2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

Hmm engine stands vertically.
Looks more restrictive than current regs. Teams wont be able to do transverse mount or lean the engine.

Fuel flow monitor makes no sense, better they limit boost pressure and total fuel in the tank.
Hopefully the fuel allowance doesn't require any nursing to finish a race.

A mass flow sensor is required to oversee fuel flow accurately. Those things are quite awkward to put on a car now. Maybe F1 can develope more fitting technology for the cars.

[xpensive]

All of the above is xtremely interesing for a die hard mechanical engineer such as myself, which might xplain why I for once managed to keep my notoriously wide mouth shut for at least a little while.

However, it seems to me that this all deals with converting the dynamic energy, as pressure times volumetric flow, of the xhausts into mechanical such. This still comes across as a only fraction of the thermal energy available?

Do correct me where I go wrong, but is there an intellectually plausible way to deal with the rest?

[ringo]

I don't think they can harness 100%.
Whoever does that will be the wealthiest man in the world.

I can't remember which interpretation of which law it is, 2nd?, but it basically says that it's impossible for any working fluid to leave an engine at zero velocity, in other words at environmental conditions.

I think it's explained in the kelvin statement:

No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work.

[WhiteBlue]

I found it very encouraging that they tackle turbo compounding and with a relatively simple design. Also the dual torque mode deserves some praise. I believe the battle ground will be the efficiency of the engine between 200 and 400 hp in part load regime. If they manage good efficiency and fuel utilization (high AFR) there teams may have an advantage.

[ringo]

I don't think there's going to be much part load with a 1.6lt turbo engine that's supposed to give over 500hp.
I wouldn't say they tackled turbo compounding either. This is simply a generator on a turbo charger. Similar to what we were discussing earlier in this thread and other engine threads.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't think there's going to be much part load with a 1.6lt turbo engine that's supposed to give over 500hp.
I wouldn't say they tackled turbo compounding either. This is simply a generator on a turbo charger. Similar to what we were discussing earlier in this thread and other engine threads.

If we believe the figures that Pat Head told us about 50% full throttle we will have significant times on part load, at least more than we have now.

How would you call a generator that takes excess turbine power from the shaft of the turbo charger and suplies it to the KERS MGU? I would call it electric turbo compounding.

[Edis]

Hmm engine stands vertically.
Looks more restrictive than current regs. Teams wont be able to do transverse mount or lean the engine.

Fuel flow monitor makes no sense, better they limit boost pressure and total fuel in the tank.
Hopefully the fuel allowance doesn't require any nursing to finish a race.

A mass flow sensor is required to oversee fuel flow accurately. Those things are quite awkward to put on a car now. Maybe F1 can develope more fitting technology for the cars.

The current regulations already mandate the engine configuration, I don't see any reason to change that with the new regulations.

Fuel flow limits make sense, the required sensors exist and are commonly used in the aerospace sector. Boost pressure limits and total fuel in the tank have been done in the past and aren't exactly known to create good racing or do much to push engine efficiencies up. Mostly they lead to long fuel saving stints in the race.

If we believe the figures that Pat Head told us about 50% full throttle we will have significant times on part load, at least more than we have now.

How would you call a generator that takes excess turbine power from the shaft of the turbo charger and suplies it to the KERS MGU? I would call it electric turbo compounding.

With a less powerful engine we will see more time on full throttle unless they significantly reduce the cars grip, which would make the cars much slower. When F1 switched from V10 engines to less powerful V8 engines this was exactly what happened.

In either case, a racing car engine is all about full throttle running. That is where the engine spends most of the time and when the engine consume the most fuel and thus it is where you can find the greatest fuel savings. Part load is only a few percent of the total running time (aside from full throttle, most time is spent off the trottle), and the engine consume much less fuel during part load. Part load conditions due to grip limitations can also be avoided by running with more load at a lower engine speed, at the same time reducing frictional losses. At 50% load an engine is also quite efficient and you're in a situation where a direct injection engine need to operate with a homogeneous charge.

[ringo]

The fuel flow limit makes sense, but the length to implement it is not worth it.
liquid mass flow sensors are quite complicated. I don't know about those used in aerospace, so for those in the know feel free to post some info on them.

here are some pharmaceutical ones. Not bad in terms of weight though, 0.5 kg.
http://www.bronkhorst.com/files/downlo ... eaflet.pdf

these are for water. I'm not sure if they will have to calibrated for specific feul mixes. That's another question. Each team will have varying fuel composition.

Models and flow ranges
Liquid Mass Flow Meters; PN400 (pressure rating 400 bar)
Model min. flow max. flow
L01 1,5 ... 30 mg/h 0,1 ... 2 g/h

Liquid Mass Flow Meters; PN1000 (pressure rating 1000 bar)
Model min. flow max. flow
L02 7,5 ... 150 mg/h 22,5 ... 450 mg/h

Liquid Mass Flow Controllers; PN100 (pressure rating 100 bar)
Model min. flow max. flow
L01V12 5 ... 100 mg/h 0,1 ... 2 g/h

They heat the fluid to a certain temperature and based on how much heat input is required to maintain that temperature over a given length i believe, it can determine the mass flow.
The properties of the fluid need to be known.
I don't know how this works in the environment of an F1 car though.

from a similar model:
http://www.bronkhorst.com/files/downloa ... eaflet.pdf


this would be the setup. I can't speak german so someone will have to interpret it, though i get the setup.


let me take that back. This thing can work. The meter is not the size of a small cabinet, at least not these examples.

