2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

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?

I think there is an aero thread, based on the very same down-force, and traction issue. I wouldn'y mind going back to it.

[ringo]

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

I get you, i was considering the turbo lubrication, but i didn't expect it to require a considerable amount of oil. I was more concerned for the additional oil cooler volume of oil.

[autogyro]

I would sooner seperate the turbine from the compressor in that way.
It would depend on how it compares efficiency wise with a mechanicaly coupled unit.
I see no problem with combining the compressor with an electricaly driven flywheel storage device.

[Pierce89]

I would sooner seperate the turbine from the compressor in that way.
It would depend on how it compares efficiency wise with a mechanicaly coupled unit.
I see no problem with combining the compressor with an electricaly driven flywheel storage device.

I agree a flywheel would make the hybrid turbo more efficient and they conceeded that in the article but said a battery was easier to package and totally up to it because the turbine generated more energy than the compreesor required. So it can run full boost at all times with no lag with just a fairly small battery.

[strad]

Real World PLEASE

[autogyro]

I would sooner seperate the turbine from the compressor in that way.
It would depend on how it compares efficiency wise with a mechanicaly coupled unit.
I see no problem with combining the compressor with an electricaly driven flywheel storage device.

I agree a flywheel would make the hybrid turbo more efficient and they conceeded that in the article but said a battery was easier to package and totally up to it because the turbine generated more energy than the compreesor required. So it can run full boost at all times with no lag with just a fairly small battery.

Yes but I would also power up the flywheel with energy under braking from the AWK MGUs and power the flywheel above compressor speed to store energy.
The turbine would also power the flywheel at higher rpm than the compressor when under engine power to act as a electro mechanical waste gate and store the energy.
The compressor would be kept at max rpm at all times by driving its drive spindle/stator up to speed when needed, even if the engine is completely turned off under braking. Any excess energy is fed to batteries.
The load on the flywheel/compressor and the batteries replaces the wheel brakes.

[WhiteBlue]

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?

The good man tweeted it together with four other very specific technical data on the evening of the last meeting of the EWG. It sounded pretty much like a direct info from one of the participants.

I'm hearing the 2013 engine rules are: mandated 1.6l I4 turbo, 88mm bores, direct injection, 100kg\h fuel flow rate.

It has a specific authenticity ring to it, if you ask me. I know you don't like the the level of restriction and that is probably the reason for your continued rejection.

[Shaddock]

I would sooner seperate the turbine from the compressor in that way.
It would depend on how it compares efficiency wise with a mechanicaly coupled unit.
I see no problem with combining the compressor with an electricaly driven flywheel storage device.

I agree a flywheel would make the hybrid turbo more efficient and they conceeded that in the article but said a battery was easier to package and totally up to it because the turbine generated more energy than the compreesor required. So it can run full boost at all times with no lag with just a fairly small battery.

I might be wrong on this reg, but I thought you could only capture KERS energy under braking, i.e. trailing throttle. You lift the throttle the DV opens, and the turbine will start to slow, having relatively little inertia. Is this the energy you are talking of capturing from the freewheeling turbine?

[autogyro]

Nope, no DV.
The turbine is seperate from the compressor in this version.
It can also be shaft linked.
The turbine can indeed slow down as the throttle comes off.
The turbine is only connected in this version to a generator but it could be a generator/motor in which case the turbine could be held at high rpm, however there is little need to keep the turbine at full boost rpm when the throttle is off as the 'lag' is caused by the compressor not the turbine and the compressor is kept up to speed by the KERS energy driving the linked flywheel storage device.

Energy from turbine is captured if turbine is at high speed and the throttle is part closed or when the turbine exceeds maximum turbo rpm. The turbo generator feeding the flywheel/compressor electric storage device loads the turbine and prevents over boost rpm instead of a DV.

[747heavy]

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.

Maybe you have lost a little bit sight of the facts we have agreed on WB.
IIRC we have agreed that a F1 car brakes for ~12 sec per 75 sec lap (you later mentioned 80 sec laps, but this does not matter).

You devised a system to harvest 100kW/s or 100KJ over a period (braking) of 12 sec, this makes 1200 kW/s or 1,2 MJ our/your aim was 4 MJ IIRC. No?

