View Single Post
Old 27 Feb 2014, 19:27 (Ref:3372883)   #191
carbon_titanium
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,240
carbon_titanium should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridcarbon_titanium should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcl123 View Post
A 3L compared with the 3.4L can have almost identical numbers for torque... if optimized... and perhaps a little better power(hp) if rev >10K compared with >9K now...

Torque could be easily *more than* compensated by hybrid as you said, since now the "amount of time of each event can be more than double (3.6 vs 8 ) ( or less than double time but more powerful).

A little more power could help in the long straights where Toyota with all the haves and shorts is still worst than Audi.

Banzai Duval passing a Toyota ( seems a Toyota) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HngXyVu4Qtw hybrid power doesn't kick in for Toyota in entering Mulsanne straight, gives Audi a good leverage.

The rational for this is simple... less displacement means less fuel for each firing ... could be more efficient at each firing, and so as powerful in each firing no matter the little less fuel ( at least cooling losses are less since the cylinders (could) have less diameter)... it only wastes more fuel because for almost half of the time it will be doing a little more revs (rpm) especially heavy acceleration and steady top speeds where the engine could go >10K rpm compared to >9K rpm...

Even so, the difference in rpm is small, and half of the time or more it will be doing less fuel at the same rpm ( hybrid could help in torque here promoting some lean combustion).

With hybrid helping some lean or less rich (as is the case) combustion it could be possible this configuration will do 25% less fuel ... being the advantage more power at med high regimes due to rpm where it could help the most (*SPECULATIONS* since we don't have real numbers of any engine.. but not far fetched i think). I think with "bigger" displacement but less revs would be tougher to balance this med/high power deficit ( tough potentially could be more efficient than otherwise).

Toyota could also be faster in 2014 than in 2013... lest see how it plays out... if Toyota is forced to cut on the fuel flow to avoid penalties, and so unable to be as powerful or more powerful than 2013 to compete... *sound* wont help them a bit lol.
The car in the video was a "hybridless" lola rebellion, the slowest lmp1 on mulsanne, but it doesn't matter, audi was able to pass so easily also a TS030, simply because the TS030 was less powerfull. I like your comments, are all very well explained, and even if I can agree or not, is clear that you know how an engine works, much better than me for sure. But at the end, I think that your line of thinking is that toyota ca also use a smaller and hgher rev engine, IF they find a way to reduce consumes. Problem is, when TS030 was full power (from interlagos to bahrain) the good fuel efficency shown at spa and le mans simply disappeared, forcing drivers to make an extra splash and go. This happened in 2012 and 2013 too. Maybe in theory or in next future will be possible to obtain a more efficent engine, lowering the displacement and rising the revving, but for now I think that the choise is between a large NA or a small turbo.
Watch F1, 2014 aim is to reduce consumes (<140L against 240L) how this will be achieved?
1. Turbo engines with a lower rev and higher torque (15000 against 18000)
2. fuel flows
3. lower drag design of front section.
carbon_titanium is offline  
Quote