SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES SAE 2006-32-0053

JSAE 20066553

Evaluation of the Suitability of a Single-Cylinder

Engine for Use in FSAE
Dáire Corrigan, Geoffrey McCullough and Geoffrey Cunningham
Queen’s University Belfast

Small Engine Technology Conference and Exhibition

San Antonio, Texas
November 13-16, 2006

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright  2006 SAE International
Copyright  2006 SAE Japan
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 2006-32-0053 / 20066553

Evaluation of the Suitability of a Single-Cylinder Engine for

Use in FSAE
Dáire Corrigan, Geoffrey McCullough and Geoffrey Cunningham
Queen’s University Belfast

Copyright © 2006 SAE International and Copyright © 2006 SAE Japan

ABSTRACT fact the highest power output achieved by QFR for a

This paper discusses the suitability of a 450 cm3, single-
cylinder engine for use in the FSAE competition. The
rules of the FSAE and Formula Student competitions
permit the use of four-stroke engines of up to 610 cm3
capacity and with forced induction [1]. Most teams
design cars around normally aspirated four-cylinder 600
cm3 engines. The suitability of an alternative single-
cylinder engine is examined here through engine
simulation. The simulation model of the single-cylinder
engine is described and has been verified using
published data on the engine’s predecessor. This model
is then used to find the most suitable configuration for
use in the FSAE competition. It is shown that in a
normally aspirated format, the single-cylinder engine is
unlikely to be competitive. If supercharging is applied
however, a very attractive overall vehicle package is
found to result.
normally aspirated YZF-R6 FSAE engine is just 65kW,
and this was believed to be one of the most powerful
normally aspirated FSAE engines at the 2006 Formula
Student competition - the vehicle recorded the 2nd
fastest time in the acceleration event. The implication is
that FSAE engines based on 600 cm3 motorcycle
engines are under lower stress in this configuration than
in their original states. This suggests that such engines
are oversize and overweight for the FSAE application.
The dry mass of the 2002 Yamaha YZF-R6 engine used
by QFR, excluding inlet and exhaust systems, is 55kg.
This represents a significant portion of the overall
vehicle mass of 218kg. The engine also represents a
large space claim in the rear of the vehicle, as seen in
Figure 1.

INTRODUCTION

FSAE, and its UK counterpart Formula Student, is a

competition in which University students design, build
and compete in single seat racing cars. A number of
limitations are imposed on the design of the vehicles and
their engines. Most significantly, only four-stroke engines
are allowed and the engine capacity cannot exceed 610
cm3. All engines must also be fitted with a restrictor on
the inlet to limit power. The diameter of this restrictor is Figure 1: Yamaha YZF-R6 in QFR ‘06 FSAE Car
20mm if using conventional premium unleaded gasoline
or 19mm if the engine runs on E85 bio-ethanol [1]. A smaller, lighter engine would be preferable if it still
gave useful performance. Such an engine would make
The majority of teams [2,3,4], including Queen’s Formula for a lighter car with a lower centre of gravity and
Racing (QFR) [5], which is run by students from the decreased polar moment of inertia, yielding
Queen’s University of Belfast (QUB) School of improvements in braking, handling and acceleration. An
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, opt for 600 cm3 ideal candidate is the Yamaha YZ450F single-cylinder
sports motorcycle engines as their base. Such engines engine. This has a dry mass excluding inlet and exhaust
have high performance in their original states – the systems of only 27kg. The size difference between this
Yamaha YZF-R6 used by QFR and many other teams engine and the YZF-R6 can be clearly seen in Figure 2.
produces 98kW in its production variant [6] – and are
close to the maximum capacity allowable. However,
such a power output is not achievable in an FSAE
configuration as a result of the airflow limiting, and
hence performance limiting, effects of the restrictor. In

