what is most limiting revs in af1 engine ?

[Frenchblock]

camshafts movements makes vibration and limit the hight rpm!

camless engines could produce more rendement!

renault is working on it

[DaveKillens]

FIA regulation 5.1.6 requires poppet valves. So for the near future, valves it is in Formula One. But it's always nice to reduce or eliminate sources of vibration. And the new rule, 5.1.3 limits RPM to below 19,000.
Desmodronic valve systems were used successfully in cars, and are still a strong point with Ducatis. Personally, I've always had a soft spot for sleeve valve engines.
But then again, if you really want to get rid of reciprocating components, to me the gas turbine is the answer. With them, vibration is not the limiting factor, but material strength, how quick you can spin it before the parts disintegrate from sheer RPM.

[Ciro Pabón]

For aircrafts, I have to agree with Dave: the turbine is the best. But the inertia of the thing, I think, makes difficult to adapt it to racecars. Or isn't?

Anyway, after reading about sleeve valve engines, following Dave's "soft spot", I wonder why the apparently formidable Napier Sabre did not find a counterpart in the car world...

[Mikey_s]

Ciro,

at the Inadianapolis Motor Speedway museum there is an example of an Indy car that was powered by a gas turbine;

Granatelli's STP-Paxton 4WD Pratt and Whitney gas-turbine car ran well at Indianapolis, leading the race until retiring with mechanical problems. The design had the gas-turbine sitting along-side the driver.

A quick google found the above quote... adds a whole new dimension to the idea of slipstreaming down the main straights!

[JohnnyBoy]

Maybe the gas turbine could be used to power an electric generator...
How long will it take for the new technologies to be applied in motorsport!? Maybe not F1 but surely it will start being used in racing soon, i think!

[Ciro Pabón]

Maybe the gas turbine could be used to power an electric generator...
How long will it take for the new technologies to be applied in motorsport!? Maybe not F1 but surely it will start being used in racing soon, i think!

Well, I use to tell a tale about car engineering being one of the most conservative forms of engineering around. It is a long one, and some of you have heard it, probably, because it is around the Internet, but here it goes on my own words:

"Back in the roman empire times, Julius Caesar ruled about the legal width of a horsecar. The idea was that the width should be standardized because the wheels were really narrow and they produced ruts all over the road.

This was a feature hard to change for an individual horsecar maker, so this width hold for centuries, long after the fall of the Roman Empire and the Feudal ages.

Then, when the railroad was invented, James Watt had to use the same tracks used by the old horsecars on mines, that naturally, had the standardized rut width, so the width of the UK tracks became the same as the roman roads.

On time, british exported the railroad around the world, and the width of the british track became the standard in USA. A century of "progress" passed and the americans took part on the space race.

When the thiokol rocket for the Space Shuttle was produced, one of the factors in designing it was the width of the railroad tunnels it will have to pass, given by the width of the american railroad track, given by the width of the british track, given by the roman 44 BC law.

So the most advanced vehicle on earth has a width that is roughly equal to the width of the butt of two horses."

So much for car engineering and quick progress, I'd say... The lesson here: next time you dictate an standard, think carefully about it. It can live longer than you expect.

[flynfrog]

So your saying my declaration that all thursdays be naked day could last forever


Ive studied teh turbine indy cars alot they realy should have one 2 years in a row but were put out with no turbine problems lasp ahead of there competitors

but rember in indy you never lift perfect for the trubine but it wasnt the turbine that made it grate it was the awd they could run the car any where on the track it was actuly down on power compared to the others out there

but in there day they were amazing machines well they still are ive seen them in person

Indy evntualy phased them out but if they hadnt and chrysler would have buiult there trubine car i think we would be driving them now

a turbine electiric car is what i think we will be heading twards in the next 50 years moslty because they will run on any thing that burns and the are efficent

[Guest]

"FIA president Max Mosley believes his plans to introduce energy-saving technology to Formula 1 will revolutionise the development of hybrid road cars over the next decade.

