F1 Cylinder Head Design and Pneumatics, a closer look

[justsomeguy]

Brian,
Did you get a chance to get the data on the flow of the cylinder head?

[Brian.G]

Brian,
Did you get a chance to get the data on the flow of the cylinder head?

I did not, but I will - that I promise.

To update as I've since done some materials testing, the pneumatic barrel pictured in post 1 is actually aluminum and not titanium as I has suspected. The novelty finally went off owning one pneumatic valve system costing lots of money and I brought myself to do a grinder spark test on the barrel. FYI, Steel and Aluminum emit yellow sparks, while titanium parts when ground emit a white spark that cannot be mistaken. The coating now points to ptfe infused class 3 anodizing - and honed on the internal bore after.
Material analysis is pointing to 7 series aluminum.

Although this thread is now 2yrs+ old, don't let that fool you that all research had ceased - its very much all still active in terms of behind the scenes r+d when I have time.

I've done a huge amount of research into ptfe impregnated anodize. It seems a lot of companies actually do it, but only a few do it where the ptfe is 'small' enough to enter the open pores before the sealing process. Anything other than that is just a coating, and does not last as long.

Since the start, I've always set out with this thread to post factual info that I know is solid, so unless I'm totally sure, I cannot comment on any process - or would ever write about it.

I Intend getting to the bottom of the coating process though, everything else in terms of basic head and port design is semi trivial in comparison(god forbid!)

Brian,

[riff_raff]

Brian- Appreciate your updates. This sort of detailed technical information about race engines is hard to find in the public domain.

I know that ferrous metals and titanium produce sparks when ground, but I have never seen aluminum do this. Are you sure the barrel is aluminum? Also, what process did you use to determine the aluminum was a 7000 series alloy?

As for the barrel having a hard anodize coating, the only surfaces that appear to have an anodic coating are the dark green surfaces on the base. Hard anodize (MIL-A-8625, type 3) is usually dark green/gray. The shiny metallic surfaces of the OD/ID are definitely not anodized, but if the part is indeed aluminum it may be hard chrome or electroless nickel plating.

One quick way to determine what the material is would be to take measurements of it and calculate its volume. Then weigh it and determine the density.

[Brian.G]

Brian- Appreciate your updates. This sort of detailed technical information about race engines is hard to find in the public domain.

I know that ferrous metals and titanium produce sparks when ground, but I have never seen aluminum do this. Are you sure the barrel is aluminum? Also, what process did you use to determine the aluminum was a 7000 series alloy?

As for the barrel having a hard anodize coating, the only surfaces that appear to have an anodic coating are the dark green surfaces on the base. Hard anodize (MIL-A-8625, type 3) is usually dark green/gray. The shiny metallic surfaces of the OD/ID are definitely not anodized, but if the part is indeed aluminum it may be hard chrome or electroless nickel plating.

One quick way to determine what the material is would be to take measurements of it and calculate its volume. Then weigh it and determine the density.

Some grades of aluminium do indeed spark - Yes I am sure this is aluminium.

Testing was done with comparing shades to known alloy shades when a sample was etched in sodium hydroxide solution. (The gas given off was a dead giveaway it was indeed aluminium too)
7 series aluminium when etched for a period of time in sodium hydroxide comes out of the solution noticeably more tanned/brown than 6 series, and less tanned than 2 series. The tan residue on the surface is the copper in the alloy so its a good rough test. Sodium hydroxide does not etch the copper but only the aluminium hence the visible copper left over after etching.

The entire barrel has been totally anodized as mentioned earlier. This includes the interior sliding surface(also green). It is not uncommon after ptfe impregnation to hone piston bores to a polished surface. I cannot get continuity from the outside raw material, to the inside bore with a digital meter - thats a dead giveaway on the interior anodize layer also.
The outer portion was indeed turned down after anodizing. This could be for two reasons, 1), the part was off the shelf, or designed for a different engine and needed clearancing for a smaller diameter tappet(it goes down over barrel machined section and is pretty close to turned wall when valve is full open)
2), The anodic layer was machined off since it is slightly thermally insulating. Oil splash to outer wall would provide cooling/temperature equalization.
Thermal conductivity of the class 3 anodic layer is between 1/10th and 1/13th of the aluminium so machining it off would help.

I will add some detailed photos of the barrel itself next week when I have time.

Brian,

[riff_raff]

Brian- thanks for the reply.

All hard anodize is porous as coated. In order to make the hard anodize coating corrosion resistant it must be given some type of sealing process. Typically a "hot water" seal process is used.

If you want to look at a spec for hard anodize with PTFE impregnation, check MIL-A-63576.

http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL- ... 576A_2378/

[KennyB]

G'day Brian,
What would you say to being able to remove the air spring all together and replace the system with a system that A> provides a mechanical lock for the valves when seated , B> can accelerate a valve open and closed much faster than any traditional valve train is able to currently achieve and finally C> reduce friction to the point where a reduction of 51º C is achieved when comparing both traditional and new designs on a spintron device used for spinning engines up to operating speed and beyond ?

[gruntguru]

Sounds great.

[J.A.W.]

If of interest, this ( in German, with English for diagram detail) article: http://www.pvv.org/~syljua/merc/M104Motor.pdf

Runs a comparison of the original M-B 3.0/6 SOHC 2V cylinder head..
.. with the 'Cosworth'-type DOHC 4V pent-roof replacement.

Yeah, its about road cars, but since F1 is still limited to poppet valves, it may be worth a look..

