2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

2013 F1 vehicle safety is massively different to 1988, and so is weight. Btw the Honda peak power figures are very misleading. Only slightly off the peak figure power was massively reduced and drivability was still primitive compared to what we expect in 2013. On top the power figures you quote are for the 168E which had a much higher fuel allowance than the 1988 fuel figure suggest. This cherry picking of figures that are not consistent to the time scale is very misleading. Lets rectify those data before we come to conclusions.

One thing that I do not deny is the basic efficiency of the turbo engines. They were much advanced compared to the NA monsters that followed them. Basically 1989-2012 will be seen by later generations as a period of stagnation in ICE technology with ivory tower technologies that had no use in the real world.

[strad]

7Bring back refueling!!

NO!!!!!!

[747heavy]

On top the power figures you quote are for the 168E which had a much higher fuel allowance than the 1988 fuel figure suggest. This cherry picking of figures that are not consistent to the time scale is very misleading.
Lets rectify those data before we come to conclusions.

not sure, where you want to go with that WB, AFAIK the 168E was built for 1988
the data are what Honda has published, I don´t think I cherry picked anything here,
not more then you do in your assumptions and statements normaly anyway.



I think, you want to point out the fact, that in race trim the engine had less power, which is also the case with the current engines.
Today (in pure racing spirit), we spend extented periods of time in fuel saving mode - which is fine with me, no worries, but what´s the difference to 1988?



as for inconsistent and made up figures, let´s talk about your 80s average lap time figures and your 80 min race duration. Where do these figures come from - pulled out of thin air?
Wanna talk about inconsistencies of numbers?
During the discussion you keep moving the goalpost from 115kg fuel for a race to 105kg and now to 97,5kg. Whatever fits your agenda or floats your boat at any given day?
(Remember your single vs. twin/bi turbo statement )

All fair and good, but where does your 150 kg per race base figure comes from?
Any hard numbers/facts or you make it up as you go?
Sure it is 150 kg ?, maybe it is 160 kg or 170 kg, what makes your guess better then anyone elses?
Maybe RBR/Renault start with 150kg, McL/MGP with 160 kg and Ferrari with 165 kg.
(just random guess, to illustrate the point, no offence intended)

Maybe take a look at some figures from the 2010 season, and rethink some of your assumptions.

I think 92s (1:32,00) average laptime and 95min (1:35:00,000) average race duration are are lot closer to reality then your proposed 1:20,000 laps and 1:20:00,000) races.
What does that say about average power levels during the race for todays cars?



As for the safety and weight sugesstion, sure there is no doubt about the fact, that the current cars are a lot safer then the 1988 cars.
But let´s keep in mind that the 1988 engine was quoted with 146 kg and the min weight was 540kg for the cars.
Now if we take a 2009 car with 600kg and a 95 kg engine, I´m resonable sure, that if you take the ballast out of an 2009 BrawnGP you come close to 550 kg and still having a pretty safe car.
I think it´s perfectly within todays technology to achieve a 540kg car with a I4turbo engine and todays safety standards.

There are some other interesting figures in the Honda paper.
The engine in race mode would make 450kW at max efficiency.
Was that not the figure you had in mind for your 2013 engine?

The San Marino GP in 1988 (from which the posted data´s are) was won in 1:32:41,264 (~92.5 min)by Senna with the McLaren/Honda and went for 60 laps, so the average laptime for a car with ~450kW in race trim was 1:32,727 (~93 sec).
How is that for some numbers ?
And this all with 150 ltr. of fuel and a dinosaurier of turbo engine 23 years ago.

I just borrowed some of your party tricks, and combined this with the numbers Honda has posted 272g/kWh of specific fuel consumption for there 1988 engine.
Where we end up with this numbers (just for giggles, and in good fun & spirit)



So, whats the purpose of all, that?
Just fun !!, and to put some perspective to the FIA targets for 2013.
As I said earlier run the Audi R8 FSI LeMans numbers, and you come in at your target, ~95 kg for a race distance of 300-305 km, with a 900kg open cockpit (but covered wheels) LMP car of 2004/5 and an engine which would last a whole F1 seasons.

Sorry, it doesn´t take my breath away, and I don´t think any of the engine manufactures will lose sleep over these targets.
Yes, it´s better then what we have now, but considering where the Honda engine was 25 years ago, it´s not all that impressive - at least for me.

