What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.
(perhaps 100 kg/hr @10k, 101@11k, 103@12k, 105@13k, 107@14k, 109@15K)
What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.
So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?
"low rpm" - 10,500?wuzak wrote: ↑08 Jul 2017, 12:59So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?
I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.
The fear with the current regulations and the MGUH was that the engines would max out at less than 10k rpm, the MGUH would enable full boost to be achieved at pretty much any rpm - even idle, if it was so desired.gruntguru wrote: ↑09 Jul 2017, 02:01"low rpm" - 10,500?
ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑08 Jul 2017, 12:46The more I think about it The more I don't think they will get rid of the MGUH. It just makes no sense.
If anything they will standardize the ES and CE, and fiddle with the fuel flow regs, but I just don't see them abandoning the MGUH.
It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?wuzak wrote: ↑09 Jul 2017, 03:04The fear with the current regulations and the MGUH was that the engines would max out at less than 10k rpm, the MGUH would enable full boost to be achieved at pretty much any rpm - even idle, if it was so desired.
Well in LMP1 the fuel flow limit isn't linked to engine speed and the 919 still revs quite a bit higher than the diesel LMP cars did. Though they do not have a MGU to spool up the turbo like they do in F1.roon wrote: ↑15 Jul 2017, 16:11It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
Would there be incentive to go beyond the current 11k? I mean they would have to face more engine friction for only a small increase in fuel flow which they still have to save in the end to be in the 105kg race limit. Unless they get rid of that rule which I think they should. Flow limit should be the only fuel limit. The rest already has its own penalty in the weight. Efficiency is still the name of the game in those conditions.wuzak wrote: ↑08 Jul 2017, 12:59So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?
I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.
Zynerji wrote: ↑19 Jul 2017, 14:42I feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.
If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.
Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.