I am sorry for the bait and no link (you have to be a subscriber to Motorsport Magazine), but, Motorsport Magazine's Mark Hughes reports this month (March Page 22) that Formula One racing could go to two stroke engines in the near future! And get this, opposed cylinder two stroke supercharged - turbocharged engines! Could it be too long before we see an FM on the race track? Hmmmm!!!
.
A Fairbanks-Morse "Trackmaster?"
Don't know how well a opposed piston two stroke will survive at 12K-16K RPM. FM's would not do it.
Current F1 engines are 1.6 liter turbocharged V6 four cycle 'power units' that have their turbos spinning generators in the power band and have the generators spinng the turbos when out of the power band to give immediate throttle response without turbo lag. They also operate under fuel restrictions of no more than 100 Kg of fuel for a nominal 200 mile race and specific restrictor that limits fuel flow to 100Kg/hour - F1 specifies fuel by mass, not gallons.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDDon't know how well a opposed piston two stroke will survive at 12K-16K RPM.
BigJim BaltACD Don't know how well a opposed piston two stroke will survive at 12K-16K RPM. I'm sorry that I can't link the article here, but, 20,000 RPM was mentioned!
BaltACD Don't know how well a opposed piston two stroke will survive at 12K-16K RPM.
I'm sorry that I can't link the article here, but, 20,000 RPM was mentioned!
We're not talking Orbital-engine geometry here -- or Commer-knocker levers either.
A moment's consideration would reveal that the inertial forces in opposed pistons of 'half the stroke' of an existing motor would be considerably lower than in the existing motor. There is additional rotational inertia in the doubled cranks, and of course somewhat higher mass for the motor, but I doubt these are anywhere near as significant as the ability to make power at much higher rpm with 'double the power strokes'.
The fuel injection system is going to be interesting to examine. Think about the physics involved and you'll increasingly find details of prospective interest...
I believe the current F1 power units are rev limited, by rule, to 15K. In actual use they rarely rev beyond 12K account the fuel flow limitations. For the 2019 season of 21 races, by rule, the power units and significant parts thereof were required to last 7 races - a maximum of 3 power units were to be used in the season without penalty. I think Mercedes Benz was the only team not to incur a grid position penalty account using more than the alloted number of power units or significant parts thereof during the season.
in the past when V8's and V10's were used in F1, many of them reved to 20K and maybe more.
A very interesting thing to watch -- in fact, I'm digging for research material right now -- is the method that would be used to conjugate the opposed pistons correctly at 20K peak revolution in an engine expected to rev and decelerate quickly. I'd expect elastic stretch even in these very short rods to be measurable in terms of effective chamber volume... some interesting approaches to VD/VCR using exterior means become possible in a full OP, provided you can control the relative phase with accuracy. I think you'd have to do it with gears, and those gears are going to be interesting. (And there will be even more interesting problems if the power is taken differentially off those cranks as in a FM OP engine!)
Question: In the F1 context, does opposed-piston refer to a horizontal-opposed design on one cranskhaft (like a flattened V-6 or V-8) rather than the FM-style OP design?
CSSHEGEWISCHIn the F1 context, does opposed-piston refer to a horizontal-opposed design on one crankshaft (like a flattened V-6 or V-8) rather than the FM-style OP design?
Probably not. Although Symonds appears to have been separating comments on 'two-stroke' from comments on 'opposed-piston' with respect to future planning.
I suppose van Rooyen's 'crankcase-independent two-stroke' could be built opposed rather than shallow-V but there's a raft of physical and production reasons why I suspect it's reached the form it has for racing.
I'm pretty sure that the 'common combustion chamber' and reduced stroke length (and reduction of issues related to 'dead' chamber surfaces, heating and stress in heads, and valve provision) would reference actual opposed pistons. BigJim would have to quote material from the specific article he read, though, to be certain.