Figure 2: Single-Cylinder 450cc YZ450F (left) and Four-
Cylinder 600cc YZF-R6
However, the YZ450F only produces 37kW in its
production state, less than would be required if similar
accelerative ability to a four-cylinder FSAE vehicle is
needed. The work detailed in this paper was therefore
carried out to establish if a competitive power output
from such a single-cylinder engine could be achieved in
an FSAE configuration.
REQUIRED ENGINE PERFORMANCE
The reduced mass of the single-cylinder engine can lead
to a greatly reduced overall vehicle mass. The QFR ’06
car is well designed, has been very competitive and has
a wet mass of 218kg. However, the lightest car yet seen
at an FSAE event is the Delft University of Technology
(DUT) 2006 car which has a wet mass of just 127kg [1].
This extremely low mass has been achieved through
years of development of the single-cylinder vehicle
concept by the DUT team using an engine practically
identical to the YZ450F, the Yamaha WR450. For a first
year design of a single-cylinder car, an overall wet mass
of 160kg was decided upon by QFR as a reasonable
benchmark.
Perhaps the most basic indication of a vehicle’s
accelerative ability is its power-to-mass ratio, more
commonly referred to as its power-to-weight. The power-
to-weight ratio of the QFR ’06 vehicle with a 70kg driver
is 0.226kW/kg. For an identical power to weight ratio, a
160kg vehicle would require 52kW. It should be
remembered though that the vast majority of points
available in the dynamic events at FSAE competitions
are in the sprint and endurance races. These take place
on narrow, low speed, winding tracks with many sharp
corners. Handling is therefore of greater importance than
outright acceleration.
In addition to the reduced overall mass of a single-
cylinder vehicle, the centre-of-mass height is also
significantly lower than can be achieved with a larger
engine. Hence, a slightly lower power-to-weight ratio for
a single-cylinder car in comparison to four-cylinder rivals
would be acceptable - the lowered centre of gravity
height and lower overall mass made possible by the
smaller, lighter engine would improve handling and thus
negate any minor accelerative deficit. A power output of
50kW was therefore set as a target for a competitive,
single-cylinder engine.
ENGINE SIMULATION
It was decided that the most convenient and cost
effective way of evaluating new engine concepts based
on the 450 cm3 single-cylinder engine would be through
simulation. Simulations are of little value if not based on
an accurate baseline model. The Yamaha YZ450F is, in
essence, a longer stroke version of its predecessor, the
YZ426F which had a swept volume of 426 cm3. This in
turn was essentially a larger bore version of the 400 cm3
swept volume YZ400F. A large amount of high quality
data was available for the YZ426F from Optimum Power
Technology [7] and in published work [8]. Furthermore,
several simulation papers have also been published on
the YZ400F [9], [10]. Data was therefore taken from
these sources in addition to measurements on the
YZ450F engine and used to construct and validate the
model. Once confidence had been gained in the
baseline model, it could then be modified to evaluate
hypothetical scenarios.
BASELINE MODEL
The first step was to construct a baseline model of the
single-cylinder engine. The following geometrical data
were acquired. The data presented in Table 1 were
found both by consulting the Yamaha YZ450F workshop
manual [11] and measurement of the relevant parts.
Table 1: Engine Basic Geometry
Bore 95.0mm
Stroke 63.5mm
Conrod Length 103.5mm
Gudgeon Pin Offset 1.0mm
Inlet The Inlet of the YZ450F with the motorcycle
airbox removed comprises an air-filter, a bellmouth entry
to a straight, cylindrical pipe and the carburettor. These
are shown in Figure 3.
 Figure 5: Cylinder Head Moulds
Figure 3: YZ450F Inlet Ducting
A representation of the complete inlet ducting as used in
The carburettor is of sliding throttle plate type. At full the final baseline model is shown in Figure 6 and
throttle, the sliding plate retracts into a chamber described in Table 2.
meaning that the only obstruction to flow is the
carburettor needle, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 6: Model Inlet Ducting

Table 2: Section Details (see Figure 6)

Section Length Entrance Exit Restrict.

