2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

They can still use smaller plugs. COnventional just refers to the geometry, the electrode position etc.

There are rumors they have integrated the plugs in the individual valves, making the engine a quad spark, or quattro scintilla.

[Holm86]

They can still use smaller plugs. COnventional just refers to the geometry, the electrode position etc.

There are rumors they have integrated the plugs in the individual valves, making the engine a quad spark, or quattro scintilla.

You're not in the yin yang thread.

And smaller plugs is almost a necessity because you also have an injector nozzle in the cylinder head now.

[xpensive]

Xcuse me, I get confused at times, but what if they have those nozzles of yours integrated in the valves, how about that?

[Mr.G]

xpensive - I think it will be wiser to integrate the nozzles into sparks plugs as they are not moving parts.

But the real challenge will be integrate the spark lugs into the valves and then the nozzles into the valvespark plugs, to create a ultimate valve/spark plug/nozzle

[ringo]

X idea sounds feasible, though it sounds funny. lol
but a moving spark would ignite the fuel at 4 different heights at different conditions, it sounds like a recipe for a intake manifold explosion.

If ferrari do have a smaller spark plug, then they do have more room for bigger valves. Which is advantageous.
The next logical question is does the regs have a limit on valve diameter?

[Holm86]

X idea sounds feasible, though it sounds funny. lol
but a moving spark would ignite the fuel at 4 different heights at different conditions, it sounds like a recipe for a intake manifold explosion.

If ferrari do have a smaller spark plug, then they do have more room for bigger valves. Which is advantageous.
The next logical question is does the regs have a limit on valve diameter?

Im pretty sure there is a regulation on the valve size. And in a 4 valve cylinderhead there is a relative large area in the center. So I don't think you would be able to make the valves bigger just because you make the sparkplug a bit smaller.

[timbo]

Im pretty sure there is a regulation on the valve size. And in a 4 valve cylinderhead there is a relative large area in the center. So I don't think you would be able to make the valves bigger just because you make the sparkplug a bit smaller.

The bore is smaller this year, so maybe the sparks they used do not allow for maximum possible valves.


I always wondered, why does valves are always circular? Surely thermal and mechanical stresses make harder to use any other shape, but haven't anyone try something different?

[langwadt]

Im pretty sure there is a regulation on the valve size. And in a 4 valve cylinderhead there is a relative large area in the center. So I don't think you would be able to make the valves bigger just because you make the sparkplug a bit smaller.

The bore is smaller this year, so maybe the sparks they used do not allow for maximum possible valves.


I always wondered, why does valves are always circular? Surely thermal and mechanical stresses make harder to use any other shape, but haven't anyone try something different?

you should all try to read the regulations

5.1.8 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves with axial displacement are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine
component must be circular.

5.10.2 There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted upstream of
the intake valves or downstream of the exhaust valves. Only approved parts may be used and
the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the
Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

5.11.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder.
No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

afaict the current spark plugs are ~7.5mm thread so they are pretty small already

[diemaster]

hey man relax please
scarbs said good ideas about of ferrari engine design and quad spark rumours on twitter just now
https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/status/421040446375075840 https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/status/421037017011863552

[WhiteBlue]

X idea sounds feasible, though it sounds funny. lol
but a moving spark would ignite the fuel at 4 different heights at different conditions, it sounds like a recipe for a intake manifold explosion.

If ferrari do have a smaller spark plug, then they do have more room for bigger valves. Which is advantageous.
The next logical question is does the regs have a limit on valve diameter?

I think you are all ignoring combustion requirements as usually found for relatively lean (spray guided) combustion. The usual sources stipulate that you typically inject in the centre of the cylinder head and ignite at the edge of the hollow cone plume which is further outward from the centre between the valves. I do not see a particular sense in valve mounted ignition because IMHO it would only create complications without potential rewards.