I have usually made more or less noise when people confuse horizontally-opposed (or "boxer") engines with opposed-piston engines. In the latter, the pistons face each other, not outward from each other. That's true even in that wacky engine Bill Gates supported, which had two sets of opposed pistons in a very wide but flat configuration (and, I suspect, would be extremely difficult to use as a high-rpm racing engine no matter what you might construct one out of...)
For some of the considerations in modern OP-engine design, you can see Achates Power.
A point to remember in discussing this is that the fuel involved will probably be 'engineered', and it might be optimized for some form of optimized compression ignition. I have seen a couple of discussions involving glycerine (!) as in the fuel for some of the 'clean' generators in Formula E (!!) or some kind of tailored hydrogenation. This is implicit in the idea of going to 'full carbon neutrality' by 2030 ... why not optimize the fuel more completely if not relying on a fossil feedstock or 'fossilized' composition?
Boxer-style engines seem to have worked ok for Porsche.
charlie hebdo Boxer-style engines seem to have worked ok for Porsche.
And for almost all light piston engined light aircraft. Much of the reciprocating forces get balanced out on a four cycle engine, although at the cost of a more complicated crankshaft.
charlie hebdoBoxer-style engines seem to have worked ok for Porsche.
In the past Ferrari ran boxers - then they found ground effects aerodynamics and the wide configuration of a boxer interfered with venturi tunnels to create downforce on the rear of the car.
In the age of aerodynamics, aero trumps most all other design criteria.
CSSHEGEWISCH Question: In the F1 context, does opposed-piston refer to a horizontal-opposed design on one cranskhaft (like a flattened V-6 or V-8) rather than the FM-style OP design?
Heads up Overmod & Balt, I sent you a message.
Then there were the "Mercedes" engines and the Penske racing team at the Indianapolis 500 race in 1994. I am thinking that 1994 was the last year I bothered to pay any attention to the Indy 500, and I am beginning to understand the reason.
Back in the day, the cars and their engines were more the "star" than the drivers. Being interested in everything with engines, planes, trains and automobiles, that was to whole reason to watch auto racing.
There was something about the team racing the "Mercedes" engine that competed against the "Buick V6.' The Mercedes cars had this odd looking black post sticking up out of the engine cowling, the function of which was never explained.
Anyway, the "Mercedes" engine turned out to be something that Daimler-Benz just lent their good name to and had nothing to do with any powerplant in a Mercedes automobile. According to Wikipedia, it was a secret project meant to take advantage of a loophole in the rules just for one race, the Indy 500, and not any of the other races ran that year for "Indy cars." Apparently to encourage the use of "stock block" consumer-market-derived engines, a two-valve-per-cylinder pushrod engine was allowed a much higher displacement (a little over 200 cubic inches, which is actually a very small V8 for a luxury car like a Mercedes).
Ilmor, a race car engine builder, came up with such engine that produced 1000 HP. Needless to say, it was very heavily boosted in inlet air pressure by a turbocharger. The allowed "stock block" engine was permited greater boost pressure in addition to displacement.
The engine was "pushrod in name only" inasmuch as having a custom very-much-not-a-production-car arrangement of a camshaft almost at the elevation of the cylinder heads and very short pushrods to satisfy the racing rules. The engine, developed as a one-of for this race, had a short lifetime in hours of operations, even for a racing engine.
Anyway, Team Penske had a fleet of these things qualified at Indy that were way faster than anything else. They won that year, but the Rules Committee quickly changed to rules so they wouldn't come back with them.
In the effort to level the playing field of competition, I guess the "formulas" for F1 and Indy are so uniform that there is nothing for me to watch?
Actually, the most interesting automotive contest I remember was a tractor pull at the Door County Fairgrounds in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The final two contestants were one guy with an antique John Deere with 3 cylinders the size of barrels and another with a modern turbo-charged high-revving Ford tractor. It was the dissimilar engines that made a tractor pull the least bit interesting, a contest between low-tech and high-tech, between raw displacement and turbo-charged finesse. It was like Diesel locomotive spotting back in the day with FM and BLH and ALCo were still in business.
