Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Racing Talk > Racing Technology

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 22 Apr 2001, 23:38 (Ref:83828)   #1
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 10
e_peña should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid

so then the fuel is not directly injected in the cilinder?

i tought they where fuel injected? so the trumpets act as a carburetor but why, wouldnt it be easier and better if the fuel would be injected direclty? then what´s the aim of having inlet trumpets?

thanx again.
e_peña is offline  
Old 27 Apr 2001, 06:29 (Ref:85644)   #2
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,083
RWC should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Hi ,hope i'm not too late to help.They don't inject into the combustion chamber mainly because the fuel& air takes time to mix-not good for an f1 engine .this is why diesel engines don't rev very high.I think i also read somewhere that direct inj. is banned in f1 for cost reasons.The inlet trumpets are shaped to accelerate the air into the engine with minimum loss& also work with the stop start harmonics of the incoming air to 'jam more in'-a simplistic way of putting it.(longer/narrower suits low revs,shorter/wider suits higher revs).A similar effect occurs in the exaust system.hope this is not too basic
RWC is offline  
Old 27 Apr 2001, 09:22 (Ref:85693)   #3
Join Date: Apr 2001
Hove, UK
Posts: 40
con-rod should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
direct injection is a seperate technology, as i understand it. it tries to make gasoline engines behave more like diesel engines. allows potential for very weak mixtures to be used at low engine speed/load for serious fuel savings. mitsubishi have such an engine in production and most manufacturers are following fast as it could replace the conventional method as we know it

con-rod is offline  
Old 27 Apr 2001, 15:15 (Ref:85809)   #4
Join Date: Nov 2000
Western Australia
Posts: 42
PBR should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Direct injection outboard motors (2 stroke) have been in production for two or three years now. They inject fuel and air under pressure into the cylinder just before combustion.

The manufacturers claim 40-45% better fuel economy.
PBR is offline  
Old 27 Apr 2001, 19:12 (Ref:85938)   #5
Chris Gamlin
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 27
Chris Gamlin should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Sorry e_peña, I missed this post before.
What RWC says is correct, you get much better combustion if the fuel is allowed to vapourise and mix with the air before it it ignited - petrol vapour burns much better than petrol as a liquid. Direct injection is being developed in road petrol engines (as James mentions, the Mitsubishi GDi engine is one) but i think it's main advantages are in emmissions and economy rather than increased performance.

The top of the inlet "trumpets" themselves (the curvy bits) are just there mainly to provide a smooth "laminar" flow of air into the throttle body (the "carburettor" bit of a fuel injected engine), which then feeds into the inlet manifold. Inlet manifold length and shape can be designed to tune the engine for high torque or high power, depending on what is required most. The inlet manifold design determines how well the air/fuel mixes at certain RPMs, and how fast it travels into the combustion chamber, hence affecting performance. A long inlet manifold with a rough internal wall texture will generally give high torque at low RPM, as this configuration allows the fuel/air to mix very well, which is good for torque. However, this can limit high RPM power as the mixture cannot flow quickly enough along the manifold to satisfy the needs of the engine at higher speeds. A shorter, polished manifold will not mix the fuel/air as well at low RPM, but will allow more fuel/air into the combustion chamber, as there is less resistance on the fuel/air travelling down the manifold and it has less distance to travel. This helps produce more power, especially at high RPM, as more fuel/air gets to the cylinders. Also, at high RPM, when the air is flowing into the inlet manifold that much faster, the fuel vapourises easier than at low RPM, so you don't have to worry so much about long manifolds and rough walls to make the fuel/air mix properly. Obviously in a road car the manifold has to be a compromise, but in a high revving racing F1 engine, you are willingly sacrifice low end torque for high end BHP.


Last edited by Chris Gamlin; 27 Apr 2001 at 19:19.
Chris Gamlin is offline  
Old 28 Apr 2001, 02:16 (Ref:86106)   #6
Join Date: Apr 2001
Zagreb, HR
Posts: 67
Wolf should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Not exactly OT, but Mercedes W196 had direct fuel injection in '54/'55. And it revved at 8,500rpm (11,00 was planned for further developments). And its desmodromic valve-gear was a beauty too. Pity they left GP scene so soon- with their full-scale wind tunnel testing, R&D- many interesting things may've happened...
Wolf is offline  

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bristow, Chris TimD The Driver Files 4 13 Jan 2007 21:50
Well said, Chris Hobson Woolley Marshals Forum 88 13 Jan 2006 14:08
Chris Prey Oaksnaf ChampCar World Series 5 29 Aug 2005 04:09

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:53.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.