Pistons should look rather interesting given an 18:1 CR with a very stroke. Very 'domey'? I doubt it and the head would be parallel like in diesels mainly because of the limited space for both prechamber/injector/plug and valve. Also based on whats been discussed here regarding the 'weird'(radial?) valve layout.godlameroso wrote: ↑07 Feb 2018, 06:11The regulations state max compression ratio is 18:1 they're suggesting that they need to be able to run at that ratio to catch up?
Compression ratio 18.0 and high pressure injector
I remember about the cylinder compression ratio 18.0 that it was only added in 2016. It was supposed to be an additional rule under the Mercedes standard of those days. In gasoline turbo engines, it is usual to set the compression ratio to a lower value in order to prevent knocking (ignition without permission), but it seems to be different in the world of F1.
This high compression ratio is realized by blowing fuel mist like with 500 bar high pressure injector and lowering cylinder temperature by heat of vaporization.
http://f1-motorsports-gp.com/%E3%83%AC% ... egulation/
18:1 with air that has already been compressed to between 3 and 4 bar.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑07 Feb 2018, 23:5418:1 is high, but not that far from the old 16 to 1 of the NA engines. With direct injection it shouldn't be too challenging I presume.
That's the main thing. Having a compression ratio that high is one thing, but combine that with intake pressure levels 4-5 times atmospheric, it makes you start to marvel at these creations.wuzak wrote: ↑08 Feb 2018, 03:2718:1 with air that has already been compressed to between 3 and 4 bar.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑07 Feb 2018, 23:5418:1 is high, but not that far from the old 16 to 1 of the NA engines. With direct injection it shouldn't be too challenging I presume.
Yes, for isentropic compression that would produce a compression pressure > 220 bar! (and temperature > 2000*C)wuzak wrote: ↑08 Feb 2018, 03:2718:1 with air that has already been compressed to between 3 and 4 bar.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑07 Feb 2018, 23:5418:1 is high, but not that far from the old 16 to 1 of the NA engines. With direct injection it shouldn't be too challenging I presume.
And that's before ignition!gruntguru wrote: ↑08 Feb 2018, 06:34Yes, for isentropic compression that would produce a compression pressure > 220 bar! (and temperature > 2000*C)wuzak wrote: ↑08 Feb 2018, 03:2718:1 with air that has already been compressed to between 3 and 4 bar.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑07 Feb 2018, 23:5418:1 is high, but not that far from the old 16 to 1 of the NA engines. With direct injection it shouldn't be too challenging I presume.
All the photos I've seen suggest close camshaft spacing, which may imply what you're implying.godlameroso wrote: ↑08 Feb 2018, 05:53What if using a pent roof combustion chamber isn't the best solution? But you arrive at this conclusion because you can't accurately model the type of combustion chamber geometry you want to use? Or that it's taking too long in order to learn and implement knowledge. But what if you design a cylinder head that uses a very flat valve angle, which is easier to model, true you sacrifice some efficiency, but it's easier to develop. You evolve your models, you try them with new combustion chamber designs. Eventually you learn enough that your meshes are fine enough and your simulations are so good that you can predict and develop with more complex combustion chamber shapes.
Would in part explain a tall cylinder head.