Mosley last month invited F1’s major manufacturers to come up with a new engine formula for 2011, when the FIA plans to impose a limit on engine power through the amount of fuel burned instead of the traditional means of engine capacity size.

He hopes that this will encourage car makers to introduce hybrid technology to their Formula 1 programmes." (itv.com/f1)

That should put the cat amog the pigeons!!!!

[Ciro Pabón]

"FIA president Max Mosley believes his plans to introduce energy-saving technology to Formula 1 will revolutionise the development of hybrid road cars over the next decade..."

That should put the cat amog the pigeons!!!!

We argued in a thread about that... but we did not talk about FIA politics. Actually, rereading it, we were pretty naive...

[DaveKillens]

Gas turbines may appear cool in racing applications, but they have severe drawbacks. They are gas hogs, put out a LOT of hot air, and have severe lag.
The M1 Abrams tank will always endure severe criticism because it uses a gas turbine, and makes the machine seem impractical in some scenarios. Troops cannot ride on it in urban warfare situations, it cannot sit and idle for hours in a defensive position, and the need for fuel creates a logistic and operational nightmare.
Personally, if Max wants to lay the groundwork for future efficient cars, make them run nothing but hydrogen. It's as green as you can get. Then issues such as safe storage and efficient engines can be aggressively tackled by the engineers.

[Ciro Pabón]

Dave, you can say hydrogen is a green technology, in the sense that does not spread pollution. I'd like to add that "green technology" is a "broad label".

A more restrictive one is "renewable source". I do not think hydrogen qualifies as renewable. In this sense, is more of an energy storage system than a fuel, as it does not occur naturally: it has to be created from other "real" sources. Overall pollution depends, probably, on that "real" part of the energy system.

Hydrogen has another problem: it can be created "cleanly" (for example, through electrolysis) or in a "dirty way" (chemical subproduct). Guess which one is the cheaper and is the preferred one of the actual hydrogen industry...

[DaveKillens]

Of course, the industries want to burn oil or other renewable resources to give the consumer hydrogen. It gives a good return to the investor.
My thinking, though, that if we ever got a consensus (not likely or going to happen in my lifetime) from the politicians, hydrogen could be manufactured by "clean" renewable resources. The wonderful advantage is that the byproduct of burnt hydrogen is water.
Maybe one day we may see Formula One cars powered by fuel cells.
http://www.electronickits.com/kit/compl ... elcell.htm

[flynfrog]

Gas turbines may appear cool in racing applications, but they have severe drawbacks. They are gas hogs, put out a LOT of hot air, and have severe lag.
The M1 Abrams tank will always endure severe criticism because it uses a gas turbine, and makes the machine seem impractical in some scenarios. Troops cannot ride on it in urban warfare situations, it cannot sit and idle for hours in a defensive position, and the need for fuel creates a logistic and operational nightmare.
Personally, if Max wants to lay the groundwork for future efficient cars, make them run nothing but hydrogen. It's as green as you can get. Then issues such as safe storage and efficient engines can be aggressively tackled by the engineers.

they are air hogs not nessiacarly fuel hogs they tend to burn the fuel more effecently too when used with recovery turbines

to idle they simply need enough fuel to keep spinning not to mention the massive amount torque off idle

ive seen city busses using turbine electric hybrids

check out http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html

[DaveKillens]

I am using the M1 Abrams as a comparison because it there are similar tanks that use diesels. So direct comparisons of different powerplant types can be made.
The Abrams has been around since 1980, so it is a mature design. It too uses a regenerator, but unlike prototype cars or technology demonstrators, it is a practicle working machine, having to be used every day and thus real world problems cannot be ignored but dealt with.

[flynfrog]

i agree the engine in the M1 was based off of these prototype cars chysler was design the tanks around the same time i belive

they had the same problems heat at idle and fuel consumption at idle but couple this with a hybrid drivetrain where you can run the turbine at full efficency and shut it off when idling ect it becomes viable