2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[godlameroso]

The turbo won't be that big. To make 600bhp from 1.6 liters assuming no restrictor you need something like this

That's one of the commercial TCs we are doing, rather small toy. Good enough to make the sprint from the lights.

Try to estimate mass flow, required boost, outlet temperature and pressure ratio for the 1.6 revved to >10k RPM, keep in mind you want low delta P and you will know the size of the wheels you need to put inside.

The one for R18 is far bigger than this, and the ones for F1 would be even bigger.

Doesn't the R18 use a restrictor, I though F1 cars didn't breathe through a restrictor.

[WhiteBlue]

I think you are missing the main point which I have mentioned. It is about money. Bernie desperately needs to split the teams in order to prevent them negotiating a bigger share of the FOM revenues. He will reinforce every controversy that he can find in the next few months. Just consider his comments about the number of teams needed. Hispania has already left FOTA. If he can get more minions to drop out of the organization Bernie will be happy.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/ ... are-rules/

If you don't believe me have a look at Joe's blog. He knows the politics of F1 inside out. The 2013 engines are a done deal. No sniping by Bernie and Ferrari will change that.

I don't see this as only BE, Ferrari will do anything to get a larger share of the pie than the other teams

This report of teams evaluating options is clearly a red herring. There was a solid majority in favour of the rules decided in December. I would go out on a limb saying that there is hardly another team beside Ferrari who would want to overturn the decisions.

Cosworth have been very vocal about their support for the 2013 engine rules before, during and after the final decision. There is no reason to believe they have changed their attitude. They have confirmed that they are willing to compete to the 2013 rules on the back of their engineering strength and that they expect to be competitive with the best automotive brands.

People familiar with the Concord and FiA basic rules know that technical issues with big impact like engines have to be decided two years ahead of the year they come into effect. Once they are decided they cannot be changed unless the teams agree unanimously to the change. The likelihood that all teams will agree to delay the 2013 engines is practically zero. So this talk is basically an non issue.

Joe Saward is an opinionated bloke with tons of experience and sometimes controversial opinions but he is no fool when it comes to F1 politics. He knows that Bernie's and Ferrari's grumblings are just that. I would recommend to simply disregard the issue until FOTA makes an official comment that they have revised their policy on the 2013 engines. Obviously in my humble opinion such an announcement will never happen.

[Sayshina]

Formula None: When the 3.5 formula first came out, we had V8's, V10's, V12's, W12's, disk valves, 5 valves, Oh, and even a "big bang" engine (someone posted something about that in this thread many pages ago). Within a couple of years, we had V10's with 4 poppet valves per cylinder. Not because of any rules, that was simply the evolution of competition.

Xpensive: You can't have 1000+ hp cars. Well, specifically, you can't have cars much faster than todays. The tracks are the limiting factor. The reason turbos were banned is because of the "Killer B's", and the fact that they actually killed people. Worse still, they killed fans.

The kind of cars you want would require a radical redesign of every F1 track, which is just not gonna happen. Either that or you eventually have an accident that ends F1 entirely and on the spot. It wasn't all that long ago that the deaths of 2 drivers during a single weekend forced F1 into a massive safety initiative. At the time there was real fear that governments were going to get involved, and there was a real worry that F1 might not survive. Kill 40 or 50 fans and it's game over.

Espy: First, you've fallen into the same trap the FIA keeps tripping over. Standardized mounting points won't make engines interchangable. It's vastly more complex than that. History shows us it takes most of a year for a team to get back up to speed after changing engine suppliers.

F1 engines and trans. cases are modular. And it takes a lot less than an hour to remove one. The problem is when you remove a F1 engine you also remove the entire back 1/3 of the car, and even if you swapped over the entire 1/3 as one system, these things are hand fabricated in very low volumes. No matter what, they will always have enough variance that you almost have to start over with setup.

Blue White: Really? We're gonna call Bernie "just a promoter" now? Exactly how many fights has that guy lost over the last say 3 decades? I hate the guy, but give him credit, when he picks a fight he wins it. He might just be making noise to distract from his real target, we've seen him do that enough in the past. But if he genuinely doesn't want new engines there won't be new engines. It doesn't seem to ever matter what everybody else wants.

In fact, I'll go so far as to bet you they don't happen. I'll bet sometime around May, 2012 the FIA announces there was too much contention, and now there's simply not enough time to do it right. I'm betting the actual 2013 rules are going to be the same as todays, plus catalytic converters, possibly particulate filters, and mildly improved KERS used as a push to pass, with no dual torque allowed. That seems to be what Bernie wants, and only a fool bets against the house.

