wouldn´t a high performance engine get more than 100% cylinder filling?kilcoo316 wrote:General comment>>
....

wouldn´t a high performance engine get more than 100% cylinder filling?kilcoo316 wrote:General comment>>
....
Yeah - its approx - I didn't include overfill.PhillipM wrote:It's not, at peak power rpms I'd expect it to be a little more.
marcush. wrote:
wouldn´t a high performance engine get more than 100% cylinder filling?
hardingfv32 wrote:Where is your exhaust velocity figured located, exhaust port or exhaust pipe tip/opening?
The exhaust temp at the exhaust port is 850 C and 150-200 C at the exhaust tip/opening?
I also find it odd that the velocity does not seem to be affected by the exhaust system geometry. Are you claiming that that routing the exhaust flow though bends has no effect on velocity. Why do the calculation lack any input for the exhaust system layout?
Brian
Up to 115-130% normally aspirated is possible with a good intake and exhaust system.Ferraripilot wrote:No. Getting to 95% is quite an achievement.
I see no reason why it would have changed?Ferraripilot wrote: I've no doubt the volumetric efficiency and thus tip velocity is slightly better than last year
I do not see how we will ever find out with all the other variables that affect the car's performance.I still believe this system is not very good compared to Mercedes system but I suppose we will find out. T
Brian..I'd love to see how you come up with that..You or somebody earlier pegged it at 125%...From my experience I just ain't buying it..Without a blower I can't see it.Up to 115-130% normally aspirated is possible with a good intake and exhaust system.
Brian
It increases the mass flow rate. It is not significant for most "every day" calculations.dren wrote:How much does the fuel add to the mass flow rate? Is it negligible?n smikle wrote:Ok I will check it out.
I made a small mistake on the reading. There was a small trip in the flow during the iterations and the progam left the max value displayed.
I did a surface parameter check and the velocity at the exit pipe is 209 meters per second.
These are some parameters at the exhaust pipe.
Notice I used the mass flow rate as the input.. because Williams gave a "Normal Liters per second" of air of 450 for the whole engine. I can't use this value as the output of the exhaust pipe.
Calculated results on the exhaust tip.
Mass Flow rate = 0.27 kg/s (I chose this value as the mass flow rate going though one bank of the engine at normal room temp and pressure conditions).
Area = .00593 m^2
Mass Flow Rate [kg/s] 0.27
Pressure: 1.0067 bar
Density: 0.292 kg/m^3 (at normal conditions this is 1.225 kg/m3)
Velocity = 209.74 m/s
Mac number = 0.31
Temperature = 926*C (I think this is fluid reheating)
Volume flow rate: 0.924 m^3/second
Notice that the volume flow rate is much much higher than the 0.225 m^3 per second at normal conditions due to gas expansion.
Yes, the shape of the intake aids in this.hardingfv32 wrote:Up to 115-130% normally aspirated is possible with a good intake and exhaust system.Ferraripilot wrote:No. Getting to 95% is quite an achievement.
Brian
that´s how i see it.WOT full load conditions of course.We are not talking about efficiency but ability to use the inlet and exhaust as a tuned wavesystem ....hardingfv32 wrote:Up to 115-130% normally aspirated is possible with a good intake and exhaust system.Ferraripilot wrote:No. Getting to 95% is quite an achievement.
Brian
hardingfv32 wrote:Up to 115-130% normally aspirated is possible with a good intake and exhaust system.Ferraripilot wrote:No. Getting to 95% is quite an achievement.
Brian
I like to point out that the rev limit of the current engine is 18000rpmhardingfv32 wrote:VE = ( 9411 x HP x BSFC ) / (DISPLACEMENT x RPM)
F1 engine: 755 BHP @ 1900 RPM, 146 CI (2.4 L) BSFC .5 (optimum)
I think you get 128% VE.
Brian