2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Abarth]

I have been very curious about the total torques available from the new PUs. The unofficial response I've got from Mercedes was "lot more than 450 Nm at low revs, but close to your ballpark guestimate of 500 Nm at high RPMs."

Today I see numbers cited: 610Nm @ 5,000rpm and around 530Nm @ 10,500rpm (ICE + MGU-K).

Therefore 427 hp @5000/min and 792 hp @ 10'500, a number rather high as it would mean ICE alone 630 hp.

[xpensive]

What is far more interesting is the propulsion force, depending on speed.

[321apex]

What is far more interesting is the propulsion force, depending on speed.

Which is called -> POWER.

[ringo]

There's a maximum torque that the MGUK is limited to. This can be added to the ICE torque.
That again adds to an PU advantage if electrical energy is available most of the time.

Mercedes main advantage is probably an over-sized turbine. The split turbo compressor is not the main reason.
The car is running a few degrees cooler as well because of the log manifold and hence better sidepod temperatures, however that's not really related to drivability and power delivery.

We are yet to see their turbine, but i can guess it's the hugest one on the grid. It definitely sounds so.

[Holm86]

Have we ever seen the Mercedes exhaust turbine properly?? I wonder if they've created an axial flow turbine instead of centrifugal. Would exhaust pulses be less important in an axial flow turbine??

[mrluke]

The teams have consistently said they have more power than last year. It appears some people wont accept this until they witness a dyno test

[Abarth]

Of course they have more usable power, because they have almost max power over a band of around 2'000 / min.
After upshift, last year they had a three digit hp number less at the wheels than before upshift.
Now they almost have constant power.

Which doesn't mean the peak is any higher than last year, and Blanchimont, Pumaengines analysis in that other thread points to this as well, as do Kiril's torque numbers (last year the engines had 780 hp, now according these numbers 790, about the same I would say).

[FW17]

With Merc enjoying a lead in turbo technology, it will involve a reconsideration from the other 2 German majors. Surely they cannot allow for such display of technical superiority, and BMW marketing team is already planting ideas in the media just to grab a little bit of the spotlight.

BMW ready to come back in Formula 1
http://www.minardi.it/international/new ... formula-1/

With DTM turbo engine development already ongoing, this could be expanded to F1

[techF1LES]

I have been very curious about the total torques available from the new PUs. The unofficial response I've got from Mercedes was "lot more than 450 Nm at low revs, but close to your ballpark guestimate of 500 Nm at high RPMs."

Today I see numbers cited: 610Nm @ 5,000rpm and around 530Nm @ 10,500rpm (ICE + MGU-K).

Thanks Kiril, however I feel the need for putting these numbers into context. Numbers come from the latest issue of Racecar Engineering mag, which cites Tom Kempynck's MSc thesis from Cranfield University...

Thesis:
"The design and simulation of a F1 engine as defined by 2014 regulations"
Professor Adrian Reynard award for best individual thesis project
Supervised by Mr. Stuart Grove (Chief Engine Designer F1 1994-2005 Ilmor Engineering)

They designed and simulated an engine model that conforms with the 2014 F1 regulations and correlates with the Renault power values by using the software AVL Boost.


As I said, part of this work was published in RCE Vol24 No5, p54-59; and I highly recommend you guys to check it out!

However, for the sake of this discussion, below are some figures from the article.


Figure 8 shows the obtained performance values of the engine without the recovered energy of the MGU-H, but it incorporates the assistance of the MGU-H to reach the fuel mass flow rate limit. The maximum power is 454.82kW @10,500rpm, while the maximum torque is 415.48Nm @7000rpm. It can be seen that the torque remains nearly constant from 5000 until 10,500rpm due to the MGU-H assistance.


The MGU-H power curve is illustrated in Figure 9. Before 9200rpm the MGU-H is acting as a motor while hereafter it is operating as a generator and recovering energy.


Figure 10 displays the obtained performance with the addition of the MGU-K. The maximum power is 574.82kW @10,500rpm and maximum torque is 611.83Nm @5000rpm. It should be noted that the torque of the MGU-K @5000rpm had to be limited from 229.35 to 200Nm, because this is the maximum allowed torque according to the regulations. The power curve with MGU-K is a parallel line above the curve without MGU-K because it adds a fixed amount of 120kW.


