2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Where does he get his numbers? Not saying they are unreliable, but can't necessarily put faith in speculation.

Scarbs IMO is the top technical F1 journalist in the business. He is 100% focussed on tech issues and obviously has excellent contacts to all technical directors of the teams or at least to the vast majority. When he put out his twitter message it was on the day of the final session of the EWG. There is a comments dialogue on his blog page where he talks about some details of the 2013 regulation that other sources do not have.

I agree that nothing is final until the official regulations set it in stone but in the absence of official figures I would use Scarbs figures as the next best thing.

[strad]

What is to stop the teams designing an engine that will create maximum power (limited due to fuel flow limits) over say a 4000rpm rev range?

That way, as you shift you still have access to the same power level.

My car does a similar thing making ~220kw from 3500rpm all the way to 6000rpm.

Just an idea

Yep, I'm thinking the same thing. However I expect rule tweaks to disallow constant power because it would reduce or eliminate shifting and the traditional shifting noise.

What kind of car do you have? That's a constant ~300 hp over half the rev range! Must be a kick to drive. I'm assuming diesel?

=D>

[bill shoe]

What is to stop the teams designing an engine that will create maximum power (limited due to fuel flow limits) over say a 4000rpm rev range?

Why should they ban such designs?

From my pessimistic rant toward the bottom of page 13--

If fuel flow limits power then the engine becomes approximately a constant power device across its RPM range. In this manner you could use a single gear ratio for most tracks and still achieve perfectly optimized acceleration at any speed.

By functional standards of engineering and cost efficiency this is an ideal solution. Unfortunately, I think the world has come to identify gear changes as being intrinsic to high performance cars. Therefore I assume there will be some as-yet-unannounced rule that will prevent the engines from being constant power devices in order to continue the sound of shifting. The most obvious such rule would limit fuel flow as a linear function of rpm. This means all engines would be regulated to a similar peak power at 12000 rpm and a similar flat torque curve below that.

[ringo]

That single gear would have to be the gear top speed is reach, like a 7th gear.

It can still lose out to constant power engines with more than 1 gear, since those gears will have a torque advantage.

But i see what you mean with going with lesser gears. A 4 speed box could be much lighter, smaller and stronger than a 7. With a constant power engine.

[xpensive]

...
I agree that nothing is final until the official regulations set it in stone but in the absence of official figures I would use Scarbs figures as the next best thing.

The problem here is just what it always is, some people simply needs to be right at all times and in every context.

A few months ago, someone said fuelflow-limit was pointless and would never be implemented, if I only could recall who?

[segedunum]

Your figure does not match with the officially advertised 35% reduction in fuel use.

How the hell do you figure that this is going to be measured? This is a percentage afterall. Simply plucking a 35% reduction in fuel consumption (from what isn't clear) is a piece of pure PR no matter how 'official' it might look.

[WhiteBlue]

Your figure does not match with the officially advertised 35% reduction in fuel use.

How the hell do you figure that this is going to be measured? This is a percentage afterall. Simply plucking a 35% reduction in fuel consumption (from what isn't clear) is a piece of pure PR no matter how 'official' it might look.

I think it is generally agreed on this board in all the engineering threads that current cars use 150 kg of fuel per race. It follows that 65% of this is 97.5 kg. I do not believe that the 35% reduction is a PR figure. The official protocol says that the engines will have fuel management systems. That means they will be fuel flow regulated as reported by several sources (BBC and Scarbs). In fact the sources tell us both methods will be used. Fuel flow restrictions and fuel tank size restrictions will be employed. This is a fundamental departure from the power restriction that were typical for previous formulae.

I agree that nothing is final until the official regulations set it in stone but in the absence of official figures I would use Scarbs figures as the next best thing.

A few months ago, someone said fuelflow-limit was pointless and would never be implemented, if I only could recall who?

I recall a slightly different discussion. I was pointing to the difference in max fuel flow and average fuel flow and that this ambiguity could be subject to manipulation. A total fuel budget can't be manipulated and it is a higher incentive to save fuel. I still stand by that statement. As it turns out now the regulators have set an ambitious 2013 target and will use both maximum fuel flow and tank size to curb engine power in the new formula.

