2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

o.k. WB, I see where you want to go / coming from

How about this instead?

40s of full throttle
25s of zero throttle while braking (&coasting)
15s of one third throttle (I think your method is a bit oversimplified, but that´s o.k. for now)

What is your rational explaination for braking time of 15s?

We have had discussions about this - mainly between xpensive and myself - from April 2010. We agreed to use 12s as a representative breaking time but I'm equally prepared to use 15s because breaking will become longer with reduced downforce. The figure basically came from looking at the Brembo breaking data.

I disagree with the notion to mix breaking and coasting. The part throttle data include very low power settings like 0-25% throttle. On that basis I would still use the published full throttle value of 50% which works out to 40s and the 15s breaking time. The difference of 25s is obviously spent in a mix of part throttle positions.

I have proposed to use the pedal position mix of the Audi LeMans data for the 2013 F1 car but I cannot reconcile that with the projected fuel use. Hence I withdraw that proposal. If I stick with the 40s/25s/15s break down of of the race in power settings I can reconcile my data if the average part throttle power setting would be 75% of the max power/max fuel use.

In 2010 we had a fuel use of 150 kg per race. In 2013 we are supposed to go down to 97.5 kg or 65% of 2010.

If I use an average throttle setting of 75% in the part throttle time of 25s it is equivalent to 18.75s of full throttle power. So the total power application per lap would be equivalent to 58.75s of full power. So I get 100kg/h x 58.75 / 60 = 97.9 kg race fuel. This is practically a match to what the FiA decision will allow. If we follow this reckoning our simplified model for 2013 F1 would look like this:

40s/lap full throttle with 27.8 g/s fuel flow
25s/lap 3/4 throttle with 20.9 g/s fuel flow
15s/lap at zero throttle with zero fuel flow

This model would reflect the experience that reduced power tends to increase the power demand in part throttle phases. The drivers will spend 7% less time on full throttle because they do not have the downforce any more to apply full throttle in some fast corners. On the other hand they will be applying higher power demands at part throttle times because the engine is less powerfull.

[747heavy]

I think the 12s under braking was used for the KERS discussion, and I don´t see much wrong with that, but remember they figures are based on cars with 2009/2010 aero (downforce & drag !! ~1-1.3g decelleration only due to drag) configuration.
I don´t think, I would base my 2013 estimates on them.

o.k. WB, I respect your guess/approximation for 2013, even if I can´t really follow the logic, that you expect a average laptime of 80s (when the 2010 time is closer to 90s) for a car with less power, and a reduction of WOT from ~60% to 50%, and reduced downforce.
Remember the target of 3-5s lower laptimes, mentined by P.Head.
If you reduce time spend at WOT, you increase laptime, even for a engine with the same power, but keep in mind that the 2013 base engine will be less powerful.
Which would (in the same car) lead to an increase to time spend at WOT (see BMW V10 vs. V8 comment), now you spend less time at WOT with an less powerful engine, but calculate with the same laptime - sorry but I can´t agree with that, from a practical/technical PoV.
I think, you oversimplify things a bit too much - IMHO - with respect and appologies

I have complied some data, from the Brembo data (for the grey races, there are no data available at the moment, server problem), the WOT data are from the table posted earlier (right or wong dunno), the times are the qualifying times from 2010, except for Malaysia, where I used the 2009 time.

Feel free, to use or dispute them, I can´t see much value in speculating any futher about something, where we have very limited (hard) data about.

If we see 50% @ WOT in 2013 (not sure we will), due to reduced downforce, I´m sure we will see greatly increased time spend under brakes, and a dramatic increase in laptime.
My "uneducated" guess (without much to back it up) is included in the table, just for fun&giggles.



BTW, looks like ACO/LeMans/Audi was in 2003/2005 allready close to the consumption targets where F1 want´s to be in 2013, with 3.6 ltr V8 in a 900kg car.
So much for road car relevance and the "cutting edge" claim of F1.

[flynfrog]

I think you two are really splitting hairs here time to move on. I would assume more time at full throttle such as we change from v10s to v8s with less power drivers could run flat out through r130 ect where it was more difficult with a more powerful car

[747heavy]

agreed Flyn - time to move on, and wait for more informations to surface about the 2013 engines, before we get too much ahead of ourself

Ecclestone worried 2013 engines could mute F1's appeal

[strad]

agreed Flyn - time to move on, and wait for more informations to surface about the 2013 engines, before we get too much ahead of ourself

Way Ahead of ourselves already

[WhiteBlue]

o.k. WB, I respect your guess/approximation for 2013, even if I can´t really follow the logic, that you expect a average laptime of 80s (when the 2010 time is closer to 90s) for a car with less power, and a reduction of WOT from ~60% to 50%, and reduced downforce.
Remember the target of 3-5s lower laptimes, mentined by P.Head.
If you reduce time spend at WOT, you increase laptime, even for a engine with the same power, but keep in mind that the 2013 base engine will be less powerful.
Which would (in the same car) lead to an increase to time spend at WOT (see BMW V10 vs. V8 comment), now you spend less time at WOT with an less powerful engine, but calculate with the same laptime - sorry but I can´t agree with that, from a practical/technical PoV.

