2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

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.

1.6L turbos will arrive 2013 and not in 2011.

Fuel flow limit will make retarded ignition with low lambda pointless.

Turbo anti lag can also be avoided by reversed turbo compounding from 2014. That can be done electrically or by reversible CVT.

[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.

1.6L turbos will arrive 2013 and not in 2011.

Fuel flow limit will make retarded ignition with low lambda pointless.

Meant 2013

Fuel flow limit will have no effect of retardation of ignition, and the same with compound turbos, some lag will still be there even with sequential turbos unless you artifically feed them fuel and air with the throttle closed.

[timbo]

Fuel flow limit will make retarded ignition with low lambda pointless.

Firstly engine spends not too much time off throttle.
Secondly, if they drive generator of turbo there's very little energy wasted.

[Shaddock]

Fuel flow limit will make retarded ignition with low lambda pointless.

Firstly engine spends not too much time off throttle.
Secondly, if they drive generator of turbo there's very little energy wasted.

If that statement is true then why did half the field this year develop engine maps that blow the diffuser under braking? Teams aren't going to give this engine 'aero' up, so it will be coupled to an anti-lag system for the turbo, that could provide 'extra' downforce than this years Q3 maps.

[WhiteBlue]

Fuel flow limit will have no effect of retardation of ignition, and the same with compound turbos, some lag will still be there even with sequential turbos unless you artifically feed them fuel and air with the throttle closed.

Let me be a bit more specific. With the introduction of the radical fuel flow limit of 27.8 g/s and the reduction of fuel tanks to probably 100kg the engineers will not be able to afford waste like the retarding of ignition and dumping of fuel into the exhaust. They will simply not get the equivalent in power from the fuel and that will hurt the competitiveness.

Variable vane turbos and reverse turbo compounders will simply be the more efficient technologies to avoid the turbo lag.

Edited for a mix up between kg and L.

[Shaddock]

Fuel flow limit will have no effect of retardation of ignition, and the same with compound turbos, some lag will still be there even with sequential turbos unless you artifically feed them fuel and air with the throttle closed.

Let me be a bit more specific. With the introduction of the radical fuel flow limit of 27.8 g/s and the reduction of fuel tanks to probably 100L the engineers will not be able to afford waste like the retarding of ignition and dumping of fuel into the exhaust. They will simply not get the equivalent in power from the fuel and that will hurt the competitiveness.

Variable vane turbos and reverse turbo compounders will simply be the more efficient technologies to avoid the turbo lag.

Anti-lag works 'off throttle' so any argument about fuel flow limits is pretty much redundant, as this is not an addition to peak fuelling requirement, but a small amount of fuel is required to burn outside of the cylinders, that could be provided either from the existing injectors or an injector mounted in the manifold.

This has the added advantage of reducing lag to almost zero, and blowing the diffuser for added grip under braking.

As for fuel tank limits? The same principle would apply as now, this would be linked to engine maps. Qualifying it would be turned on, and during the race when fuel permitting it would be used.

[autogyro]

Driving the turbo electricaly from the energy recovered under braking will easily prevent turbo lag and the excess air from the turbo compressor can be re-directed for aero instead of using fuel in the exhaust.
Not to blow a diffuser (the mass airflow will be to low) but to provide an air flap on wing sections.
Driving the turbo electricaly under braking will also drive the connected flywheel electric storage devise and the remainder of energy will go to batteries.

[WhiteBlue]

Fuel flow limit will have no effect of retardation of ignition, and the same with compound turbos, some lag will still be there even with sequential turbos unless you artifically feed them fuel and air with the throttle closed.

Let me be a bit more specific. With the introduction of the radical fuel flow limit of 27.8 g/s and the reduction of fuel tanks to probably 100L the engineers will not be able to afford waste like the retarding of ignition and dumping of fuel into the exhaust. They will simply not get the equivalent in power from the fuel and that will hurt the competitiveness.

Variable vane turbos and reverse turbo compounders will simply be the more efficient technologies to avoid the turbo lag.

Anti-lag works 'off throttle' so any argument about fuel flow limits is pretty much redundant, as this is not an addition to peak fuelling requirement, but a small amount of fuel is required to burn outside of the cylinders, that could be provided either from the existing injectors or an injector mounted in the manifold.

This has the added advantage of reducing lag to almost zero, and blowing the diffuser for added grip under braking.

As for fuel tank limits? The same principle would apply as now, this would be linked to engine maps. Qualifying it would be turned on, and during the race when fuel permitting it would be used.