Figure 5 shows the calculated operating points on the compressor map of the GTX3076R. It can be seen that the compressor is operating close to the surge line at low engine speed. This surge line is the dashed line closest to the left of the compressor map. When the compressor is operating at this line, flow reversals will start to occur and the flow will become unstable. A solution for this is to use a smaller compressor or to use an inlet guide vane system to move the surge line. Finally, the GTX3076R turbocharger has been chosen because the smaller compressor was not going into surge at low engine speed while the smaller turbine made it possible to recover more energy.


When looking at the turbine map (Figure 6), it can be seen that it is less accurate compared to the compressor map as only the pressure ratio, turbine flow and maximum efficiency are given. So, for example, if you take a random point on the turbine curve, you do not know at which efficiency the turbine is operating at nor the rotation speed. Therefore, in order to perform a correct comparison between turbochargers, more accurate turbine maps are required.

[ppj13]

Ringo figures sound correct to me. 200hp or 147Kw between 10k and 12k. Which turbine efficiency do you assume, Ringo?

The compressor of the study of that guy seems also very reasonable, averaging 102kW at the max airflow with max pressure ratios from 2 to 2.4 (which is 10000 to 12000rpm roughly).

If both are correct, one could recover 45kW between 10k and 12k, but model shows 12kw??

I would have expected something around 60Kw. But maybe there is a basic turbine limit I am overlooking?

[321apex]

Very insightful information.
How does it compare to the Cosworth sourced estimates that made rounds around here for several months?

[wuzak]

Very insightful information.
How does it compare to the Cosworth sourced estimates that made rounds around here for several months?

ICE Power - 610hp, vs 590-600 for the Cosworth Model.
MGUH Recovery - 20hp vs ~110hp
Thus, Self sustaining Mode - 630hp vs ~710hp
Power with MGU-K - 770hp vs 750hp

Also note that the Cosworth curves showed peak power for the ICE at ~11,000rpm, ~12,000rpm running in self-sustaining mode (with power from the MGU-H used directly), adn with the full MGU-K power following the ICE curve, but 160hp higher.

[321apex]

Very insightful information.
How does it compare to the Cosworth sourced estimates that made rounds around here for several months?

ICE Power - 610hp, vs 590-600 for the Cosworth Model.
MGUH Recovery - 20hp vs ~110hp
Thus, Self sustaining Mode - 630hp vs ~710hp
Power with MGU-K - 770hp vs 750hp

Also note that the Cosworth curves showed peak power for the ICE at ~11,000rpm, ~12,000rpm running in self-sustaining mode (with power from the MGU-H used directly), adn with the full MGU-K power following the ICE curve, but 160hp higher.

Thanks for that.
- the MGU-H provides a maximum of 26 kW (35hp) at 15k where no one revs to
- while just maximum of 16kW (22hp) at 12k where most teams treat as rev limit
- the combined power at 15k is 440kW (590hp) vs 680hp as predicted by Cosworth, a huge 90HP erroneous overestimation of 13.5% - quite a difference.

This confirmed my own expectations (which were the subject of my numerous discussions at this thread) of a far smaller MGU-H benefit and significant power drop off at 15k. I called Cosworth estimates a "cartoon" for being useful as guide but significantly off where it counts the most, which is at 15000 RPM that many here were convinced was fully achievable.

As my mea culpa, I was off in my predictions of net ICE power contribution, which at 610hp turns out to be impressively higher than my own expectations.

[Tommy Cookers]

which is the 'cartoon' ?
about a year ago there appeared here an earlier MSc thesis of similar provenance and subject (then the intended F1 4 cyl)
it was equally unimpressive (eg in predicted exhaust recovery)
the late Prof Gordon Blair was highly and specifically critical of such 'modelling' software
do people think this thesis represents what even Renault are doing ? (let alone Mercedes)

anyway there must be a big difference between transient and steady-state conditions (for mgu-h motoring and generating)

the Wright TC official documentation showed at takeoff power 18% added power from the compounding

[321apex]

which is the 'cartoon' ?

http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/