If we see 50% @ WOT in 2013 (not sure we will), due to reduced downforce, I´m sure we will see greatly increased time spend under brakes, and a dramatic increase in laptime.

Thanks for checking lap times and making us aware that there were changes in 2010. The deviation is 10%. That sounds quite big but I don't think we made such a big mistake for the purpose we were using the lap time (throttle and power profile). Nevertheless it is better to use accurate data.

I don't think I follow your assumption of radically increased breaking times. I do not see a justification for the massive increase you propose. Half the breaking time would be spend in relatively slow sections which are not very much affected by aerodynamic changes. So going from 13 to16s seems plenty enough to cover the high speed breaking time increase. Adding seven seconds for braking alone would make no sense if the lap time increases by four seconds only. The breaking force will significantly change in 2013 with aerodynamic drag reducing but KERS energy being added to the breaking forces. Btw the 2011 season will have 1177 laps from 20 races. So my model lap would look like this.

92s total average lap time with 59 laps in an average race and a target fuel consumption of 97.5 kg.

46s @ full throttle (27.8 g/s; 75.5 kg/race)
16s @ zero throttle while breaking
30s @ 45% part throttle (12.43 g/s; 22 kg/race)

That way I come closer to the 50% throttle I started with and have consistency with my fuel budget.

[Edis]

I don't think that F1 would consider road car prices as expensive. One should also consider that it is a declared objective of the new formula to be more road relevant.

But F1 will also use even higher exhaust temperatures, and a gain in low speed torque is not as important as in a road car.

In the run up to the final decision a lot of different figures were discussed. The boost pressure was one of them. It never got mentioned when the legislation was finalized though. So until we get confirmation from a reliable source I would treat an "old" boost pressure figure with some skepticism.

It was mentioned that it would be decided later.

You are not very convincing. What kind of direct injection do you propose they would be using instead of spray guided? Wall guided or air guided would be the alternatives. Both methods are old and a lot less efficient. Audi have used air guided DI in the R8 project back in the '90s. Air guided would cause higher gas exchange losses and wall guided would wet the pistons and reduce evaporation performance.

Spray guide DI has been the driver for increasing petrol injection pressures from 150 to 200 bar. F1 wants to go to 500 bar now. Why would they do this unless they need it for higher flow rates? The high flow rates are generally needed to execute spray guided injection in a very short time window at the end of the final compression stroke. It all fits the plan to use spray guided injection and utilize the advantage of a higher compression.

One also needs to consider that we see a major shift away from high throttle settings to lower average power settings. In 2010 the average full throttle percentage across all 19 tracks was 57%. This is supposed to go down to 50% in 2013 according to Patrick Head. This trend is another good reason to use an injection method that is offering highest fuel efficiency in homogeneous and in lean homogeneous modes.

Spray guided injection, wall guided injection and air guided injection are three methods that can be used to create charge stratification when an engine operate at low loads and speeds (up to say 4000 rpm and 4 bar bmep). This can be really useful for a road car since their engines spend much time within this region and since the gasoline engine tend to have a high specific fuel consumption here, which charge stratification can significantly improve.

However, a gasoline engine can not operate with a stratified charge at high loads and speeds where the racing engine spends most of its time. At such loads and speeds the engine have to operate with a homogeneous charge, which means that the fuel have to be injected during the intake stroke. If the engine operate with a stratified charge at part load, this means that the engine will switch from injecting the fuel late in the compression stroke to inject the fuel during the intake stroke instead when the load and/or engine speed becomes too high.

But using a stratified charge at part load means that you could be forced to compromise on injector placement, spray pattern, combustion chamber design and such just to gain fuel efficiency at load conditions that rarely are used. So racing engines are designed with focus on the homogeneous charge mode, or usually, designed to only operate with a homogeneous charge at all load conditions. These engines also tend to use multihole injectors rather than pintle injectors (outward opening injectors) since these tend to work better with homogeneous charge combustion. This is because the injector gives several fuel jets which can be directed to spray into turbulent zones in the cylinder, mixing the fuel better.

By the way, spray guided injection is not really "new", it was used even in early direct injected engines (pre WW2), and the main advantage is that it is easier to control in stratified mode.