If this is all what they want (fuel consumption of 65% of 2010 values), I don´t think, we will see any of the "fancy space age technology" (TERS, throttle less operation, HCCI etc.) you would like to see. They can get there without it.
Keep in mind, everybody is talking about cost containment, and nobody wants to p.... way mega $$$$ any more in developments, for a fixed ROI in customer engines.
We will see a modern DI turbo engine, along the lines of the Audi FSI, but not much more IMHO.
Sure better then nothing, but far from cutting edge technology.
We may just end up with a 120-130 ltr fuel tank (for 2013) and the 100kg/h figure will take care of itself.

Combine this ~450kW ICE with your 120kW KERS, which will most likely be restricted to a battery solution, and you have your 2013/15 power train.

BTW, I don´t think, they will run AWKERS, even with only 450kw, you can break traction at the rear at any time (at low speeds), so why make life harder.
If permitted, it´s more likely to see a 120kW electric KERS on the front axle only.
Along the lines of the 911 RSR Hybrid, or next years LMP 1 rules.

The 1988 season, is a good (bad) example, of what can happen, if they let someone run away with a engine/powertrain advantage.
With no refueling, it was one of the most boring seasons in F1 history. (unless you´re a die hard McLaren fan off course )

So WB, don´t worry I won´t spoil your thread any longer with my ramblings.
All in good spirit and with respect towards you, no offence intended, I just feel that sometimes someone has to play devils advocate, when you run to far away with your wishes for the future of F1.
Let´s just wait and see what will happen, and who from the engine manufacturers will be around in 2013.

enjoy & have fun
I´m happy if all turns out as you have predicted - no problem at all.

[timbo]

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

AFAIK it was the weight without driver, oil, etc.
In reality modern cars are not 100 kg heavier in race trim.

[WhiteBlue]

not sure, where you want to go with that WB, AFAIK the 168E was built for 1988
the data are what Honda has published, I don´t think I cherry picked anything here,
not more then you do in your assumptions and statements normaly anyway.

I think, you want to point out the fact, that in race trim the engine had less power, which is also the case with the current engines.
Today (in pure racing spirit), we spend extented periods of time in fuel saving mode - which is fine with me, no worries, but what´s the difference to 1988?

as for inconsistent and made up figures, let´s talk about your 80s average lap time figures and your 80 min race duration. Where do these figures come from - pulled out of thin air?
Wanna talk about inconsistencies of numbers?
During the discussion you keep moving the goalpost from 115kg fuel for a race to 105kg and now to 97,5kg. Whatever fits your agenda or floats your boat at any given day?
(Remember your single vs. twin/bi turbo statement )

All fair and good, but where does your 150 kg per race base figure comes from?
Any hard numbers/facts or you make it up as you go?
Sure it is 150 kg ?, maybe it is 160 kg or 170 kg, what makes your guess better then anyone elses?
Maybe RBR/Renault start with 150kg, McL/MGP with 160 kg and Ferrari with 165 kg.
(just random guess, to illustrate the point, no offence intended)

Maybe take a look at some figures from the 2010 season, and rethink some of your assumptions.

I think 92s (1:32,00) average laptime and 95min (1:35:00,000) average race duration are are lot closer to reality then your proposed 1:20,000 laps and 1:20:00,000) races.
What does that say about average power levels during the race for todays cars?

As for the safety and weight sugesstion, sure there is no doubt about the fact, that the current cars are a lot safer then the 1988 cars.
But let´s keep in mind that the 1988 engine was quoted with 146 kg and the min weight was 540kg for the cars.
Now if we take a 2009 car with 600kg and a 95 kg engine, I´m resonable sure, that if you take the ballast out of an 2009 BrawnGP you come close to 550 kg and still having a pretty safe car.
I think it´s perfectly within todays technology to achieve a 540kg car with a I4turbo engine and todays safety standards.

There are some other interesting figures in the Honda paper.
The engine in race mode would make 450kW at max efficiency.
Was that not the figure you had in mind for your 2013 engine?

The San Marino GP in 1988 (from which the posted data´s are) was won in 1:32:41,264 (~92.5 min)by Senna with the McLaren/Honda and went for 60 laps, so the average laptime for a car with ~450kW in race trim was 1:32,727 (~93 sec).
How is that for some numbers ?
And this all with 150 ltr. of fuel and a dinosaurier of turbo engine 23 years ago.

