2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[747heavy]

yeah - so what
F1 will make the same as V8Supercars and go and plant a couple of trees
So, they can claim they are carbon neutral and have the "feel good cuddle factor"
and everybody is happy. - No big deal

Let´s stop the nonsense and lets go back on topic

[ringo]

Yep, back to the engine.

So about the oil tank size. Less oil used in a 4 cylinder than a V8, should see some room freed up.
Also the flywheel, what diameter and mass are we looking at for a 600hp 4 banger?

[Giblet]

Hope this question isn't too on the daft side, but what would stop using the inertia of the flywheel to keep the turbo spooled up during periods of low engine speed?

[Formula None]

I wonder if any teams will treat the engine flywheel like a KERS flywheel. That is, construct it of CF and gear it to spin faster than the crankshaft (and thus probably moved off of the crankshaft centerline).

Basically something like this:



...connected to the front side of the engine gear train:



The diameter of the flywheel could be reduced if that has any advantages. I imagine the diameter will want to be kept as small as possible, so another option might be tungsten weights installed in the flywheel.

Cross plane crankshafts may be of interest in this conversation. Yamaha have used cross plane crankshafts in MotoGP and one of their road bikes to help smooth out I-4 power delivery. Supposedly this is done by balancing intertial torque from the crankshaft/flywheel with the power strokes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myfp2sUd ... re=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VmFP6vGPc[/youtube]

[riff_raff]

So about the oil tank size. Less oil used in a 4 cylinder than a V8

Ringo,

A turbocharged 1.6L I4 will require as much (or maybe slightly more) onboard oil as a N/A 2.4L V8 of similar power. While the highly boosted turbo I4 will have fewer main and rod bearings than the V8, it also has a turbocharger that requires oil flow and will likely need oil cooling of the pistons. With piston oil cooling, the turbo I4 will likely have a higher total heat rejection to the oil system, and that usually means more oil mass flow through the engine.

riff_raff

[WhiteBlue]

As far as I can tell you found a way to harvest 1 MJ or 100kW with your system during a 10 sec period.
Did our aim was not to harvest 4MJ or at least 333kW (3.3 MJ) during a lap?
You "pay" around 150 kg (very conservative estimate) for your 100kW advantage.
If we you can still built a car at let´s say 640Kg minimum weight that means you have a power to weight ratio of 450kW + 100kW = 550kW/640Kg = ~0,86kW/kg.

It looks like you have lost me somewhere along the way. The continuous 100kW model that I calculated is equivalent to intermittent breaking with 333kW. I agree that the mass based on the available data is not acceptable but the data will be 5 years old by the time the systems are supposed to be used. It is very conceivable that the weight will have been reduced by that time to 50%. If not they simply will have to build a smaller 2MJ system or use a different kind of energy storage if that is better suited.

The hydraulic system we considered some time ago was called an hydristor. We discussed it with Ciro in a very old alternative drive system thread. The principle disadvantage of hydraulics is the very poor efficiency of the conversions. It is somewhere around 80% and you have to add up efficiencies through a chain of units and reverse the process to get the stored energy back. Hydraulic systems are very nice when you need huge energy density and have no efficiency concerns. Excavators and presses are typical applications but in mobile apps it has only been used in very heavy apps like busses or trains.

[WhiteBlue]

Also the flywheel, what diameter and mass are we looking at for a 600hp 4 banger?

I'm not sure you need a flywheel at all. The engines will most likely be fitted with on shaft synchronous electric motors. The motor rotor should be heavy enough to act as a flywheel.

[ringo]

Elaborate on the on shaft electric motors. The motor rotor, maybe be heavy enough, but there can be a back emf. Also there is a lot of consideration that goes into a flywheel design. It's not just a hunk of metal on the end of a crank shaft.

The flywheel is meant to store energy and release it smoothly. The diameter is also as important as the mass. Usually there is an analysis of the torque of the engine, similar to that wave form in the cross-plane crank video, and then the flywheel is designed based on that, in order to smooth the torque delivery.
It stores energy energy at the peaks, and releases it at the valleys, to give a net curve that's relatively smooth.
It would be overly complicated to have a motor double as a flywheel for a 4 cylinder engine. Though i would like to hear more about that concept.

[WhiteBlue]

The main purpose of a flywheel is to add inertia to make the relatively rough torque delivery of an L4 smoother. Having a relatively high inertial mass of a synchronous electric engine rotor on the crank shaft could negate the need for further inertia. I find it likely that the KERS motor will be attached to the crank shaft and not to a gearbox shaft. It has long been rumored that the 2013 engine concept could have integrated KERS MGU at the ICE like a high torque direct electric motor like the BMW Vision EfficientDynamics. I haven't looked at any figures to see if it is feasible but there were rumors that cars would have a motor big enough to be used as starter and as single propulsion for the pit lane.

Btw, I found a message by ScarbsF1 on Twitter that high noses will be banned from 2013. Nose point no higher than 120 mm is considered.

[machin]

I was going to ask you to clarify what is actually happening on your graph as well, what is this resistance exactly?
Aero ? and where does your car get such an unrealistic down-force from? F1 cars do not produce as much down-force as people think. Most of the values are hypothetical with max df settings at 200mph.

Ringo, if you really are interested, I'll start a separate topic to stop interferring with this one?