[747heavy]

I think it´s fair to say, that a sensor / flow meter for ~100kg/h would be a fair bit bigger then the shown 450mg/h flow meter above.

from the papers/data sheets which Edis posted of the aerospace flow meters, it becomes apparent that the liquid density and characteristics need´s to be know in great detail, to achieve high accuracy.
As they are volumetric flow meters, which compute mass flow on known characteristics (density, temperature etc.), if I understand this correct (which I may not).

As long there is no common fuel supplier in F1, and a fairly large range for fuel density under the current regs, this could prove difficult to calibrate and police beoyned doubt in an competetive envoirment such as F1 - IMHO.

[WhiteBlue]

I think this technical problem is much over estimated. If there is inaccurcy you can overcome it by making the flow measuring technology a spec item. Then it is the same to all and you just focus on making sure it remains same to all by making the sensors temper proof.

[flynfrog]

why does it need to be that precise. Mandate a specified diameter restrictor and a fuel pressure. A pressure tell tale or blow off is easy to build. Or an even easier plan limit air the way LMS or FSAE does. If they are turbo engines why not limit boost. In the end it doesn't mater you are simply limiting one chemical in a reaction.

[WhiteBlue]

Or an even easier plan limit air the way LMS or FSAE does. If they are turbo engines why not limit boost. In the end it doesn't mater you are simply limiting one chemical in a reaction.

I disagree very much with the view. The AFR can vastly change according to technology and operating mode of the engine. Hence controlling the air will never be as efficient as controlling the fuel flow.

[ringo]

I think it´s fair to say, that a sensor / flow meter for ~100kg/h would be a fair bit bigger then the shown 450mg/h flow meter above.

from the papers/data sheets which Edis posted of the aerospace flow meters, it becomes apparent that the liquid density and characteristics need´s to be know in great detail, to achieve high accuracy.
As they are volumetric flow meters, which compute mass flow on known characteristics (density, temperature etc.), if I understand this correct (which I may not).

As long there is no common fuel supplier in F1, and a fairly large range for fuel density under the current regs, this could prove difficult to calibrate and police beoyned doubt in an competetive envoirment such as F1 - IMHO.

Yep, that was my original concern. Each team may need to declare the fuel composition to the FIA confidentially, then the universal flow meter would be calibrated to each team based on the fuel sample the FIA usually collects.
I am still on the fence with the whole Mass flow restriction, but i think it's possible to overcome the problem.

These meters are not volume flow however. They depend on heat capacity.
A flow meter for 100kg may be bigger indeed, but it may not be proportionally so.
Remember these are for water, gasoline's specific heat capacity is much less.
Gasoline is 2.22 kJ/kgK while water is 4.18, that's a factor of almost 2.

I was thinking about bypassing a portion of the fluid and measuring that as well ,even though there is a potential for teams to cheat with that idea.
Here's an example of a meter that can detect 25kg/hr. A little closer to the target, since it can measure about 50kg/hr for gasoline.

http://www.bronkhorst.com/files/publish ... es/l30.pdf

However this one can only take 100 bar of pressure and uses 8 Watts. And reading the article it can be seen that bypassing a fraction of the flow has it's technical problems as well.

I can see though, that with some millions in R&D, a device specifically for 100kg/hr and 500 bar of gasoline could be designed.

The Coriolis style meters now, are the cupboard sized equipment (about 90 w x 200 h x 261 l mm ). Those use vibration to detect mass flow. I think those are out of the question as well since an F1 car's environment is very harsh.
Kind of a waste of space just to detect fuel flow.

It can be done, but i wont pine over it if the whole idea is scrapped. Boost limit and max fuel allowance is good enough for me.

[flynfrog]

Or an even easier plan limit air the way LMS or FSAE does. If they are turbo engines why not limit boost. In the end it doesn't mater you are simply limiting one chemical in a reaction.

I disagree very much with the view. The AFR can vastly change according to technology and operating mode of the engine. Hence controlling the air will never be as efficient as controlling the fuel flow.

yet on a real race engine that has a chance of making it onto a track I doubt you will see much difference. These engine are still going to be tuned for power not fuel economy

[747heavy]

These meters are not volume flow however. They depend on heat capacity.
A flow meter for 100kg may be bigger indeed, but it may not be proportionally so.

1.) my comment was in context to the flow meters Edis proposed:

How is the flow measured? Well, I know that Exact Flow have offered their dual rotor turbine flowmeter to F1 so something like that would be a good guess.

more info: http://www.exactflow.com/

I did understand that your proposed sensor / flow meter, uses heatcapacity. In a nutshell not unsimilar to some "air mass" sensors in automotive ECU´s (heated wire/ heated wire mesh)

2.) I never said, they would, (increase propotional in size)

In both cases the accuracy will depent on the physical propertice of the fluid, measured.