(mm) Diam. Diam. Diam.
(mm) (mm) (mm)

1 (Plastic
65.0 42.0 42.0
Ducting)

2
Figure 4: Carburettor at WOT 37.8 43.5 39.0
(Carburettor)
Various methods of modelling the carburettor have been 3
discussed by Blair et al in [8] and [9]. However, the 10.7 39.0 39.0 36.7
(Carburettor)
effect of modelling the carburettor as an orifice plate,
rather than applying more complex approximations was
4
shown to not significantly affect the power output [9]. 8.3 39.0 39.0
(Carburettor)
Given that a YZ450F FSAE engine would most likely be
fitted with fuel injection and the carburettor not used, this
orifice plate approximation was applied. 5
29.3 39.0 40.9
(Carburettor)
Cylinder Head The ducting in the cylinder head must
also be entered into the simulation, in addition to details 6 (Cylinder
106.6 40.6 39.7
of valve and port geometry. The ports were measured by Head)
taking moulds as shown in Figure 5. The coefficients of
discharge used for the cylinder head are as published
for the YZ426F in [8]. The cylinder heads for the YZ426F
and YZ450F are almost identical. Combustion The valve lift profile was also recorded for the inlet and
characteristics used in the model are as recorded by exhaust valves at every degree of crank angle for the
Optimum Power Technology for the YZ426F [7]. entire open period using a dial gauge and degree wheel.
The lift profiles are shown in Figure 7.
 Table 3: Section Details (See Figure 9)

Section Length Entrance Exit Volume

(mm) Diameter Diameter (cm3)
(mm) (mm)

1
(Cylinder 67.1 34.5 35.6
head)

2
400.0 39.8 39.8
(Exhaust)

Figure 7: Valve Lift Profile 3

195.0 48.0 48.0
(Exhaust)
Exhaust The exhaust pipework is relatively
simple on this engine as there are no branches. The 4
220.0 52.0 52.0
pipework is cylindrical with two steps up in diameter (Exhaust)
before the silencer. The dismantled exhaust system is
shown in Figure 8. The silencer is an absorption type: a 5 (Silencer
perforated pipe inside a cylinder with packing. This 456.0
Volumes)
cylinder volume and the number, cross sectional area
and positions of the holes were recorded. These data
were used to produce the exhaust system model shown 6 (Silencer
in Figure 9 and described in Table 3. The silencer is 96.0 90.0 90.0
Pipes)
modelled as five inline plenums, as advised in [9].
7
45.0 42.6 42.6
(Tailpipe)

8
38.0 32.3 32.3
(Tailpipe)

BASELINE MODEL POWERCURVE

The best reference available for validation data was that

Figure 8: Dismantled YZ450F Exhaust System
published for the YZ400F [9]. This was scaled by the
ratio of cylinder capacities between the engines, i.e.
increased by a factor of 1.125. The correlation between
the simulated YZ450F values and the scaled YZ400F
data can be seen in Figure 10.