I just borrowed some of your party tricks, and combined this with the numbers Honda has posted 272g/kWh of specific fuel consumption for there 1988 engine.
Where we end up with this numbers (just for giggles, and in good fun & spirit)

So, whats the purpose of all, that?
Just fun !!, and to put some perspective to the FIA targets for 2013.
As I said earlier run the Audi R8 FSI LeMans numbers, and you come in at your target, ~95 kg for a race distance of 300-305 km, with a 900kg open cockpit (but covered wheels) LMP car of 2004/5 and an engine which would last a whole F1 seasons.

Sorry, it doesn´t take my breath away, and I don´t think any of the engine manufactures will lose sleep over these targets.
Yes, it´s better then what we have now, but considering where the Honda engine was 25 years ago, it´s not all that impressive - at least for me.

If this is all what they want (fuel consumption of 65% of 2010 values), I don´t think, we will see any of the "fancy space age technology" (TERS, throttle less operation, HCCI etc.) you would like to see. They can get there without it.
Keep in mind, everybody is talking about cost containment, and nobody wants to p.... way mega $$$$ any more in developments, for a fixed ROI in customer engines.
We will see a modern DI turbo engine, along the lines of the Audi FSI, but not much more IMHO.
Sure better then nothing, but far from cutting edge technology.
We may just end up with a 120-130 ltr fuel tank (for 2013) and the 100kg/h figure will take care of itself.

Combine this ~450kW ICE with your 120kW KERS, which will most likely be restricted to a battery solution, and you have your 2013/15 power train.

BTW, I don´t think, they will run AWKERS, even with only 450kw, you can break traction at the rear at any time (at low speeds), so why make life harder.
If permitted, it´s more likely to see a 120kW electric KERS on the front axle only.
Along the lines of the 911 RSR Hybrid, or next years LMP 1 rules.

The 1988 season, is a good (bad) example, of what can happen, if they let someone run away with a engine/powertrain advantage.
With no refueling, it was one of the most boring seasons in F1 history. (unless you´re a die hard McLaren fan off course )

So WB, don´t worry I won´t spoil your thread any longer with my ramblings.
All in good spirit and with respect towards you, no offence intended, I just feel that sometimes someone has to play devils advocate, when you run to far away with your wishes for the future of F1.
Let´s just wait and see what will happen, and who from the engine manufacturers will be around in 2013.

enjoy & have fun
I´m happy if all turns out as you have predicted - no problem at all.

I'll come to all your points one by one:

1. I have to admit I had a mix up of the Honda engines and placed the 168E in 1986 which obviously was an error on my side. Sorry for making this statement and being over confident on it.

2. Changing some figures in the discussion: I have used different fuel targets over time because the published targets have changed. I have always used a starting fuel weight of 150 kg for 2010 which seems to be a figure you do not object to. The last time I read this figure was some days ago by Patrick Head who talked about the 2011 KERS and that the Williams mechanical flywheel battery does not fit well into car with 150kg fuel tank. The official 2013 fuel target is 35% less than 2010 and that gives us a race fuel target of 97.5 kg. When I was mainly discussing figures with expensive we didn't bother much for precise lap data and so we just used 80s lap times. When you joined the debate you have researched more precise figures which is appreciated for the better accuracy it will provide in the future. If you follow my last posts you see that I have mainly followed your suggestions except when I thought they were not justified by other known facts.

3. Fact of the matter is that the 1988 cars were 100 kg lighter which has a significant impact on the power/weight ratio. The performance data were only achieved by burning 88% toluene which isn't legal any more. The performance and efficiency figures with today's "pump" fuel would look different, don't you agree? The other point I have made before is the torque curve of the Honda engine and the much lower efficiency away from peak power. Contrary to the old turbo times the 2013 engines will see considerably less time on full throttle and substantial time on part load. We may not agree on the exact figures but a 20% reduction of the full throttle time from 70% to 50% must be compensated by some time for the engine in part throttle.

4. FSI direct injection technology vs more modern tech. We will have to disagree there and find out what will come eventually. I'm very sure that the air guided FSI combustion technology from 1998 will be superseded by spray guided high flow technology and that variable valve stroke for throttle less engine control will be used. It has been a long time that I have speculated about the use of HCCI and I have learned since that this technology is quite unlikely for F1. So please allow me some learning curve over the last six month and accept that I'm not expecting HCCI. I'm equally skeptical about TERS. It will be legal and so we my see something but not likely a system with several organic Rankine cycles as proposed by BMW for road cars. The most effective TERS would be turbo compounding which is going to come from 2014.