[riff_raff]

One important thing to consider with a turbocharged engine versus the current high RPM N/A engine, is the torque curve of the engine. Even though the turbo engine may have a bit less peak horsepower, it still may produce comparable lap times due to a much "fatter" torque curve.

Once again, the main reason for F1 going to a turbo engine is because it makes it much easier and less expensive for the teams when the FIA wants to adjust engine power levels. It's just a tweak to boost levels, and should only require some new engine mapping. They could even have different boost levels for specific tracks. Less engine power where speeds need to be lower.

riff_raff

[WhiteBlue]

Spray guided injection, wall guided injection and air guided injection are three methods that can be used to create charge stratification when an engine operate at low loads and speeds (up to say 4000 rpm and 4 bar bmep). This can be really useful for a road car since their engines spend much time within this region and since the gasoline engine tend to have a high specific fuel consumption here, which charge stratification can significantly improve.

However, a gasoline engine can not operate with a stratified charge at high loads and speeds where the racing engine spends most of its time. At such loads and speeds the engine have to operate with a homogeneous charge, which means that the fuel have to be injected during the intake stroke. If the engine operate with a stratified charge at part load, this means that the engine will switch from injecting the fuel late in the compression stroke to inject the fuel during the intake stroke instead when the load and/or engine speed becomes too high.

Your description is not accurate with regard to injection systems that have the capability to deliver the fuel fast enough to cope with the speed of the racing engine. Current high speed, high pressure outward opening piezo activated nozzles can operate in the compression stroke at up to 9,000 rpm and reach higher air fuel ratios in homogeneous mode than any other direct injection system. Those injectors work with 200 bar supply pumps.

The F1 specification has been set to 500 bar rail pressure which indicates to me that substantially higher flow rates are an objective of the development. Together with the 500 bar rail pressure an engine speed limit of 12,000 rpm was published. It is very conceivable that faster injectors with 500 bar rail pressures will have the capability to operate in the compression stroke all the way from low engine speed to the red line of 12,000 rpm. Such an injection system will deliver higher fuel efficiency than any other known racing engine over the full range of engine speeds.

I believe that the published data make it almost certain that manufacturers and suppliers are engaged in an R&D project with the aim of running the 2013 F1 engines over the full rev range in compression stroke injection. The information fits that analysis.

One important thing to consider with a turbocharged engine versus the current high RPM N/A engine, is the torque curve of the engine. Even though the turbo engine may have a bit less peak horsepower, it still may produce comparable lap times due to a much "fatter" torque curve.

Once again, the main reason for F1 going to a turbo engine is because it makes it much easier and less expensive for the teams when the FIA wants to adjust engine power levels. It's just a tweak to boost levels, and should only require some new engine mapping. They could even have different boost levels for specific tracks. Less engine power where speeds need to be lower. riff_raff

Actually the legislators are unlikely to play with the boost to influence the power level. The most elegant tool would be the max fuel flow figure which would be adjusted to a lower level. The teams will automatically adjust their boost pressure, injection time, ignition and valve mappings to optimize power delivery for the respective circuits.

[Shaddock]

Actually the legislators are unlikely to play with the boost to influence the power level. The most elegant tool would be the max fuel flow figure which would be adjusted to a lower level. The teams will automatically adjust their boost pressure, injection time, ignition and valve mappings to optimize power delivery for the respective circuits.

Are variable valve timings allowed? This is something that does have road car applications, Alfa's MultiAir system seems to show the most promise.

[WhiteBlue]

It is widely expected that variable valve timing and lift will be re allowed. It was banned in order to curb power and cost but it would be a good thing for efficiency particularly in part throttle mode as throttling losses can be totally avoided. The whole gas exchange would become more efficient if the air isn't throttled any more. The primary method for curbing power will be fuel restriction. It makes no sense to ban any technology that saves fuel. The premier automotive manufacturers like Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Toyota and Honda all have systems in place for variable valves and they will have pushed for that to be allowed.

[Formula None]

747, your temp calculation is based on continuous drain and not on peak mode as we see in breaking. As the batteries are given at least three times the cooling time as the peak breaking time the lower temperature at 12C would be applicable. That also changes the voltage.

It is more likely that customized cells with different properties and systems wit lower capacity of 2.3 MJ will be designed. 2.3 MJ is still a big step considering the 2010 capacity of 0.4 MJ. If we go doen to 2.3 MJ charging power will go doen to 190 kW which seems a lot more manageable.

Batteries in 2013 could be placed in the side pots that are going to be much more forward to support the tunnels.

I will update some figures for 2.3 MJ KERS.

Power profile in 2013 will be 12s breaking. 50% of the lap time on full throttle with 440 kw. There remains 28s with half power of 220 kW. For ease of calculus I assume that half power will consume half fuel flow of 13.9 g/s. Average fuel flow is 18.77 g/s which is 68% of the maximum fuel flow. This also gives us the total fuel consumption for a 80 min race. It comes to exactly 90 kg.