[trinidefender]

Now I was doing some thinking today and a thought occurred to me. I think I have found a way that engine builders can increase the efficiency of F1 engines at part throttle. I wouldn't be surprised if they have thought of this already.

Take the example where you have 100% torque being produced at an engine rpm of 10,000 rpm.At this mass flow the compressor and turbine are spinning at 100,000 rpm (a fairly typical number for some automotive turbochargers). Fuel flow (mass) would be 'X'. Air flow would be about 14.7(X) (mass) (let's keep it stoichiometric for simplicity sake).

Now say you keep the rpm the same except you are producing 50% torque at 10,000 engine rpm. This means that fuel flow will be roughly 0.5(X) and airflow will be 7.35(X) do we all agree? Now let's assume that for this to be true the compressor/turbine will be spinning at 50,000 rpm.

Now we introduce the mgu-h. Let's say the mgu-h keeps the compressor/turbine shaft spinning at 100,000 rpm. However we only desire 50% torque. This would lead to a condition where airflow would be 14.7(X) and fuel flow to be 0.5(X). Yes I realise this would create a lean burn scenario.

Now most current turbocharger turbines are mainly impulse radial flow turbines. As far as I know axial flow turbines may be better for this idea.

When the mgu-h is using energy to turn the turbine faster than it would go propelled by exhaust gasses alone I think it would actually create a pressure drop in the exhaust before the turbine. This should have the effect of reducing back pressure for a cylinder which has its exhaust valve open and is forcing exhaust gasses out. The lower the back pressure, the lower the load on the crankshaft and therefore the less energy you are taking out of the crankshaft.

Now on the intake side. Since the compressor is attached to the turbine by means of a shaft then it to would be spinning at 100,000 rpm because the mgu-h is spinning the shaft. My thinking goes that on the cylinder that the intake valve is open air is being forced in. If air fills the combustion chamber 'quicker' (for want of a better word) than the piston descends in the cylinder then a situation arises where the piston is now actually adding energy to the crankshaft.

Yes, if the mgu-h was not there then the turbocharger would still have some effect on the intake side. However it would have the opposite effect on the exhaust side with an increase in back pressure. The combined effect of reduced back pressure on the piston in the exhaust phase and the increased pressure on the intake phase (raising the volumetric efficiency) should mean that less energy is taken from the crankshaft and maybe some even added in. This will have a net result of more than 50% at 10,000 engine rpm for roughly 0.5(X). More net torque at that rpm for the same fuel used.

If the reader doesn't understand my concept or gets lost then tell me and I will try to explain differently and include diagrams.

[wuzak]

hey man relax please
scarbs said good ideas about of ferrari engine design and quad spark rumours on twitter just now

https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/status/421040446375075840
https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/status/421037017011863552

I thought the rules didn't allow such systems, but the regs say that the outlets must be "outboard of the cylinder bore centre line and not from within the “V” centre".

The only thing with that system is that the angle between the valves in modern engines tend to be narrower than they were in previous times, The size of the exhausts would require a wider angle between the valves.

[aleks_ader]

Nice thougth scarbs!

Yes wuzak and i belive more agresive groves into pistons also.

[Abarth]

Inlet ports in between the valve "V" (in german "Fallstromkanal") have been used, but usually with only two valves/cylinder. They had a bigger valve angle, so it was somehow geometrically feasible.
With four valves, resulting small valve angle because of quite high CR and done as outlet with all the thermal problems created in between the valve V....no i don't believe it. And it seems to me that the regulations are indeed not allowing it.

But they could have designed relatively long outlet valves (longer than the inlet), and conduct the outlet ports almost parallel to the valves, the flange for the exhaust manifold would then be in parallel to the piston heads.

So these scetches from the journo which attended the Ferrari engine presentation could be in line with this thought.

[xpensive]

hey man relax please
scarbs said good ideas about of ferrari engine design and quad spark rumours on twitter just now
...

Aha, my kriztal ball still works, they will have quattro scintilla!