[Pingguest]

http://bbs.hellof1.com/1920913.html It transpires that a lot of the new engine features will be different from the expected.

The future of Formula 1's engine regulations

[...]

Although the exact KERS parameters have not yet been defined, it is expected allowable energy limits (presently 400 kilojoule, or 81bhp for 6.7 seconds) will be multiplied four or even five times, meaning KERS boost will be available for anything from 30 seconds to a full minute per lap.

[...]

On the power front, White estimates the basic output of the engine will be around 530bhp, with an additional 180bhp coming courtesy of KERS, whose delivery is expected to be blended into the fly-by-wire throttle system, rather than activation through a crude steering wheel-mounted button as at present.

[...]

In other words: considering weight and amount of downforce, in 2013 Formula 1 cars will, by modern standards, seriously lack engine power for almost half a lap at Spa-Francorchamps. With this in mind, I certainly understand why the new regulations are increasingly unpopular by the public.

[Formula None]

Formula None: When the 3.5 formula first came out, we had V8's, V10's, V12's, W12's, disk valves, 5 valves, Oh, and even a "big bang" engine (someone posted something about that in this thread many pages ago). Within a couple of years, we had V10's with 4 poppet valves per cylinder. Not because of any rules, that was simply the evolution of competition.

So that covers spark ignited, fuel injected gasoline engines of 3.5L displacement. Many more options beyond that, yeah? Wasn't exactly an open formula in that era. (and I use the term "open" loosely, because I'm not advocating deathtraps, simply a more diverse field that would still have safety regs).

Also, what engine used disc valves? I remember reading on this forum that rotary valves were developed at some point in the late 90s-early 00s but were made illegal before being implemented.

Xpensive: You can't have 1000+ hp cars. Well, specifically, you can't have cars much faster than todays. The tracks are the limiting factor. The reason turbos were banned is because of the "Killer B's", and the fact that they actually killed people. Worse still, they killed fans.

There's a number of ways this could be addressed. Engine development could be offset by reductions in downforce. Or, top speeds could simply be limited to allow current tracks to be used, which could mean acceleration & deceleration rates and fuel efficiency at the max cruising speed would become areas of development. I don't think that 1000+ hp would necessitate dead fans in modern times with constantly improving safety regs. Also, can the turbo era be considered an open formula?

The kind of cars you want would require a radical redesign of every F1 track, which is just not gonna happen. Either that or you eventually have an accident that ends F1 entirely and on the spot. It wasn't all that long ago that the deaths of 2 drivers during a single weekend forced F1 into a massive safety initiative. At the time there was real fear that governments were going to get involved, and there was a real worry that F1 might not survive. Kill 40 or 50 fans and it's game over.

Advocating more diverse car designs does not equal abandoning safety regulations. Improving safety could just be another part of a new formula. Things could be improved upon currently, for example: Windscreens, better roll structure coverage, making cars harder to flip (minimal surface area in plan view, wheel covers, etc).

F1 engines and trans. cases are modular. And it takes a lot less than an hour to remove one. The problem is when you remove a F1 engine you also remove the entire back 1/3 of the car, and even if you swapped over the entire 1/3 as one system, these things are hand fabricated in very low volumes. No matter what, they will always have enough variance that you almost have to start over with setup.

What exactly would be changing so drastically from engine to engine, trans to trans? Linear dimensions? Differing tolerance stackup?

[WhiteBlue]

http://bbs.hellof1.com/1920913.html It transpires that a lot of the new engine features will be different from the expected.

The future of Formula 1's engine regulations

[...]

Although the exact KERS parameters have not yet been defined, it is expected allowable energy limits (presently 400 kilojoule, or 81bhp for 6.7 seconds) will be multiplied four or even five times, meaning KERS boost will be available for anything from 30 seconds to a full minute per lap.

[...]

On the power front, White estimates the basic output of the engine will be around 530bhp, with an additional 180bhp coming courtesy of KERS, whose delivery is expected to be blended into the fly-by-wire throttle system, rather than activation through a crude steering wheel-mounted button as at present.

[...]

In other words: considering weight and amount of downforce, in 2013 Formula 1 cars will, by modern standards, seriously lack engine power for almost half a lap at Spa-Francorchamps. With this in mind, I certainly understand why the new regulations are increasingly unpopular by the public.

This is exactly the wrong conclusion. With dual torque control the KERS power will apply for the whole lap. I'm not so sure the peak power will be 720 hp then. Even a more realistic power assumption of 670 hp will be sufficient for are more efficient chassis with ground effect and reduced aero forces.