Figure 9: Exhaust System Model

Figure 10: Baseline Powercurve Comparison

The maximum difference in the 7000rpm to 11000rpm
range is 5%, sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this
investigation.
NORMALLY ASPIRATED TUNING
The baseline model having been verified, hypothetical
scenarios could then be investigated.
The flow of gas through all engines, and single-cylinder
engines in particular, is inherently unsteady. However, to
minimize the airflow limiting effects of the restrictor,
steady flow across this device is desired. The standard
way to achieve this is through having a volume of air
acting as a reservoir downstream of the restrictor from
which the engine can draw. This is known as a plenum.
In many forms of motorsport where a restrictor is
mandated, there is also a limit on the maximum plenum
volume permitted. This is not the case in FSAE and
hence a range of plenum volumes were evaluated. It
was found that there was little benefit to be gained from
a plenum volume larger than 4 litres. Although slight
gains from increasing this volume still further were
observed, given that one of the main benefits of the
single-cylinder engine is its reduced size, it would not be
sensible to opt for a still larger plenum for packaging
reasons.
The objective of pressure wave tuning is to appropriately
select inlet and exhaust lengths to improve the suitability
of an engine’s torque curve for a given application.
Generally, a given inlet runner length will give two peaks
with a trough in between on the engine’s torque curve.
An exhaust system will generally give one peak in the
torque curve for a given length, and this length is usually
chosen such that the peak which results from it offsets
the trough resulting from the inlet tuning. This
compromise can be avoided however if a variable inlet
runner length system is fitted. With such a system, the
inlet runner length, and hence the position of the inlet
tuning peaks, can be adjusted with engine speed. The
inlet system will therefore be well tuned at a much
broader engine speed range. Given the large power
deficit of the single-cylinder engine in comparison to its
four-cylinder rivals, it was decided that a variable inlet
system would probably be required for a competitive
setup.
Inlet Tuning An empirical relationship is given in [11]
predicting the optimum inlet length for a given engine
speed. Firstly, the variation of delivery ratio with engine
speed for a small number of fixed inlet lengths must be
found with an untuned, i.e. very short, exhaust pipe.
When the delivery ratio curves are plotted with respect
to the dimensionless intake ramming factor, Cir , as
defined by Blair in [12], their peaks and troughs should
line up. The ramming factor, Cir , is calculated as follows:
N .L I
C ir = ,
a0
where N is the engine speed in RPM, Li is the
total inlet length in mm and a0 is the reference
acoustic velocity in m/s.
This approach was demonstrated in [12] for an engine
with no restrictor or plenum. However it can be seen to
be fairly successful, even when these devices are fitted,
as seen in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Variation of Delivery Ratio with Intake
Ramming Factor for a Range of Primary Inlet Lengths
The values of the intake ramming factor which result in
the maximum delivery ratio, 4300, 5400 and 6900 in this
case, can then be used to calculate optimum primary
inlet lengths as described in [12] using the following
equation:
a 0 .C rp
Lid = ,
Np
where Lid is the desired inlet length, Crp is the
value or values of Cir at which the delivery ratio
curve peaks, and Np is the engine speed at
which peak intake tuning is desired.
Given that to the authors’ knowledge this approach had
not been demonstrated on a restricted engine before,
the more tedious method of simulating a wide range of
inlet lengths and choosing the most effective at given
engine speeds was also performed. The correlation
between the two methods is shown in Figure 12 and is
sufficiently accurate for use as an initial approximation.
Further simulations could then proceed using finer
increments about these points for each engine speed.
Upper and lower limits on practical inlet runner lengths
were chosen as 380mm and 100mm respectively,
values which matched the operating limits of the QFR
R6 variable inlet system.
 exiting to the atmosphere. The reasoning behind such a
system is that the continuous wave reflection from a
diffuser results in a reduced gain in entropy in
comparison to a similar sudden change of area and this
also results in the tuning effect occurring over a wider
engine speed range. These racing bikes were not
subject to noise legislation, unlike FSAE vehicles. The
benefits of a megaphone type exhaust system were also
reported by Blair et al [10] in a paper on the YZ400F,
although again without a silencer. It was therefore
decided to examine the usefulness of a megaphone type
exhaust on the YZ450F Formula Student engine.

Figure 12: Comparison of Optimum Inlet Lengths
Predicted by Intake Ramming Factor and Simulation
The entire modified inlet system is shown in Figure 13.
Significant dimensions are given in Table 4.
Two setups were considered. One is a non-tapered
modification of the standard exhaust system already
discussed. The use of tapered pipe work was evaluated
in conjunction with an after-market silencer designed for
this engine featuring a larger entrance diameter of
57mm.

Diameters and lengths of straight and tapered sections

Figure 13: Modified Inlet System
were considered, with over 100 designs being assessed,
and the power curves for the best final engines based on
variable inlet and fixed length exhaust tuning are shown
in Figure 13. The final exhaust system design is shown
in Figure 14 and described in Table 5.

Table 4: Section Details (See Figure 13)

Section Length Entrance Exit Volume

(mm) Diameter Diameter (litres)
(mm) (mm)

1
5.0 20.0 20.0
(Restrict.)

2
416.0 20.0 60.0
(Diffuser)

3
4.0 Figure 13: Final Tuned Exhaust System Power Curves
(Plenum)

4 (Inlet
Varying 40.6 40.6
Runner)

Exhaust Tuning Once the variable inlet system had been

specified, various designs for the exhaust system were Figure 14: Details of Megaphone Exhaust Geometry
evaluated. Given that the inlet system had been
designed to perform well across the entire engine speed
range, the exhaust system could be designed to produce
maximum power at peak engine speed, 11500rpm.