I should give up on this discussion. [-o<

You are forgetting that the engines could produce 1500 hp if they were not fuel limited. It means that every drop of fuel that gets wasted for non power making is further reducing your race power! Even if the driver is off throttle in conventional anti lag systems the ECU uses fuel injection to keep the temps and the oxidization on the valves low.

[Shaddock]

Driving the turbo electricaly from the energy recovered under braking will easily prevent turbo lag and the excess air from the turbo compressor can be re-directed for aero instead of using fuel in the exhaust.
Not to blow a diffuser (the mass airflow will be to low) but to provide an air flap on wing sections.
Driving the turbo electricaly under braking will also drive the connected flywheel electric storage devise and the remainder of energy will go to batteries.

A couple of issue you will run into is the operating speed of the turbine, in excess of 100,000rpm, you're not going to find a electric motor to drive this directly, only compressed air, the same principle as a modern dentists drill and this air can is available from the engine via the exhaust.

If you try to drive it from an electric motor then you need a pulley, belt and clutch system that’s capable of 100,000 rpm, and a loss of spool up with frictional losses from this system.

I’m pretty sure the blown flap on the wings is banned for next year.

[autogyro]

Piston compressor geared down from the turbine and designed to match the rpm of the flywheel storage unit. (low rpm compressor)
I see no limitations on a blown flap, just body work regulations to eliminate a shark fin with air passages.
Low volume high pressure air can easily be directed up the wing supports.

[Shaddock]

But you are forgetting that engineers make these compromises now with current tech.

Power steering saps a little engine power (fuel) but teams use it. Fuel is a limiting factor now, the cars start the race with not enough to finish it at full power, but they still waste fuel blowing the exhaust when needed, why would they change this if it makes the cars ~0.3s a lap quicker when needed?

The amount of fuel delivered off throttle during antilag is less what fuel is delivered during WOT periods.

Piston compressor geared down from the turbine and designed to match the rpm of the flywheel storage unit. (low rpm compressor)
I see no limitations on a blown flap, just body work regulations to eliminate a shark fin with air passages.
Low volume high pressure air can easily be directed up the wing supports.

I thought the exta slit in the wing was banned, and also limits on slot to the beam wing?

[autogyro]

With my idea you can still use exhaust blown diffuser if you like.
Although I would sooner turn the engine off completely under braking, I think that would be more efficient.
It might ban slits in the wing but not holes which is all you need for a blown flap and reduced boundary layer seperation.

[xpensive]

...
Let me be a bit more specific. With the introduction of the radical fuel flow limit of 27.8 g/s...
...

I will never be competent enough to understand just how you can get so snowed in on a number like that WB, simply because scarbs used a most probably guesstimated, "100 kg/h", in his blog?

As a matter of fact, I'm prepared to make a rather substanial wager that said limitation will NOT be 27.8 g/s.

[Pierce89]

Driving the turbo electricaly from the energy recovered under braking will easily prevent turbo lag and the excess air from the turbo compressor can be re-directed for aero instead of using fuel in the exhaust.
Not to blow a diffuser (the mass airflow will be to low) but to provide an air flap on wing sections.
Driving the turbo electricaly under braking will also drive the connected flywheel electric storage devise and the remainder of energy will go to batteries.

A couple of issue you will run into is the operating speed of the turbine, in excess of 100,000rpm, you're not going to find a electric motor to drive this directly, only compressed air, the same principle as a modern dentists drill and this air can is available from the engine via the exhaust.

If you try to drive it from an electric motor then you need a pulley, belt and clutch system that’s capable of 100,000 rpm, and a loss of spool up with frictional losses from this system.

I’m pretty sure the blown flap on the wings is banned for next year.

I can't remember the company but RE ran an article on a company using the exhaust turbine to drive a mgu to charge a battery and the battery powered an eltric mgu to drive the compressor. It's supposed to be lagless and a computer simulated dyno chart showed it to greatly fill in low rpm power with no loss of top end.

[ringo]

...
Let me be a bit more specific. With the introduction of the radical fuel flow limit of 27.8 g/s...
...

I will never be competent enough to understand just how you can get so snowed in on a number like that WB, simply because scarbs used a most probably guesstimated, "100 kg/h", in his blog?

As a matter of fact, I'm prepared to make a rather substanial wager that said limitation will NOT be 27.8 g/s.

Same here. It may well be 30 g/s.