Let us stop the sniping. I can dig out some of your predictions which have gone totally wrong. After all we are trying to figure out what is probably going to happen.

That single gear would have to be the gear top speed is reach, like a 7th gear. It can still lose out to constant power engines with more than 1 gear, since those gears will have a torque advantage. But i see what you mean with going with lesser gears. A 4 speed box could be much lighter, smaller and stronger than a 7. With a constant power engine.

That makes sense!

[piast9]

From my pessimistic rant toward the bottom of page 13

OK, so again it's something wrong because of the different sound of the cars. I don't think that's really that important.

Firstly - in my opinion it is more important that the cars would easily have the gear ratios chosen in the way in which they won't hit the limiter while slipstreaming and preventing them from overtaking than the cool sound of rapid gears changes.

Secondly - already the sound of the 18krpm V8's is very different than we had with the unlimited V10's era and nobody complained about this and just got used to it. It will be the same with the less gears in the box if that happens.

Thirdly - I really doubt that it would be ideally constant power over such range of revs because of so much parameters that are rev-dependent such as for example the friction, breathing efficiency and others. So there always will be some optimal rev range even if the power curve is very flat compared to today's engines.

[ringo]

100 kg/h is just a tad too even a number to be much more than a ball-park figure me thinks, morever, controlling massflow is far more complicated than doing the same on volumetric flow, why I still belive in my originally predicted 45 cc/s.

With 30 to 35% mechanical efficiency, it would yield 620 to 730 Hp, which should be incentive enough for fuel-efficiency.

In regard to mass flow, i think with a sample of the fuel before sessions, and a standardized test for fuel properties such as density and expansion, it should be possible to monitor mass flow indirectly from volume flow, pressure and temperature, or even vibration.

Then a standard inline meter and restrictor can be used across the teams.

[autogyro]

Seven stepped gear ratios is in the regulations and that is what the turbo engines will also use.
The debate here is the same as the one on flat torgue curve electric motors but not so wide a ratio range or as transmission efficiency dependent.
It is more efficient gearboxes that will need to be developed.

[Giblet]

Seven stepped gear ratios is in the regulations and that is what the turbo engines will also use.

Except.... it is not.

The regulations have no minimum number of gears, just a maximum. The 2011 regs were just published 2 days ago, so I can't be sure if 7 was a set number of gears prior to the new ones.

9.6.1 The maximum number of forward gear ratios is 7

[autogyro]

I know the regulations give the maximum number of ratios as seven.
I suggested this number to Garry Anderson at Jordans before it was made official.
Jordan were trying to make the most of a ratchet shift mechanism because they did not have a budget at the time for a semi auto box.
Prior to this it was unlimited in number of ratios and I was in the process of working up a ten speed bevel epicyclic auto box.

The point I was making is that no matter how flat the power curve, it is still beneficial to use a multi stepped ratio gearbox.
The trade offs are: number of ratios, weight, fuel efficiency and acceleration.

[strad]

To get what they want out of a turbo four cylinder, I don't think you'll see any flat torque curve. Especially at first these things will be as peaky as an old two stroke dirt bike. The power band will be very narrow and they'll need all those gears.

[ringo]

The torque curve wont be flat; in the case of a constant power output, it can in fact be very stout at the lower revs and taper downwards as engine speed increases, ie with some active turbo trickery.

Some construction equipment that require steady power output actually use constant power philosophy on their turbo diesels. These have variable geometry turbines.
The power is constant up to a certain engine speed.

JCB engine:


The danger with constant power though is the torque.For the 1.6lt turbo engine, using the speculated fuel flow rate, at 8,000 rpm with full bore fuel flow, the torque can be as much as 383 lb.ft. That would require a big bulky gearbox.
Having constant power any lower than that, say 4000 rpm and the torque will be about 737 lb.ft.
The boost pressure has to increase non linearly as constant power is made lower down. That's where the turbo trickery comes in.

[xpensive]

When the relation between constant power and Rpm is rather simple, torque at 6kRpm will obviously be twice that at 12k.