A common method of exhaust tuning on older racing

bikes, particularly single cylinders, was to use a tapered
or “megaphone” exhaust. Traditionally these have
featured a straight section of pipe from the engine,
followed by a diffuser and finishing with a short nozzle
 Table 5: Section Details (See Figure 14) cylinder - particularly during the valve overlap period.
This greatly improves performance as it allows a greater
Section Length Entrance Exit quantity of fresh charge to enter the cylinder than would
(mm) Diameter Diameter otherwise be possible. The leftward pressure wave for
(mm) (mm) the baseline model at the same engine speed can be
seen in Figure 16. Here the minimum pressure occurs
1 (Cylinder after the exhaust valve has already closed i.e. the tuning
67.1 34.5 35.6 wave arrives at the exhaust valves too late. In fact,
Head)
Figure 17 shows that the baseline exhaust system is
2 ideally tuned for around 9000rpm.
150.0 40.0 40.0
(Exhaust)

3
600.0 40.0 70.0
(Exhaust)

4
50.0 70.0 57.0
(Exhaust)

5
74.0 50.0 50.0
(Tailpipe)

The overall performance of both exhaust systems is

quite similar. However, the tapered system produces
higher power in the upper engine speed range. Both Figure 15: Leftward Moving Pressure Waves at Exhaust
systems were tuned with maximum power as the goal; Valves, Megaphone Exhaust 11500rpm
however, the production motorcycle system has two
major steps up in diameter, whereas the tapered design
has only one. This results in the modified Yamaha
system being inherently less highly tuned, which is what
is shown in Figure 13. It is debatable which system
would be of more use in competition, but finding the
most drivable setup was not the goal of this tuning. The
ultimate setup would likely be to fit the tapered exhaust
system, which is described in Figure 14 and Table 5,
and use water injection in the exhaust pipework to lower
the waves’ propagation velocities in the lower speed
range. This would delay the arrival of the expansion
tuning waves at the exhaust port and mean that the full
benefits of the more highly tuned exhaust system could
be gained over the entire usable engine speed range. Figure 16: Leftward Moving Pressure Waves at Exhaust
This would be of particular benefit to the 75m Valves, Baseline Model 11500rpm
acceleration event as the mass of water required would
be minimal. That the megaphone exhaust system is
ideally tuned at 11500rpm can be seen from
examination of the leftward (towards the engine) moving
pressure waves predicted at this point by the simulation,
as shown in Figure 15. Figure 16 shows the same
pressure data for the baseline model at 11500rpm. In
Figures 15, 16 and 17, “IC” and “IO” are the effective
closing and opening positions of the inlet valves
respectively, and “EO” and “EC” are the respective
opening and closing positions of the exhaust valves. The
valve overlap period is between “IO” and “EC”

