Good explanation. Thank you.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
At the most recent meeting of the engine working group last Tuesday it emerged that constructors are looking for an engine formula that will provide simpler and lighter engines, following a considerable weight increase since the introduction of the Hybrid power units in 2014.
Good explanation. Thank you.
The single injector MJI system is not lean burn - it is lambda 1.0. The advantages of the system are rapid combustion, ability to run lambda 1.0 at full load (road car engines typically run 0.9 or richer), and reliable ignition of highly diluted (EGR) mixtures.
Thank you. I was under the impression that a relatively rich mixture, relative to CC AFR, was needed inside the prechamber to create these jets. Seemingly not. Anyway, lean burn and stratification would not be mutually exclusive would they? As AFR and lambda only refer to charge composition and stratification refers only to distribution. Could have one large droplet of fuel providing lambda 1 or less, at stratification greater than a highly leaned F1 engine.gruntguru wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 01:25The single injector MJI system is not lean burn - it is lambda 1.0. The advantages of the system are rapid combustion, ability to run lambda 1.0 at full load (road car engines typically run 0.9 or richer), and reliable ignition of highly diluted (EGR) mixtures.
The Formula 1 single injector MJI is a lean burn version. It requires direct injection, high injection rates and complex injection strategies and mapping.
Electric fuel accumulation via ICE overrun with K generating. It's what teams did during the KERS years and what they are likely doing now at certain points. We know Honda does it, or at least did it, in 2017.ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑18 Jul 2019, 13:51Braking only provides about 20% of the power that the K currently puts out, where are you going to get the rest of the 80% that the H currently provides?
The last time there was an engine "freeze", Renault took the word literally and ceased development. Then they found out that their rivals were sneaking engine improvements into their products under the guise of "reliability" changes. That will happen again.
In 2008 reliability updates were permitted and Renault suffered for being to honest. The 2009-2013 was really frozen and Renault was the smartest with their software updates exploiting exhaust blown diffusers.
Oh well. Maybe they held back on development for the time being so they can go to full electric in a few years.
Unlikely, they have about 1350kWh of energy in the 100kg of fuel and can use about 650kWh of it (the rest is lost to inefficiencies).
You can have a similar amount of energy in butane (bio-butane, if you want to be "green"). You would need some cutting edge fuel cell, and also some battery and/or super capacitor buffer, but you would also throw out the ICE, most/all of the transmission/differential/driveshafts and could have much reduced cooling. Also regenerative braking would aid you significantly.pb6797 wrote: ↑07 Nov 2019, 00:11Unlikely, they have about 1350kWh of energy in the 100kg of fuel and can use about 650kWh of it (the rest is lost to inefficiencies).
An electric motor might reach 95% efficiency so to equal the energy available you need ~ 620kWh of batteries. We currently have about 250Wh/kg and might with more exotic materials and lots of research and luck maybe manage to make it to 500Wh/kg. i.e. 0.5kWh/kg. So you would need 1240kg of batteries, 12x the current fuel mass and ~2x the current total car weight, just for your (not yet achievable) batteries.
There is a reason Formula E runs on small street circuits at relatively low speeds.