was fixed, as was the number of inlet valves... that effectively resulted in a fixed intake area that all the teams had to work to.
Since it is possible to play around with the fuel mixture for other reasons (cylinder cooling etc) it meant teams weren't focused so much on fuel efficiency (obviously nobody wants to carry around an extra 100kg of fuel, but a couple of kg's over a race....?).
With the new rules they pretty much have to focus on fuel consumption efficiency because it'll be so heavily restricted; there simply won't be the opportunity to carry around extra fuel.
It would be interesting to hear relative costs for an engine limited by air compared to one limited by fuel...
I think it was Racecar Engineering which had an article about F3 engines; They take a £15k 2 litre engine producing 300bhp, stick an air restrictor on it and then spend £1M developing it to coax 220bhp out of it.....
I think there is a serious fundamental problem with flow-based regulations: the accuracy of best flow meters in this range, even within one product and after field calibration, is not better then +/-1% in lab conditions, and even worse if you account for fuel and working temp fluctuations between cars.
It would be like writing in the rules something like car weight = 640kg +/-6.4kg.
ringo wrote:
These meters are not volume flow however. They depend on heat capacity.
A flow meter for 100kg may be bigger indeed, but it may not be proportionally so.
1.) my comment was in context to the flow meters Edis proposed:
Edis wrote:
How is the flow measured? Well, I know that Exact Flow have offered their dual rotor turbine flowmeter to F1 so something like that would be a good guess.
I did understand that your proposed sensor / flow meter, uses heatcapacity. In a nutshell not unsimilar to some "air mass" sensors in automotive ECU´s (heated wire/ heated wire mesh)
2.) I never said, they would, (increase propotional in size)
In both cases the accuracy will depent on the physical propertice of the fluid, measured.
xpensive wrote:All of the above is xtremely interesing for a die hard mechanical engineer such as myself, which might xplain why I for once managed to keep my notoriously wide mouth shut for at least a little while.
However, it seems to me that this all deals with converting the dynamic energy, as pressure times volumetric flow, of the xhausts into mechanical such. This still comes across as a only fraction of the thermal energy available?
Do correct me where I go wrong, but is there an intellectually plausible way to deal with the rest?
Is the thermal energy not unavailable because we don't have 0K (zero Kelvin) readily to hand?
Combustion in an environment at 300K is doomed to be thermally inadequate is it not? There is no way to really deal with the rest you ask about.
-------------------------------------------
I am very pleased about the changes. It is going to be a real engineering challenge. I wish they removed more of the design constraints while broadening the technical options.
n smikle wrote:They should just give everybody the same set of injectors and same max injection pressure. simples.
That would not be helpful IMO. Direct injection is a field that can yield substantial efficiency advances. They will only materialize if competition is allowed.
The measuring method for the fuel flow can and should be the same for all. There is no substantial challenge in it if you use a standard ECU, a standard flow device like a hydraulic differential pressure arrangement or a flow turbine and correct for viscosity and density changes. I don't think you even have to adjust for different energy content of the fuels because the composition is already heavily regulated.
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)
Even if the fuel energy content and mass flows were perfectly regulated, there is still a large scope for improving power output. The most significant path for improvement is combustion heat release rate. The closer the engine's combustion gets to true constant volume conditions, the greater its brake power output will be.
Take a look at recent work with injecting fuel at supercritical conditions, and how much it can improve combustion efficiency and heat release rates. This may be an approach that we could see used in F1, if it's not outlawed.
xpensive wrote:
...
However, it seems to me that this all deals with converting the dynamic energy, as pressure times volumetric flow, of the xhausts into mechanical such. This still comes across as a only fraction of the thermal energy available?
Do correct me where I go wrong, but is there an intellectually plausible way to deal with the rest?
Is the thermal energy not unavailable because we don't have 0K (zero Kelvin) readily to hand?
...
There is no way to really deal with the rest you ask about.
...
Either I found a way of xpressing myself in a clumsy fashion, or is it just that politeness is rewarded with mockery at F1T?
But on a pragmatic note, if as much as one third of the energy content of the fuel injected for combustion leaves through the xhausts, that's some 500 kW, meaning that the mechanical recycling described above is just scraping the barrel, no?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
riff_raff wrote:Even if the fuel energy content and mass flows were perfectly regulated, there is still a large scope for improving power output. The most significant path for improvement is combustion heat release rate. The closer the engine's combustion gets to true constant volume conditions, the greater its brake power output will be.
Take a look at recent work with injecting fuel at supercritical conditions, and how much it can improve combustion efficiency and heat release rates. This may be an approach that we could see used in F1, if it's not outlawed.