It can be seen in Figure 15 that there is a strong steadily

increasing leftward moving rarefaction wave over almost
Figure 17: Leftward Moving Pressure Waves at Exhaust
all of the exhaust valve open period. This acts to reduce
Valves, Baseline Model 9000rpm
pumping work by decreasing the pressure acting on the
piston and improve scavenging of spent gases from the
NORMALLY ASPIRATED TUNING
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the best power output achieved as a result of
the tuning detailed above, it can be seen that a normally
aspirated, restricted YZ450F engine is unlikely to be
sufficiently competitive, even when pursuing the
aggressive strategy of aiming for maximum power output
at one engine speed only, for use in FSAE. There are
two potential reasons why the performance of the engine
is limited; the restrictor effects and the base engine
maximum performance.
Restrictor Effects The overall steadiness of gas
flow through an engine increases as the number of its
cylinders increases. A single-cylinder engine will thus
always tend to draw air from the atmosphere less
steadily than a four-cylinder engine. The pressure losses
across a restrictor increase exponentially with mass flow
rate. To minimize these losses, the flow through the
restrictor should be as steady as possible. The silencer
on the exhaust side of an engine system is designed to
perform a similar flow steadying function – unsteady gas
flow from the tailpipe is the primary source of engine
noise. It does so by reducing the amplitude of the
pressure waves traversing it. However, diminishing the
pressure wave amplitude must also decrease the tuning
effect of these same waves. On an inlet system, a
similar approach would be to have re-entrant pipes in
the plenum, but this again introduces pressure wave
losses. In most forms of motorsport where restrictors are
mandated, regulations limit the volume of inlet plenums.
This is because they act as a reservoir to draw air from
downstream of the restrictor. It was initially felt that a
large volume plenum would be sufficient to induce
steady flow through the restrictor but in actual fact, there
was little benefit found in increasing the volume beyond
four litres. Even if the volume is increased to eight litres,
the flow through the restrictor is still fairly unsteady in
comparison to the QFR YZF-R6, as shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Mach Number Through Restrictor, YZ450F 8-
Litre Plenum and QFR R6, Maximum Power Case
A large amplitude fluctuation in Mach number can be
seen for the YZ450F. The frequency of this fluctuation
corresponds to the firing frequency of the engine. In
comparison, the Mach number through the same
restrictor fitted to the four-cylinder YZF-R6 is almost
constant. It would be unreasonable to evaluate further
increases in plenum volume as there is little point in
trying to offset power deficiencies of the YZ450F using a
very large plenum, when the primary inherent benefits of
the engine are its reduced size and mass. However, it
can be seen that the average flow rates through the
restrictor are quite low and, although it is undesirable,
the restrictor cannot be considered the primary limitation
on performance in this case.
Base Engine Performance The base YZ450F
engine produces 37kW. It does so at around 8,000rpm,
but its operating range extends to 11,500rpm. It was
initially thought that if peak power were developed at this
peak operating speed, the power output would be
sufficient to make for a competitive engine. Some basic
tuning on the unrestricted YZ450F model did not yield
the benefits expected – even after removing the silencer,
power output did not exceed 41kW. It was found that the
flow across the exhaust valve system was approaching
significant Mach numbers, as shown in Figure 19,
implying pressure losses due to friction and transonic
choking effects would be a significant performance
limiting factor. This may indicate that the cylinder head
would benefit from port modifications or polishing.
Figure 19: Mach Number Across Exhaust Valve System,
Tuned Restricted YZ450F, Maximum Power Case
An analysis of the effects of increasing the valve lift and
duration was performed. An animated solid model was
constructed (see Figure 20) in Cosmos, part of the
SolidWorks CAD suite, to check for potential
valve/piston interference problems. The effects of
increasing the valve lift duration and maximum valve lift
did not significantly improve the situation, indicating that
the cylinder head ducting was the limiting factor rather
than the valve lift profile. The effects of increasing the
port diameters were also evaluated, as was increasing
swept volume. This did improve the situation somewhat;
however forced induction had already shown itself to be
the more promising route at this stage.

