SAE World Congress is nothing if it is not green . But Green seems to fit just about every technology out there, do any have an evolutionary path for our current racing paradigm, I think yes.

I would propose a technology which would be more fuel efficient, have cross-application with current passenger car technology, an provide for an extension of the current knowledge base and existing technology.

Engine Concept:

Direct Gasoline Injection Spark Ignition Turbocharged:

A 2.25 Turbo V6 using the same B/S, engine mounting, and similar technology restrictions as to days powerplant. Twin turbo-intercooled.

650 BHP 11,300 RPM for Ovals.
750 BHP 12,300 RPM for Road Course. (Same Power to Weight as current car with 900 BHP)

100 KG package with 25 pct fuel economy improvement. (Fuel Choice Dependent)

Chassis:

Similar Construction as today, approximately 10 per cent smaller in size.
Weight 705Kg with driver and driver adjustment. All cars with driver and ballast meet minimum vertical center of gravity.
Aero in 5000 AT 200 MPH class with 3/1 L/D for RC
Aero in 2000 AT 200 MPH class with 1.2/1 L/D for Superpseedways, with high drag speed limiting for high banks.
Aero on 4000 AT 200 MPH Class with 2.8/1 LD for Short Ovals

This would result in a car with better performance than a 2008 DP-01 and similar performance to a 2008 Dallara on Ovals.

Latest safety research to be included. Accommodate drivers to 6-4 210 lbs/110 lbs with limited performance adv..

Windtunnel testing to minimize leading/trailing car

Tires: Similar to today.

Fuel: Renewable fuel, preferably cellulose ethanol. This may not be practical with "Ethanol" involvement. Be wary of corn based ethanol backlash possible in future.

Summary

This approach is an extension of existing technology, lower fuel consumption, similar cost basis, and matches Ford/VW/Audi performance engines of existing/near future ( Turbo Direct SI Engine).

It would cost about the same, be a "green" technology demonstrator, and be the same speed on ovals, noticeably quicker on RC.

Thoughts?

rh
__________________
"I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense . . ."

Direct fuel injection is extremely expensive and requires massive fuel pressure - like 1000 psi+ in some cases. If the engine goes boom at such fuel pressure levels, you get a huge mess. But other than that, the idea works.

As for turbos and intercoolers, ya really don't need intercooling all that much when you run alcohol fuel, because alcohol has a natural cooling effect.

Breaker - 16 April 2008 06:40 AM

Direct fuel injection is extremely expensive and requires massive fuel pressure - like 1000 psi+ in some cases. If the engine goes boom at such fuel pressure levels, you get a huge mess. But other than that, the idea works.

As for turbos and intercoolers, ya really don't need intercooling all that much when you run alcohol fuel, because alcohol has a natural cooling effect.

Higher injection pressures can improve mixing which can give improved economy and power. In todays word, improved economy would be a plus. I think that Indy Car should go back to gas and allow ways to race on less of it. This technology is something car manufacturers can make use of.

The engine doesn't break b/c of high fuel pressures, it may fail by having TOO MUCH fuel. Pressure and amount (flow) are two different things.

Breaker - 16 April 2008 06:40 AM

Direct fuel injection is extremely expensive and requires massive fuel pressure - like 1000 psi+ in some cases. If the engine goes boom at such fuel pressure levels, you get a huge mess. But other than that, the idea works.

As for turbos and intercoolers, ya really don't need intercooling all that much when you run alcohol fuel, because alcohol has a natural cooling effect.

As far as cost, many economy cars in Europe have DGi and they are at a low price point. The Bosch system works at 300-360 PSI. You need intercooling with DI because the charge isn't cooled prior to induction. Also E100 has a much lower negative heat value at normalized Fuel Air ratios than Methanol.

I would expect considerable fuel economy gains at the same power levels.

rh

Hoop-98 - 16 April 2008 04:11 PM

. You need intercooling with DI because the charge isn't cooled prior to induction. Also E100 has a much lower negative heat value at normalized Fuel Air ratios than Methanol.


rh

What does direct injection have to do with "charge" cooling? Direct injection is the fuel delivery method. Why does it require a different cooling method? Since the percentage of air is much greater than the fuel, the intercooling is for the air coming into the cylinder.

Direct Injection delivers the fuel directly into the cylinder after the charging process is complete. In the prior IndyCar applications Injection has taken place both pre-Compression "the ring of fire", in the plenum and port injector locations have been used to take advantage of the methanol cooling effect on the incoming charge.

rh

I still think an inline 6 would be better than a V6. I think inline engines are less prone to stress related failures. Plus, no one said it has to be a production block.

And keep in mind the IndyCars don't use E100. It's E98.

Direct fuel injection isn't that radical for a race car. Audi used it in the R8. I hear that worked out pretty well for them.

Nice to see you Hoop.

mustang6172 - 01 June 2008 02:41 AM

I still think an inline 6 would be better than a V6. I think inline engines are less prone to stress related failures.

Why?
Here's some thoughts on why not:
1) more overall length; unavoidable in an inline engine
2) longer crankshaft, more stress points (at the rod throws-6 instead of 3 for a V6 with 2 rods per journal); more twisting hence more inherent harmonic vibration
3) wider (not necessarily a bad thing), but taller (always a bad thing)

Well the shorter V crankshaft would have two cylinders sharing a throw. So while the crankshaft has fewer stress points, there's more stress at each point.

What manufacturer is researching a straight six ? On the other hand, ALL of them seem to have a V6.

mustang6172 - 01 June 2008 08:55 PM

Well the shorter V crankshaft would have two cylinders sharing a throw. So while the crankshaft has fewer stress points, there's more stress at each point.

Unless two cylinders fire at once, not more, just more often.

Again: Why would an inline be better?