The John Deere won, by the way.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Overmod CSSHEGEWISCH In the F1 context, does opposed-piston refer to a horizontal-opposed design on one crankshaft (like a flattened V-6 or V-8) rather than the FM-style OP design? Probably not. Although Symonds appears to have been separating comments on 'two-stroke' from comments on 'opposed-piston' with respect to future planning. I suppose van Rooyen's 'crankcase-independent two-stroke' could be built opposed rather than shallow-V but there's a raft of physical and production reasons why I suspect it's reached the form it has for racing. I'm pretty sure that the 'common combustion chamber' and reduced stroke length (and reduction of issues related to 'dead' chamber surfaces, heating and stress in heads, and valve provision) would reference actual opposed pistons. BigJim would have to quote material from the specific article he read, though, to be certain. I have usually made more or less noise when people confuse horizontally-opposed (or "boxer") engines with opposed-piston engines. In the latter, the pistons face each other, not outward from each other. That's true even in that wacky engine Bill Gates supported, which had two sets of opposed pistons in a very wide but flat configuration (and, I suspect, would be extremely difficult to use as a high-rpm racing engine no matter what you might construct one out of...) For some of the considerations in modern OP-engine design, you can see Achates Power. A point to remember in discussing this is that the fuel involved will probably be 'engineered', and it might be optimized for some form of optimized compression ignition. I have seen a couple of discussions involving glycerine (!) as in the fuel for some of the 'clean' generators in Formula E (!!) or some kind of tailored hydrogenation. This is implicit in the idea of going to 'full carbon neutrality' by 2030 ... why not optimize the fuel more completely if not relying on a fossil feedstock or 'fossilized' composition?
CSSHEGEWISCH In the F1 context, does opposed-piston refer to a horizontal-opposed design on one crankshaft (like a flattened V-6 or V-8) rather than the FM-style OP design?
"Engineered" fuel?
How about anhydrous ammonia? Carbon neutral. When a race car wrecks, it clears out the stands?
Paul Milenkovic"Engineered" fuel? How about anhydrous ammonia? Carbon neutral.
Well, if you're going to do that you might as well go to Divers' Solution (or its analog with nano AP) which is also niftily carbon-free, I see references indicating this might feature in relatively cool combustion with very rapid initiation (both desiderata in a 15Krpm motor that features low NOx) and according to John Clark might have stand-clearing activity of a different (higher) order.
Incidentally BigJim provided a very interesting article by Mark Hughes in Motor Sport -- I encourage him to post the link to content he sent me, as it has some relevance to railroad applications of some of the 'new' technologies. This confirms a number of mechanical details that make FM-style OP construction desirable for the special world of Formula 1 to keep excitement and interest in the sport high, and technological innovation relevant both 'socially' and improving the breeds of production automobiles.
One interesting point in the article is that Pat Symonds thinks that two-strokes with an appropriate mix of KERS and other energy management can be 'greener' in absolute terms than Formula E. It would be highly interesting to see a properly-conducted 'well-to-wheel' study of the two to assess this in detail; it would be even more interesting to consider the various ramifications of the 'charging infrastructure' for all-electric racing to see the factors that will govern more pervasive use of full or 'obligate' BEVs (as opposed specifically to hybrids or plug-ins) in regular transportation.
There are clearly applications for a reliable electronically-controlled controlled-displacement two-stroke motor in many railroad applications, for example in genset engines with widely time-variant horsepower requirements or 'autonomous' operation. While of course these wouldn't be designed for high horsepower and high rpm at minimal displacement, they might be easily designed to 'emit less pollution than they take in', particularly in areas of unavoidable carbon-emission concentration (as, for example, we have heard places like Roseville, California may be). Of course it's true that the actual 'remediation' of air quality by such a means is slight ... but then again, so is the differential contribution to overall poor air quality by, say, Tier 4 final over lower tiers in actual NO generation. On the other hand the potential political propaganda value is almost immeasurable, particularly in California...