Figure 20: Animated Solid Model for Valve Lift Envelope
Analysis
SUPERCHARGED YZ450F ENGINE CONCEPT
A supercharger specification for the YZ450F was
prepared by QFR in an effort to reach a competitive
power output. The design was based on that of the
supercharger fitted to the Mini Cooper S road car.
Performance maps for this device were obtained from
the manufacturer and suitably modified to produce input
data for the simulation model for a reduced swept
capacity version. A supercharger is a positive
displacement device whose air flow rate depends on
both its swept capacity and operating speed. A
supercharger capacity of 400 cm3 was decided upon
and the effect of running this supercharger at various
ratios of engine speed evaluated. The supercharger was
fitted in the model between the restrictor and the
plenum. A fixed inlet length of 100mm was used with the
standard exhaust system. The compression ratio was
lowered from 12.5 to 8.0. The power outputs of various
specifications can be seen in Figure 21. The power
output shown is the engine power with supercharger
power deducted.
Figure 21: 400 cm3 Supercharged YZ450F Power
Output, Various Supercharger Gear Ratios
It can be seen that the supercharger gives a very
significant increase in engine power output.
Unfortunately, most of the power curves shown would
not be practical since they result in excessive BMEP
values, leading to the likelihood of detonation in the
combustion chamber. To reduce the risk of this
occurring, a BMEP limit of 15 bar was decided upon
[13]. Superchargers are fitted with pressure actuated
bypass ducts which act to recirculate air to avoid inlet
pressures becoming excessive, particularly at part
throttle operation. The device is analogous to the waste-
gate on a turbocharger, where electronic actuation is
becoming routine. If a supercharger were specified to
produce 15 bar BMEP at 10,000rpm, excess pressure
could be relieved by recirculation at lower speeds even
at wide open throttle, to avoid detonation. The power
curve could also be conveniently adjusted using such a
device to produce a very drivable setup. A power curve
is shown in Figure 22 with the supercharger running at
engine speed and the BMEP limited to 15 bar where the
simulation predicts a higher value. The results are very
impressive with a significant improvement seen over the
normally aspirated YZ450F engines already discussed
and a peak power of 52kW. Higher airflow can be
achieved using a larger supercharger or gearing it to run
more quickly as seen in Figure 21; the 15 bar BMEP
limit is believed to be conservative [13].
Figure 22: Supercharged YZ450F 15 bar BMEP Limit
Predicted Performance
As stated, the greatest risk when supercharging is
detonation. The chance of it occurring can be reduced
by improving coolant flow to the area around the
combustion chamber or compensation through retarded
ignition and/or increased fuelling. However, more
significant improvements can be made by switching fuel.
The FSAE regulations [1] permit the use of E85 bio-
ethanol fuel with a 1mm reduction in inlet restriction size.
This fuel has a Research Octane Number (RON) of 110
in comparison to 98 for premium unleaded. The switch
to bio-ethanol could be made if detonation were
significantly limiting performance. The effects of the
smaller restrictor would not be a major problem since, as
can be seen in Figure 21, significantly higher airflow
rates can be achieved through the 20mm restrictor than
for the setup whose power is given in Figure 22. This
suggests that a small reduction in restrictor diameter
would not be a major issue and that the performance is
detonation rather than airflow limited.
VEHICLE PERFORMANCE
A target figure of 50kW was previously stated based
primarily on power-to-weight ratio considerations.
Although this target could not be met in a normally
aspirated format, it was exceeded through the use of
supercharging. The calculated mass increase due to the
entire supercharging system is less than 5kg. The
predicted power-to-weight ratio of the supercharged
single-cylinder car is compared to the existing QFR four-
cylinder vehicle in Table 6. The masses quoted include a
driver weighing 70kg.
Table 6: Vehicle Power-to-Weight Ratios
Engine Power, Vehicle Power/
kW Mass, kg Weight,
kW/kg
QFR ‘06 65 288 0.226
QFR YZ450F
52 235 0.221
Supercharged
It can be seen that the supercharged single-cylinder
engined vehicle has a power-to-weight ratio very similar
to the current QFR vehicle. In fact the deficiency is only
2%. However, this calculation only takes into account
the peak power figure and one of the advantages of the
supercharged single-cylinder engine is its high torque at
lower engine speeds.
To more fully evaluate the accelerative ability of vehicle
concepts, QFR have developed a comprehensive
spreadsheet to predict the time required to complete the
75m acceleration run at the FSAE event. This takes into
account gear ratios, tyre friction, gear change time,
rotating inertias etc., in addition to the engine power
curve and overall vehicle mass. When details of the
current QFR vehicle and the supercharged single-
cylinder concept were entered into this system, the
predicted times are as shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Predicted Acceleration Times for QFR ‘06 and
Supercharged Single-Cylinder Vehicle
Engine Predicted 75m Acceleration Time
QFR ‘06 3.97s
QFR YZ450F
3.97s
Supercharged
Table 7 shows that the supercharged single-cylinder
vehicle actually matches the acceleration of the larger
engined car.
However, acceleration does not tell the whole story.
Braking performance of a smaller engined car would be
improved due to the lower mass. The decreased
retarding force required would also mean that smaller
brake disks and uprights could be used with no brake
performance penalty. This would decrease the unsprung
mass, further improving handling over gains already
resulting from reduced overall mass and centre-of-
gravity height alone. These improvements cannot readily
be quantified without a complete vehicle redesign
around the smaller engine. However, what can be said is
that if acceleration is equal to the larger engined
vehicles, the single-cylinder concept is a superior one
due to the inherent advantages in handling and braking
from a smaller, lighter car.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Following an extensive simulation project on the YZ450F
450cc single-cylinder engine for use in FSAE, the
following conclusions were reached.
- The power output of a YZ450F engine when in
its production state is 37kW. A good degree of
correlation was observed between the power output
predicted by the simulation and an appropriately scaled
power curve from a similar engine.
- 39kW can be achieved in restricted format if a
variable inlet runner length system and a tapered
exhaust system are fitted.
- On the basis of the above, a naturally aspirated
single-cylinder engine cannot be recommended for use
in FSAE.
- Adequate power should be possible through
supercharging, particularly if used in conjunction with
bio-ethanol fuel.
- A supercharged single-cylinder engined vehicle
appears to be a superior concept to that of a four-
cylinder engined vehicle used by the majority of teams in
the FSAE competition.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS [10] G.P. Blair, D.O. Mackey, M.C. Ashe and G.F.
Chatfield , “Exhaust Tuning on a Four Stroke Engine;
The authors wish to thank Ray McCullough, Neil Experimentation and Simulation”, SAE Paper No. 2001-
McDowell and John Gaynor for help with testing, Robert 01-1797
Fleck for supplying the engine, David Thornhill and Peter
Hagan for the supercharger specification and James [11] 2004 Yamaha YZ450F Workshop Manual,
Taylor and Russell McKee for assistance provided Internet, www.yamaha.com
throughout. The title author is also indebted to the QFR
team as a whole for support in carrying on this work [12] G.P. Blair, “Design and Simulation of Four-
during the QFR ’06 build period, especially Bronagh Stroke Engines”, Society of Automotive Engineers, ISBN
Kelly, Chris Gault, Karen Higgins and Alan Bryson. 0-7680-0440-3, pp621-694