5. The traditional KERS systems have used the rear wheels and I hope we agree that they are not suitable for high regeneration figures. I can imagine AWKERS and front wheel KERS. Which of those will actually come we can speculate about. I have not looked at real break bias figures to have a feeling for how much energy they would miss from the rear wheels. There are other reasons to use a rear MGU like having an electric starter. That has been discussed in the past and they may put that in the rules to have better options to remove cars from dangerous situations on track.

[FW17]

747heavy;

I read that article some time back when it was posted here and remember that it ran on 80% toluene. Doesn't that make a difference?

PS did you note that Mclaren Honda was sponsored by Shell while their racing fuel was ELF

[Shaddock]

747heavy;

I read that article some time back when it was posted here and remember that it ran on 80% toluene. Doesn't that make a difference?

PS did you note that Mclaren Honda was sponsored by Shell while their racing fuel was ELF

From memory toleune helps reduce knock and also burns 'longer'

The throttles on the old turbo engines were effectively switches 'on/off' and lacked driveability, comparisons to modern day N/A or F/I are a little tricky.

[riff_raff]

Shaddock,

The 84% toluene race fuel the RA168 ran was chosen because it technically met the F1 rules and it provided excellent detonation resistance. Another significant benefit was its higher energy density (LHV), since the rules at the time specified limits on fuel volume. The drawback with the 84% toluene fuel was that it was difficult to atomise, and thus made accurate control of fuel mixtures problematic. Honda had to resort to using heat exchangers in the fuel system to regulate fuel temps.

As for the RA168 having poor driveability, this is not true. It produced around 80% of max torque between 7000 and 13000 rpm. That's a very flat torque curve, especially for a racing engine.

As for the turbo 1.5L V6 RA168 engine weight, it was 146kg, which may seem heavy by current standards. But it also had a cast iron block and steel valve springs.

Finally, there were rumors that the RA168 used an early version of Honda's VTEC variable valve rocker system. Don't know if it's true though.

Regards,
riff_raff

[godlameroso]

You mean making cars heavier in the interests of safety? I never understood that, why can't they just design more efficient structures? The heaviest parts in modern cars are in the engine, transmission, doors and hinged structures, and "safety" systems. On an F1 car there are no doors nor good ventilation or good HVAC system you probably save a good half ton there alone. The engine + KERS combo weighs 95 + 35kg = 130kg, a pittance, there are production 4 cylinder engines that weigh more. The transmission weighs 90 kg in a mini cooper, how much does a transmission weigh in a modern F1 car?

Truth is with the type of manufacturing know how from the top teams, they could easily make a car with a starter, full HVAC system, with KERS + HERS and still make it weigh less than 640kg. FIA doesn't want to make cars that light because then they'll be even faster, not to mention the weight of the driver becomes a bigger influence the lower the vehicle weight because the driver becomes a bigger proportion of the overall weight.

[godlameroso]

Will the new engines be all aluminum?

[Edis]

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.

My description is correct for all direct injection gasoline engines, you only inject the fuel during the compression stroke when you want a stratified charge. A stratified charge can in turn only be used at low loads. The intention of which is to be able to operate on part load unthrottled. Ideally, the throttle should be fully opened with the torque output of the engine being controlled by injected fuel mass only. But when operating at high loads, all direct injection systems switch to fuel injection during the intake stroke.

I have shown you this map before which show where the different fuel injection modes are used:


Homogeneous modes = injection during intake stroke
Charge stratification = injection during compression stroke

[Edis]

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

If you look at the data you will notice that the Honda engine needs about 141 kg/h when running at full power. 504 kW * 0.280 kg/kWh = 141 kg/h

So a fuel flow limit of 100 kg/h will be a challenge if it becomes a reality.

46 MJ/kg is very high for a liquid fuel, around 43 MJ/kg is more common. The fuel used by Honda is on the low side, just 41.07 MJ/kg.

[747heavy]

@ Edis

all fair and good, but a race engine does not run at full power for a complete lap (perhaps in Indy or any other oval race series).
The Honda engine at max efficiency produced 450kW and consumed 272g/kWh, if you combine this with the published throttle map, you will arrive at a lower consumption then your proposed 141 kg/h.