90 kg of fuel at 33% efficiency means 1366 MJ mechanical race energy. 2.3 MJ/lap in a 80 lap race means 184 MJ KERS energy. The KERS will give a boost of 13.5% mechanical energy for racing which isn't such a bad figure.
If we want to know the equivalent power of KERS with the known power profile of 40s@440kW, 28s@220kW, 12s@0kW we get 40s@42.6 kW, 28s@21.3kW and 12s@0kW for KERS power. The equivalent engine power for dual torque mode should be 482.6 kW (647 hp). If the full 120 kW KERS boost is used the boost time is 19.2s.

For aerodynamic considerations we have to assume we have 13.7% less power which will have to be made up by reduced aero forces. If they indeed slash drag and downforce by 50% I'm pretty confident that the 2013 cars will see shorter lap times than the 2010 cars. The straight line speeds should increase considerably with 50% drag only which will probably make up for some loss of speed through high speed corners. Slow corners should also become faster as mechanical grip should increase with AWD.

Getting back to the KERS discussion, the ACO's 2011 LMP1 regs are online, and they define their energy reclamation system (SRSE):

http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/1/1 ... ns-lmp.pdf

1.13 - Energy Recovery System (LMP1 only):
− The amount of energy used between 2 braking must not
exceed 0.5 MJ. Braking lasting under 1 second will not be
taken into account.

1.14 - Rechargeable Energy Storage System (STSY)
A Rechargeable Energy Storage System (STSY), such as a flywheel
system, super-capacitors, ultra-capacitor, batteries, etc., is a system
that is designed to recover kinetic energy from the car during
deceleration or braking, store that energy and make it available to
propel the car.
During the practices or the race, the SRSE cannot be recharged
from any fuel-based energy converter or, for plug-in hybrids, directly
from the grid. When the car is on the starting grid the SRSE must be
switched off in "Safe" status with all the red lights - signaling "Live"
status - out.

So they want to use between two 1+ sec braking zones what F1 uses an entire lap. It will be very interesting to see the kinds of technology that will come out of the LMS this year to take advantage of this.

[747heavy]

I'm not too surprised by the fuel flow limit either. Today we have 150 kg per race and the FiA wants to cut this to 70% at least. So they are aiming for 105 kg of race fuel. At full throttle the flow restriction would give us 133.3 kg for a 80 min race. It means that the race would be run at an average of 79% of peak power. That makes sense.

......

Lets switch to the mass flow and apply the figures we have previously agreed.

* specific energy of fuel 46 MJ/kg
* efficiency of the turbo engine 33% before HERS and KERS


100 kg/h / 3600 * 46 MJ/kg *33% = 0.422 MJ/s =422 kW=573 bhp peak power from the engine

If we take 100kg/h and look at the average race time in 2010, we come to ~ 1:35h (95min) (I have excluded Korea)
this would make ~ 150 kg fuel per race.

Now if we go back to the last year of turbo engines in F1 (1988), the fuel tank size was limted to 150 ltr. (which is ~ 113 kg) and we had 1.5ltr. turbos with a boost limit of 2.5 bar, the average race time in 1988 was 1:40h, and there was no refueling.

According to the published data from the Honda RA168E Engine, which won 15 out of 16 races, it had 504kw/685hp @12500rpm under these conditions.

So, we could built a engine in 1988 which would beat the proposed 2013 fuel consumption limits of 100kg/h, and still make decent power.

Wow, impressive 2013 regs, must be a real challenge to built this engine, and F1 was more fuel efficient 22 years ago - respect

BTW, laptimes in 1988 where about 5 sec slower a lap, at the tracks which are still in use (Monaco,Canada) today.
So this perhaps, fit´s in with they anticipated reductions in aerodynamic/downforce as well.

So much for the "at the cutting edge of technology" claim.
With all your fancy technology and assumptions you aim at ~140ltr a race (105kg), 25 years later - I´m impressed, that would make 10-12ltr less then in 1988 -
real progress

[ringo]

Honda's race fuel was 840kg/m3 that would be 126kg. But still very good.
The cars were much lighter back then at 540kg too.
Light weight is the silver bullet to cut costs per drop of fuel saved. We're now at 640kg 100 more!
Bring back refueling!!

[747heavy]

Fair enough, and true
126kg / average 1,5hr (90min) race = makes 84kg/h average flow rate

540kg minimum weight is an/the interesting figure, even without refueling

540kg vs. 640kg 22 years later, who says F1 is not taking lessons from the automotive industry
This part/development is very relevant and shows an interesting trend.