REFERENCES [13] W. Attard and H.C. Watson, “Development of a

430cc Constant Power Engine for FSAE Competition”,
[1] IMechE, “Formula Student”, Internet, SAE Paper No. 2006-01-0745
www.formulastudent.com
CONTACT
[2] B.A. Jawad and R.S. Smith, “Improvements to
Maximize Power in a Restricted 2002 Formula SAE Dáire Corrigan
Base Engine”, SAE Paper No. 2002-01-3295
Address: Ashby Building, Stranmillis Road, Belfast, BT7
[3] B. Inkster, “Variable Intake Gains”, Race Engine 5AH, Northern Ireland
Technology, Issue 10 October 2005, pp60-66
Email: dcorrigan02@qub.ac.uk
[4] Mario Farrugia, Mike Rossey and Brian P.
Sangeorzan, “On the Use of a Honda 600cc 4-Cylinder Website: www.queens-racing.com
Engine for Formula SAE Competition” SAE 2005-01-
0025 NOMENCLATURE

[5] Queen’s Formula Racing, Internet, RPM Engine speed in rotations per minute
www.queens-racing.com TDC Top Dead Centre
ATDC After Top Dead Centre, °
[6] Yamaha Motor UK, “Yamaha Motorcycles QFR Queen’s Formula Racing
Homepage”, Internet, www.yamaha- QUB Queen’s University Belfast
motor.co.uk/products/motorcycles/index.jsp DUT Delft University of Technology
BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure, bar
[7] OPTIMUM Power Technology, “VIRTUAL 4- NA Normally Aspirated
STROKE, PROFESSIONAL EDITION”, Internet, CA Crank Angle
www.optimum-power.com N Engine speed, RPM
L Length, mm
[8] G.P. Blair, E. Callender and D.O. Mackey, a0 Reference acoustic velocity, m/s
“Maps of Discharge Coefficients for Valves, Ports and
Throttles” SAE Paper No. 2001-01-1798/4219

[9] G.P. Blair, D.O. Mackey, M.C. Ashe and G.F.

Chatfield, “On Improving the Accuracy of the Simulation
of Reciprocating Engines”, IMechE Paper No.
C587/001/2000