Faster car with less than 100 kg/h fuel flow

[Jolle]

I always thought a 3.0l V10 with 600kg weight without driver with curent aero regs would be way faster than waht we have now. That balance between parts sizes, weight, power and laptime is so profound.

the 3.0l V10 is now fifteen years gone? If it would have been developed further, especially with only a 600kg car and the massive downforce they can create now, car's would be to fast for any circuit to race safe.

It's not difficult to make regulations for a fast car. It is hard to make regulations to make a fast enough, but not to fast car with enough cost efficiency and innovation to keep the sport healthy. it's a balancing act.

almost any old regulations with modern possibilities would give us faster cars. That is one of the whole points about new regulations, making the cars slower (with the first exception since 1967 in 2017).

[ENGINE TUNER]

I always thought a 3.0l V10 with 600kg weight without driver with curent aero regs would be way faster than waht we have now. That balance between parts sizes, weight, power and laptime is so profound.

the 3.0l V10 is now fifteen years gone? If it would have been developed further, especially with only a 600kg car and the massive downforce they can create now, car's would be to fast for any circuit to race safe.

It's not difficult to make regulations for a fast car. It is hard to make regulations to make a fast enough, but not to fast car with enough cost efficiency and innovation to keep the sport healthy. it's a balancing act.

almost any old regulations with modern possibilities would give us faster cars. That is one of the whole points about new regulations, making the cars slower (with the first exception since 1967 in 2017).

V10s were only feasible because refueling was permitted in 94. The N/A engines after the 89 ban on turbocharging were extremely thirsty and the main way of increasing their power was by increasing revs which also lowered efficiency.

[PlatinumZealot]

I suppose they would use Direct injection, TJI and KERS to help the fuel efficiency. VIL, VVT and VVL can also be applied to get a few more percentage fuel savings..

Granted. An F1 V10 done right would probably still finish the race ahead of the turbos with 100kg of fuel since it would still be lighter by 100kgs!

[Jolle]

I suppose they would use Direct injection, TJI and KERS to help the fuel efficiency. VIL, VVT and VVL can also be applied to get a few more percentage fuel savings..

Granted. An F1 V10 done right would probably still finish the race ahead of the turbos with 100kg of fuel since it would still be lighter by 100kgs!

Without the turbo and recovery system, a V10 3.0 would be very inefficient. And have a lot less power on 100kg/h fuel then the current hybrids. A rough estimate, if the V6TH has 50% efficiency and a V10 around 30, with the supposed 1000HP, a V10 would have only 600HP on 100kg/h...

[PlatinumZealot]

I suppose they would use Direct injection, TJI and KERS to help the fuel efficiency. VIL, VVT and VVL can also be applied to get a few more percentage fuel savings..

Granted. An F1 V10 done right would probably still finish the race ahead of the turbos with 100kg of fuel since it would still be lighter by 100kgs!

Without the turbo and recovery system, a V10 3.0 would be very inefficient. And have a lot less power on 100kg/h fuel then the current hybrids. A rough estimate, if the V6TH has 50% efficiency and a V10 around 30, with the supposed 1000HP, a V10 would have only 600HP on 100kg/h...

It is not fair to use the old fuel consumption figures because I am assuming we modernize the V10s. The V10 was heavily limited by regulations. Technology has advanced so much since then. I suspect one of the reasons the V10 had used a tonne of fuel because it was advantageous for other uses such as cooling and combustion stability. I know a developed V10 with better cooling design, direct injection and other technolgies would be much more efficient.

We are also talking about overall speed as well. Assuming we had the cars weighing 600kg again they would be so much lighter that you won't need to turn the engine up all the time so some savings there too.

[Jolle]

I suppose they would use Direct injection, TJI and KERS to help the fuel efficiency. VIL, VVT and VVL can also be applied to get a few more percentage fuel savings..

Granted. An F1 V10 done right would probably still finish the race ahead of the turbos with 100kg of fuel since it would still be lighter by 100kgs!

Without the turbo and recovery system, a V10 3.0 would be very inefficient. And have a lot less power on 100kg/h fuel then the current hybrids. A rough estimate, if the V6TH has 50% efficiency and a V10 around 30, with the supposed 1000HP, a V10 would have only 600HP on 100kg/h...

It is not fair to use the old fuel consumption figures because I am assuming we modernize the V10s. The V10 was heavily limited by regulations. Technology has advanced so much since then. I suspect one of the reasons the V10 had used a tonne of fuel because it was advantageous for other uses such as cooling and combustion stability. I know a developed V10 with better cooling design, direct injection and other technolgies would be much more efficient.