If you use your stored energy and release it over the rest of an (let`s stick with 75 sec) lap.
This means you have 63 sec time, and could spend ~19kW extra.
(19kW x 63 s = 1197 kW/s)
So for a power advantage of ~20kW you are carrying ~150 kg extra.

Sure you can perhaps use you energy as a "boost button" activating 120-160kW extra to make a strategic move (overtake), but you did not wanted to use KERS this way.
You wanted proper dual torque mode.

If you still wonder, where it got wrong with your calc, I think this is the answer:

We plan to send 2x4MJ of energy through the cells in a period of 80s which is equivalent to 4MJ in 40s. Lets keep that in mind


We need to charge and discharge 4 MJ in 80s. That means 8 MJ in 80 s. That is the same as charging 4 MJ only in 40s, or charging 1MJ in 10 s. Our effective power for the charge is 100 kJ/s or 100 kW. 100 kW is the same as 100 kVA

How much simpler you need it?
You have 100kW/s charge rate and 12s per lap where you brake --> 1200kW/s = 1,2 MJ
unless you want to brake for 40s per lap, in which case my non KERS 450kW car with 490kg weight will beat you even more easy.

BTW, I thought they where talking about an 120kW KERS, as far as the max power goes.

That´s something we just have created here, but, unless you will brake for much longer, you wont be able to harvest and store your 4 MJ during 12 sec braking per lap.

If you want to harvest 4MJ during 12 sec you will need 333kW/s and for this you would need ~3.3 times the battery capacity (~440kg just for batteries).

On another note:
If we look at the Brembo data we can see, that we have ~1000kW/s which we could harvest during braking. Now if we consider your proposed brake balance of 60/40 front/rear, we would be able to harvest 400kW/s only at the rear axle.
So there is not really the need for AWKERS.
Sure you will loose the traction advantage, but you save yourself a lot of hassle.

Maybe a hydraulic/pneumatic KERS is not that bad after all.

Merry Christmas WB

[WhiteBlue]

Jumbo, there is a difference in continuous operation and peak operation. You reconcile the the two modes by finding the average and making sure that the peak rates are tolerable. The sustained combined charging/discharging rate equivalent to the breaking parameters and the acceleration parameters are 100 kW or 2x40MJ/80s. 100 kW is regularly sustainable at a 109A (10C) charging rate. The peak rate of 333 kW is tolerable because the A123 cells tolerate short peaks in 30C mode as long as there are enough troughs to meet the average 100 kW level.

[747heavy]

this is maybe your assumption WB (possible charging rate of 30C), please show me some evidence of that.

From the A123 data for fast charging (5 min for 90% capacity) we see that 12C is as good as it get´s for now, and this is allready quite impressive for an accu/battery.

Nevertheless 4MJ in 12s is 333kW/s, that is allready the average charging rate you would need.
You don´t have 40 sec under braking WB.

And how does this fit in with a max. 120kW KERS power limit?
If this is still, the same as it is now (with 60kW), than this is the max power you can use at any given time. This applies for charging and for discharging. Or not?

[ringo]

So what's the conclusion?
Not enough energy during braking to store?

K.E = 0.5*m* deceleration (5g?)* sum of before and after braking velocities.

braking from 340km/hr down to about 86 km/hr, like at monza turn 1 releases 0.19MJ

4 megajoules requires 21 such 200mph speed braking events. It really depends on the track and how many turns and at what speeds they are taken.

4MJ more than likely cannot be collected over 1 lap.

At canada it's possible to collect 1.04 MJ over a lap. I did this by summing up the approach and braking speeds in m/s, then using a 5g deceleration with 640kg car.

This approach can be done at all tracks as long as you have a detailed map.
1.04MJ hmmm 8.66s of full discharge at 120kW?

[flynfrog]

They are more than likely charging higher than the rated C rate for the batteries. They are throwing them away after each race after all. Not sure they can go that much higher though. Ive got a few friends that work for A123 but I doubt they can tell me.

[747heavy]

I agree Flyn,
but the C rate of the battery is ~11Ah (10,75Ah) and 12C is allready pretty high/good - IMHO
Maybe you can ask your friends what will happen if we charge one of their batteries with 330A (30C) for 10s.
Do they think this is doable, and how long the battery will last.

Thanks