[Ron albert]

If of interest, this ( in German, with English for diagram detail) article:
Runs a comparison of the original M-B 3.0/6 SOHC 2V cylinder head..
.. with the 'Cosworth'-type DOHC 4V pent-roof replacement.

Yeah, its about road cars, but since F1 is still limited to poppet valves, it may be worth a look..

That sounds great!

[Brian.G]

If of interest, this ( in German, with English for diagram detail) article: http://www.pvv.org/~syljua/merc/M104Motor.pdf

Runs a comparison of the original M-B 3.0/6 SOHC 2V cylinder head..
.. with the 'Cosworth'-type DOHC 4V pent-roof replacement.

Yeah, its about road cars, but since F1 is still limited to poppet valves, it may be worth a look..

Nice info - thanks for that.

As for the post above with what seems like novel tech....Ill remain on fence until I see more. A lot of stuff has been tested, and doesn't often make it through. What stage is this idea at...

Brian,

[skippy]

Fabulous thread Brian and a big thank you for posting this unique thread. Any chance you could post the valve head OD's, the port throat diameters, valve stem diameters towards the head of the valve and also valve lifts? The reason I ask is that if we suppose that this is the "ideal" engine (even though it is old by today's standards, it's probably as close as the guy on the street will get to good statistical info from a race engine), then in theory this can translate to other similar style engines such as modern bike engines. Modern bike engines are built produce high hp/L but are also designed to pass strict emissions testing whereas F1 engines are not. I see it as just a matter of turning the above info into percentages and using that as a guide for engine development. i.e. as percentages of the bore area: (a) intake valve diameter is X% (b) intake throat area (intake throat area minus area of intake valve stem at head end) is Y% (c) intake valve lift is Z% of the bore diameter, and so on.
Once again thanks.

[godlameroso]

Absolutely I'm very grateful to Brian, the tech info in these posts have inspired a lot of my own projects. You always wonder how the top guys do things, and it's nice to see it, if for nothing more than inspiration. With a keen eye and some experience you can see why they notch the port divider the way they do, and why the lengths and diameters are used(regulations specify certain dimensions so seeing what is chosen is very enlightening).

[strad]

Years and I do mean decades ago I had pistons for my Triumph created at the Rand Corp that were impregnated with Teflon and were touted to have the friction coefficient of wet ice on wet ice.
They were part of some experimental stuff from Rand and worked like a charm.
Is that similar to your reference to PTFE?
If memory serves it was supposed to be 1 or 2 mm into the aluminum.

[Brian.G]

Fabulous thread Brian and a big thank you for posting this unique thread. Any chance you could post the valve head OD's, the port throat diameters, valve stem diameters towards the head of the valve and also valve lifts? The reason I ask is that if we suppose that this is the "ideal" engine (even though it is old by today's standards, it's probably as close as the guy on the street will get to good statistical info from a race engine), then in theory this can translate to other similar style engines such as modern bike engines. Modern bike engines are built produce high hp/L but are also designed to pass strict emissions testing whereas F1 engines are not. I see it as just a matter of turning the above info into percentages and using that as a guide for engine development. i.e. as percentages of the bore area: (a) intake valve diameter is X% (b) intake throat area (intake throat area minus area of intake valve stem at head end) is Y% (c) intake valve lift is Z% of the bore diameter, and so on.
Once again thanks.

I think it would be a better idea to measure the sizes of my own more modern V10 F1 engine - which has been said to be the 'best' design - we will possibly never see such a high rpm again. Its the Cosworth TJ unit.

Thanks for the kind words also - I think its great to see it all in detail too.

Brian,

[jz11]

that discussion regarding the anodizing and PTFE is quite old, but still, my 2 cents:

hard anodizing pore size is quite a bit smaller than regular architectural anodizing, and there are very real difficulties with getting the ptfe inside the pores, since much smarter people than me have said that the ptfe molecule size is simply too large to fit into the anodizing pore, hence where the ptfe is used, it more like making it stick to the anodized surface rather than impregnating the pores

that being said, there are techniques around of enlarging the anodizing pores (to what size I don't know, maybe it is a part of the ptfe impregnation process), whether it is used in this application - who knows, because it will definitely reduce the hardness and wear resistance of the anodizing in general, that is also why hard anodized surfaces are generally left unsealed - because the sealing action (hydration of the aluminum oxide) makes the anodizing softer

and you really don't want to machine hard anodizing, like those outside surfaces of those barrels, what you do is simply mask the portions you don't want anodized, and do the final work on them post anoziding, the only thing I know that is a general practice on hard anodizing in automotive industry (hydraulic valves in automatic gearboxes for instance) is to hone or grind the surface to final dimension, because the anodized surface right out of the bath is not smooth at microscopic level, there is roughness to it

regarding the determination of aluminum alloy via etching, from my experience, I use 25gr/l@60C as an etching bath before anodizing, 2xxx and 7xxx series develop the black smut, which in 2xxx case is copper, and zinc for 7xxx, what one might try then is to use some sort of solution that would react with copper smut, but not zinc, or vice versa, to know exactly what they are dealing with, but again, if the part is to be hard anodized, then 2xxx, because of the high copper content, is quite difficult to hard anodize, the process control is quite tight, 7xxx or even high strength 6xxx would make more sense there, and as far as the hardness of the hard anodize itself is concerned, the more alloying elements are there in the aluminum, the weaker the anodizing layer will turn out to be, simply because when the aluminum oxide is growing, the alloying elements are incorporated into the forming oxide layer, and in 2xxx series case, those elements later dissolve in the electrolyte, thus weakening the structure, 7xxx has similar problems