We are also talking about overall speed as well. Assuming we had the cars weighing 600kg again they would be so much lighter that you won't need to turn the engine up all the time so some savings there too.

A NA engine is just always less fuel efficient and heavier then a turbo engine with the same output. The use of energy recovery systems only make the different bigger. It’s just obsolete tech these days, as most new engines are turbos, in racing and on the road. Especially high performance ones.

[PlatinumZealot]

Not necessarily true for street cars. Depends on many factors. Many examples out there where the theory is not borne out. You need a really well developed turbo engine to see that extra weight and complication make it worth it for light weight cars. Note for bigger vehicles there is less penalty.

For race cars... It even fuzzier... I dont think its clear yet. We need a modern day V8 or V10 brought up to the latest technology. I had a thread on this topic somehwere here...

[bill shoe]

I don't know lots of tech info about engines (compared to some people on this site) but what I know leads me to believe the turbo advantage in real-world situations is small or non-existent.

Turbos are more efficient in steady-state peak-efficiency situations, but in severe transients (like an F1 lap) their efficiency goes down.

Street cars have gone to small turbo engines because the current fuel-econ/emissions driving cycles have been described as "your grandmother driving your car". The accel rates are really glacial. There is very little boost and ironically they are operating at near naturally-aspirated conditions. But in real world driving, average consumers get into the power more which leads to more boost and richer combustion (for reliability), so bye-bye efficiency advantage. I think the consensus in emissions circles is that if emissions driving cycles get more realistic, the turbo engines will be gone and everyone will have little naturally-aspirated engines with mild hybrid assist.

Also, I look at the Aston Martin Valkyrie hyper-car thingie, and Adrian Newey said the motive choice boiled down to NA V12 or turbo V6. He said they were almost identical for theoretical weight, but the NA V12 got the nod due to better drivability, simplicity, packaging, and other practical considerations.

[saviour stivala]

When a turbocharged ICE have An electric assist turbocharger facility (MGU-H) it will at least challenge a twice size NA ICE.

[Jolle]

Because a turbo itself is already an energy recovery system, it is (when both well designed) always more efficient then a NA ICE.

[FW17]

I suppose they would use Direct injection, TJI and KERS to help the fuel efficiency. VIL, VVT and VVL can also be applied to get a few more percentage fuel savings..

Granted. An F1 V10 done right would probably still finish the race ahead of the turbos with 100kg of fuel since it would still be lighter by 100kgs!

Without the turbo and recovery system, a V10 3.0 would be very inefficient. And have a lot less power on 100kg/h fuel then the current hybrids. A rough estimate, if the V6TH has 50% efficiency and a V10 around 30, with the supposed 1000HP, a V10 would have only 600HP on 100kg/h...

But what if it was a V10 car weighing 595 kgs vs a Turbo car weighing 750 kgs, both having only 110 kgs of fuel?

[63l8qrrfy6]

After asking around for a while I was told that at the start of the v6 hybrid era teams needed a heat rejection reduction of 4-5 kw to compensate for 1 kw lost at the crankshaft. In light of this it appears that what I am proposing can't work.

[machin]

Because a turbo itself is already an energy recovery system, it is (when both well designed) always more efficient then a NA ICE.

A turbo isn’t an energy recovery system in the same sense as a KERS system; the energy recovered is used to force more air into the engine, but to burn that air you still need more fuel...

One major disadvantage of the turbocharged engine is that it must run lower compression ratios; that actually hurts peak efficiency at full throttle...

...The advantage of the turbocharged engine is mainly at part-throttle operation where the lower compression ratio of the pistons results in less engine resistance, and therefore better economy (that’s why a small turbocharged engine is a good choice for a family car that is normally used at part-throttle around towns and on the motorway).

This scenario (turbocharged vs NA) was played out for real in the LMP1 category only a few years ago. The advantage of one type of engine was so small that there wasn’t a single “optimum” solution for all tracks; it depends on how much part-throttle and full throttle operation there was as to which engine was more efficient.

[saviour stivala]

Turbocharged technology can burn more efficiently.

[basti313]

I do not think anyone would build a V10 today. It is much too big.
From the point of aero one would go for something like a R4 or R6....most probably R6 due to vibrations...or even R3 and add a big turbo.
With a short R3 one has more than enough space for the turbo, the K and maybe a small H. And one could easily extract more power than the today regulated V6 and have better aero. The limitation in this case is in the end the lifetime.