I never claimed that the Honda engine would meet the proposed 2013 consumption figures. Nevertheless it was a remarkable engine, which covered a ~300km race distance with 150 ltr of fuel.
If we take the proposed fuel consumption of WB as a guideline (~100kg] we talk about ~130 ltr of fuel for a race distance.
While a reduction compare to current fuel consumption levels, it´s a 14% reduction from the levels seen 25 years ago.
Sorry, not that impressive in my book, but better then nothing.

[WhiteBlue]

@ Edis

all fair and good, but a race engine does not run at full power for a complete lap (perhaps in Indy or any other oval race series).
The Honda engine at max efficiency produced 450kW and consumed 272g/kWh, if you combine this with the published throttle map, you will arrive at a lower consumption then your proposed 141 kg/h.

I never claimed that the Honda engine would meet the proposed 2013 consumption figures. Nevertheless it was a remarkable engine, which covered a ~300km race distance with 150 ltr of fuel.
If we take the proposed fuel consumption of WB as a guideline (~100kg] we talk about ~130 ltr of fuel for a race distance.
While a reduction compare to current fuel consumption levels, it´s a 14% reduction from the levels seen 25 years ago.
Sorry, not that impressive in my book, but better then nothing.

It is an illusion to think that the Honda efficiency at lower power was as good as at max power. It was significantly reduced. Due to rapidly falling efficiency and the use of near petrol station quality fuel the race distance in 2013 would not be covered by 150L of fuel but considerably more.

[747heavy]

the fact remains that the car(s) covered the race distance with 150 ltr. of fuel.
Have you seen the fuel regulations for 2013, if so, please post a reference, if not please don´t expect everybody to follow along your assumptions.

As for the efficiency figure, who said, that the efficiency would increase at part load?
The figures for max efficiency of the Honda engine are quoted at 12000rpm and 450kW.
If you ever have seen throttle usage maps of a real race engines, in whatever race series which races on a sealed surface (ice racing and rallying are a different matter), from Formula Ford to F1, you will see that time spend at part throttle is insignificant. Unless you have some real issues with your setup/tires or a "bad" driver.

Your F1 engine, optimized for usage at part load is pure fantasy. As long as F1 races are won by the diver/car who covers a given distance in the shortest possible time, the aim will be to spend as much time as possible at max. power. Ergo the engine will be optimized for this regime.
That´s the case today in F1, it was the case in 1988 in F1, it´s the case with Audi in LeMans and it will be the case in F1 in 2013.
If the turn it into a Shell eco marathon kind of racing, with points for less fuel used, things are going to change.
Unless then a race engine will need to have max. efficiency at WOT, and this being contrary to the conditions most road car engines operate in.
Therefore the cross over effect from a race engine to a road car engine will be limited.

I have always used a starting fuel weight of 150 kg for 2010 which seems to be a figure you do not object to. The last time I read this figure was some days ago by Patrick Head who talked about the 2011 KERS and that the Williams mechanical flywheel battery does not fit well into car with 150kg fuel tank.

It´s a sensible guess, as is 160 or 165kg not more not less - I have no problem with it.
But it is not the absolute indisputable fact value, you want it to be.

BTW, did Patrick Head not talk about 150+kg fuel tanks in his interview in regards to KERS?
At least on the Williams website he used this figure.

We will be running an entirely Williams-developed KERS system, with a battery storage cell. This is no reflection upon a flywheel system, such as we developed in 2008 for 2009, but it is difficult to package a flywheel system in a Formula 1 car with a 150+kg fuel tank. An F1 capacity battery pack is made up of a number of small lithium-ion cells, and they can be packaged into a shape which is convenient, usually positioned under the centre of the fuel tank.

http://www.attwilliams.com/news/view/1677

as for this statement

There are other reasons to use a rear MGU like having an electric starter. That has been discussed in the past and they may put that in the rules to have better options to remove cars from dangerous situations on track.

When exactly did an F1 car get stuck in a dangerous position, with a stalled engine, last time?
With todays antistall systems, that must be a very rare occurence these days - No?
Most of the time, the cars will have lost some or all suspension parts, get stuck in a gravel bet or have a technical problem when they need removal.
Not sure if a starter motor would be much help in these cases.

Maybe you have said it best yourself.

The comment seems not to reflect the actual accident problems in F1.