[autogyro]

The main purpose of a flywheel is to add inertia to make the relatively rough torque delivery of an L4 smoother. Having a relatively high inertial mass of a synchronous electric engine rotor on the crank shaft could negate the need for further inertia. I find it likely that the KERS motor will be attached to the crank shaft and not to a gearbox shaft. It has long been rumored that the 2013 engine concept could have integrated KERS MGU at the ICE like a high torque direct electric motor like the BMW Vision EfficientDynamics. I haven't looked at any figures to see if it is feasible but there were rumors that cars would have a motor big enough to be used as starter and as single propulsion for the pit lane.

Btw, I found a message by ScarbsF1 on Twitter that high noses will be banned from 2013. Nose point no higher than 120 mm is considered.

You dont need a crankshaft flywheel, if the gearbox is permenently connected to the ic engine and is also a multi ratio electric motor/generator (patent af).
You do not need a direct engagement clutch either, which allows you to use that space for the turbo, with a built in shaft and electricaly driven sealed flywheel of the same type used by Williams only smaller. This flywheel is charged by the gearbox electrical braking and the front MGUs if fitted with the batteries. It maintains turbo rpm when braking and augments the charge speed requirement of the 'smaller' battery pack. It also allows a faster combined discharge.
On full power any excess turbo rpm is used to charge the flywheel and batteries keeping the boost level controlled.

[WhiteBlue]

I have written a little summary of what we know and what I think will happen.

FiA decided to introduce new engine formula to:

• Improve sustainability
• Address the needs of the automotive industry

FiA published specification (implicit in brackets) Source FiA

• four cylinders
• 1.6L displacement
• gasoline engine (induction, spark ignition)
• 500 bar fuel injection (DI)
• 12,000 rpm limit
• 35% reduction of race fuel use (150 kg to 97.5 kg) by energy management
• KERS, TERS will be used
• 2010 performance targeted by new engine formula
• 2013 five engines per driver, from 2014 four engines per driver

The BBC published additional specification data Source Source 2

• final aim is to increase fuel saving to 50% (75 kg per race)
• total power to remain at current level appr. 750bhp (560 kW)
• turbo compounding from 2014
• fuel flow limitation and limited fuel tank capacity
• KERS power 120 kW
• checks and balances to keep approximate engine parity
• checks and balances to contain cost, mainly by resource restriction
• about 600bhp (440 kW) directly from ICE
• 2013 single turbo charger

ScarbsF1 published additional specification data Source Source 2

• mandatory L4 configuration
• induction by turbocharger
• mandatory cylinder bore 88mm
• direct injection
• fuel flow rate 100kg/h (27.8 g/s)
• KERS on both front and rear
• KERS still to be driver controlled, level and period of boost to be pre programmed for track section
• ban on high noses, tip limited to ~120mm high

IMO there are massive consequences for 2013:

• engines and fuel tank will become smaller and lighter freeing space and weight for energy recovery systems.
• The front of the cars will massively change with low nose and machinery for KERS positioned there.
• Suspension will be completely different with 18" wheels likely to be introduced
• AWD will improve traction in slow corners
• Introduction of turbo compounding can add 45 kW or more to engine power
• As compensation for power increase KERS could change to dual torque mode reducing peak power from 120 kW to 80 kW
• engines to have much more drivability in lower revs due to flatter torque curve of the turbo engine
• engine sound to miss some of the very high frequencies
• number of engine suppliers likely to increase with McLaren, VW, Red Bull, Lotus and others eying own F1 engines
• F1 to become more road relevant potentially pioneering technologies to be later used in road cars

[Martin Keene]

There is a hillclimb / sprint car called Mannic Beattie built by a chap called Nic Mann.

It uses a 1.7 ltr Ford BDT with a gas turbine from a company called Turbine Technologies Ltd, the turbine has a seperate combustion chamber to keep it running at full speed regardless of engine rpm. The turbine is also driven by the exhaust from the engine, but as the turbine speed drops the seperate combustion chamber takes over to keep the speed up.

The was an article on it in Jult 2010 Racecar Engineering. It will be interesting to see if anybody does something similar...

[WhiteBlue]

It uses a 1.7 ltr Ford BDT with a gas turbine from a company called Turbine Technologies Ltd, the turbine has a seperate combustion chamber to keep it running at full speed regardless of engine rpm. The turbine is also driven by the exhaust from the engine, but as the turbine speed drops the seperate combustion chamber takes over to keep the speed up.

I don't think that two combustion engines will be legal. Perhaps if they still stay within the fuel flow limits, but I'm a bit skeptical on that one.

[Shaddock]

Hope this question isn't too on the daft side, but what would stop using the inertia of the flywheel to keep the turbo spooled up during periods of low engine speed?

The teams will use some sort of anti-lag system, together with variable geometry turbos. The simplest approach is what some teams have been doing this year to power the diffusers, via retarding the ignition and dumping fuel into the mixture and waiting for it to go bang in the manifold/exhaust port. Boost pressures of up to ~1.5 bar with the throttle closed can be maintained almost reducing lag.

The downside is with a 1.6l turbo setup for next year is that temperatures will rocket >1100C at the exhaust housing, not good for the turbo and the cylinder heads, exhaust valves, manifold will take a beating.

Another approach is to recycle (EGR) exhaust gas and inlet air back into the turbine and ignite it. With this approach you don't get the typical Bang! Bang! of the fuel exploding in the manifold, (the turbo become a jet engine) and so it's easier on engine reliability, valve, heads exhausts etc.

What you do get is a very hot turbo, and EGT will need to be monitored very closely or you’ll loose the seals and the bearings.