Now, those of you following from the early part of this are already chuckling, seeing where this is going. There is something of a history in the design of high-speed trains with fairly low-weight combustion-engine power -- perhaps most notably the original TGV prototypes. It isn't too much of a stretch, if Formula 1 can be made 'greener' than Formula E, to say that the 'enabling technology' can't produce HSR equipment 'greener' than what California thinks it is obligated to build at multibillion dollar expense to electrify and then support its various developing lines...
As a once-upon-a-time subscriber to Road and Track and one who entered motor-crossing competitions with a somewhat souped-up and stabilizer-bar and Koni-shocks-equipped 1964 Corvair, I found this thread of interest.
But, frankly, when I saw the header, I thought would I read and see something about FM power somehow in use on that EMD stronghold, the CB&Q Chicago - Aurora Line!
daveklepper As a once-upon-a-time subscriber to Road and Track and one who entered motor-crossing competitions with a somewhat souped-up and stabilizer-bar and Koni-shocks-equipped 1964 Corvair, I found this thread of interest. But, frankly, when I saw the header, I thought would I read and see something about FM power somehow in use on that EMD stronghold, the CB&Q Chicago - Aurora Line!
Fine minds must think alike.
I was scratching my head, "The Burlington never had any Fairbanks-Morse locomotives?
BaltACDIn the age of aerodynamics, aero trumps most all other design criteria.
Which would probably argue against the Deltic configuration being considered for Formula One.
ORNHOO BaltACD In the age of aerodynamics, aero trumps most all other design criteria. Which would probably argue against the Deltic configuration being considered for Formula One.
BaltACD In the age of aerodynamics, aero trumps most all other design criteria.
What makes you say that?
The driver will still be the 'limiting' case for frontal area and, to an extent, shape of the forward envelope -- there have been some interesting ideas about reducing this over the years, but there are hard limits based on effective 'driving posture' that limit the gains.
Meanwhile, remember that F1 has a very small displacement limit (which might be reduced proportionally for the perceived 'power advantage per stroke' of modern two-stroke power) so our "Deltic" is at most two cylinders deep ... and it has the same advantage the Napier Deltic did: three times the effective displacement for only 1/3 additional crankshaft and gearing, or alternatively a great reduction in required stroke for a given displacement.
Note from the above that packaging the engine reasonably close behind the driver results in very little effect on drag, and on the proportional scaling of the effect of Cd related to frontal area. I expect this would be true even if comparatively bulky KERS equipment were provided on the 'non-driving' crankshafts (as there would almost certainly be, if for no other reason than to make geared conjugation something that would last for the required multiple races!)
It might even be technically possible to have the engine in del configuration (think triangle base-up) if the stroke is compact enough and the manifolding comes in and exits from the rear of the engine. That would put a centered 'primary' takeoff to the gearbox very low in the chassis. Alternatively you could take power at the center of the triangle, either at front or rear (as a shaft could be run through the center of the engine) geared to the three crankshafts equally.
Overmod The driver will still be the 'limiting' case for frontal area and, to an extent, shape of the forward envelope -- there have been some interesting ideas about reducing this over the years, but there are hard limits based on effective 'driving posture' that limit the gains.
The design of the Rolls Royce Merlin supposedly started with an outline of a seated draftsman to determine the height/width envelope for the engine.
OTOH, it would be amusing to see a race where all of the -um- cars were powered by full sized FM OP's.
Erik_Mag Overmod The driver will still be the 'limiting' case for frontal area and, to an extent, shape of the forward envelope -- there have been some interesting ideas about reducing this over the years, but there are hard limits based on effective 'driving posture' that limit the gains. The design of the Rolls Royce Merlin supposedly started with an outline of a seated draftsman to determine the height/width envelope for the engine. OTOH, it would be amusing to see a race where all of the -um- cars were powered by full sized FM OP's.
May not be a full sized FM opposed piston racing - but full sized diesel truck racing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdKSiDpdTyI
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.