This is exactly the kind of technology F1 should be involved in developing. One only hopes that some people realize that instead of continuing the sterile aero games that FOTA loves so much.
Imagine what can be found if you lay off 300 aerodynamicists and/or re task them to designing better combustion processes. Fundamentally there should be no limit to efficiency technologies in F1 and no rules banning anything of that.
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)
I find it a tad difficult to see what good laying off some aerodynamiscists would possibly to to the engine side?
Au contraire, I believe thëir CFD-knowledge is most useful within engine design of today.
But the question remains, if the FIA was serious about leading F1 to a more energy-efficient path, they would open up the possibilities of recovering the 5 000 000 kJ which are wasted through xhaust and cooling combined. Per car and race.
In that context, spending hundreds of MEUR on recovering 400 kJ per lap is outright pitiful.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Several things to say, guess I have to start somewhere. And yes, I know I am digging up a dead and buried horse to beat it again, but I actually do have a point to make.
Ringo, Machin was talking about a theoretical constant power machine, which does not currently exist. He mentioned in passing that it would gain no benefit from a transmission. You argued that point with him. You then, in your OWN calculations, noted that with his theoretical constant power machine, which does not exist at present, as the rpm's aproached 0 the torque aproached infinity. You then said something to the effect of "that doesn't look right" and never mentioned it again.
However, you continued to argue that this theoretical, nonexistant constant power maching would still benefit from multiplying whatever torque through a transmission. And this is where we get to my point.
You aparently did not pause for a full second to ponder the ramifications of your own calculations. You glanced at them, concluded that they didn't look right, and moved on. This is really important, because it's a mistake that's been made by thousands of fully qualified engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone and everyone who has ever had need or cause to "do the math". It's caused god only knows how many fatalities throughout history.
A theoretical constant power machine, which does not exist at present, would indeed see it's torque aproach infinity as it's rpm's aproached 0. This is by definition. Now attach whatever reduction gear you please, and multiply this machines torque by the correct factor. What do you get when you multiply infinity by X?
I don't mean to be pedantic, but this really is an important issue considering you seem to be either in a field requiring you to "do the math" or in training for one. You did the math, didn't like the answer, blew it off, and juggled the figures until the results looked more "right". That's the cardinal sin, man.
Now, when Machin posited this whole thing to begin with, he mused over the possibility of 2013 cars running fewer transmission ratios. Someone countered that all cars run the maximum number of ratios allowed. This is demonstrably false. Before there were 7 speed boxes, there were 6 speed units, with no rule limiting the number of ratios. They could have run more, they just didn't feel the need.
Historically, the number of forward ratios is superficially tied to powerband, but since that is in large part a user tunable comodity, you'd really have to say it's tied to how long it takes to shift and how dangerous that shift is. In a world of multi second shifts and very fragile transmissions, you tend to have 2 or maybe 3 forward ratios and large displacement forced induction engines. If you can manage to shift fewer times than the other guys there's a very real chance that's all you need to win.
All indications are that the future engine will be capable of a very broad powerband compared to anything that's been hooked up to a 7 speed F1 gearbox. Complexity is still the enemy of reliability, so is it possible future cars will have fewer forward speeds without a rule mandating it?
Well if this were a few years ago and transmission failures were still a common occurance, I'd say not only possible but nearly guaranteed. But there is a maximum reliability that any human assembled system is capable of, and todays units are pretty darned reliable. They also shift so quickly and have so little impact on the cars handling that you'd have to have a very good reason for fooling with them. The only way I see using fewer forward ratios is for a Williams type installation, where they need the volume for aero reasons.
Oh, and White Blue, this one really is pedantic, but I'm fairly certain there is not a driver on the grid who wants his brakes to break, or for that matter have his car break while he's on the brakes.
Sayshina wrote:Oh, and White Blue, this one really is pedantic, but I'm fairly certain there is not a driver on the grid who wants his brakes to break, or for that matter have his car break while he's on the brakes.
What's that supposed to mean? I'm not aware that I have commented on breaks or brake failures.
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)
It´s just a small orthographic faux pas WB, no big deal
You tend to write break or breaking, when you refer to the devices which normally are designed to stop the car.
The correct writing/spelling would be brake or braking.
just as an example:
WhiteBlue wrote:
5. The traditional KERS systems have used the rear wheels and I hope we agree that they are not suitable for high regeneration figures. I can imagine AWKERS and front wheel KERS. Which of those will actually come we can speculate about. I have not looked at real break bias figures to have a feeling for how much energy they would miss from the rear wheels. There are other reasons to use a rear MGU like having an electric starter. That has been discussed in the past and they may put that in the rules to have better options to remove cars from dangerous situations on track.
"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