This opinion is shared by most technical experts like Scarbs who have looked into those issues in depth.

[Sayshina]

Formula none, disk valves have been around quite a long time. They were used in 2-strokes in the '60's and I seem to remember something about the originator of the modern expansion chamber 2-stroke playing around with disk valves during WW-II.

At any rate, the W-12 (3 banks of 4 cylinders) had disk valves. It was a crap engine, and I'm not sure it ever actually qualified, all I can really remember about it was that it seems completely hairbrained and after a couple of months it was gone.

My point was that in an open formula without any outside interference you will still narrow all available options down to a single common solution. This is a rule of competition. Your nasa V16 is not gonna happen. I know you don't want to look at the 3.5 formula, but humor me for a moment.

When it was announced you have a bunch of crackpot ideas. If you ignore them however, you had 3 real solutions. The V8, as made by Ford, an evolution of the most successfull racing engine of all time. Well, that one was obvious. The V12, as made by Ferrari and others, made by companies with long histories of racing V12's. Again, obvious reasons for going that route. And finally the V10, as proposed by Honda. When the announced it just about everyone else said it couldn't be done and it would shake itself apart. Once it had been done it because the obvious solution and was rapidly adapted by the entire grid. Okay, that last part was assisted by a rule change to 3.0 liters.

What all this really means is that engineers did their simulations and decided that 12 cylinders was too big to package and 8 cylinders wasn't enough power. Since 10 was assumed to be impossible everyone had to decide which compromise they were most willing to live with. Your idea of all those varied designs actually racing against each other is unrealistic. The optimum solution, of which there is only 1, and the 2 or so closely related concepts on either side of that optimum one are all you'll ever see. All the rest will die in the computer before they're ever made.

As for track safety, well sure a speed limit could work, mostly. But that's hardly an open formula, and worst still a speed limit makes passing completely impossible. And yes, you could redesign the tracks to regain that safety margin, but you are talking about massive expense. You'd have to have enormous runoff areas, move the fans so far back they couldn't see anything and in many cases you'd need extra land that the tracks just don't have access to.

The fact of the matter is that tracks can only be minimally changed, pushing the fans back would go over like a lead balloon, and there's very little you can do to the car to improve fan safety other than slow it down. Most of your other ideas would possibly improve driver safety but would do nothing for the fans.

Anyway, it's irrelevant. Bernie is the guy in charge and he's shown us which direction he's going. Nascar it is.

[Pingguest]

This is exactly the wrong conclusion. With dual torque control the KERS power will apply for the whole lap. I'm not so sure the peak power will be 720 hp then. Even a more realistic power assumption of 670 hp will be sufficient for are more efficient chassis with ground effect and reduced aero forces.

This opinion is shared by most technical experts like Scarbs who have looked into those issues in depth.

If KERS power will apply the whole lap, then what's the rationale behind a time limit per lap?

[riff_raff]

A boosted engine with a lower rev limit could be a more reliable engine. With current revs at 18K, the piston/rod/crank inertia loads are most troublesome. A 1.6L turbo I4 would have a larger bore and stroke with higher thermal loading. Thus it would have larger pistons with thicker crowns, longer heavier conrods, and higher instantaneous piston accelerations for a given rpm. However, the peak piston accelerations with the 1.6L I4 at 14K(?) would be about 30% lower than the 2.4L V8 at 18K. And the 1.6L I4's recip piston/rod masses would not likely increase 30%, so it would be beneficial in that regard. The higher turbo intake and exhaust pressures would also help relieve some of the piston inertia loads around TDC on the intake stroke. Larger cylinder volumes, lower speeds, and higher cycle pressures would also benefit efficiency and fuel consumption.

On the other hand, the rest of the drivetrain (clutch, gears, CV's, etc) would need to be slightly stronger to deal with the higher instantaneous torque levels produced by the turbo I4 engine.

[WhiteBlue]

This is exactly the wrong conclusion. With dual torque control the KERS power will apply for the whole lap. I'm not so sure the peak power will be 720 hp then. Even a more realistic power assumption of 670 hp will be sufficient for are more efficient chassis with ground effect and reduced aero forces.

This opinion is shared by most technical experts like Scarbs who have looked into those issues in depth.

If KERS power will apply the whole lap, then what's the rationale behind a time limit per lap?

There will not be a time limit per lap. It is not consistent with dual torque mode.

[WhiteBlue]

A 1.6L turbo I4 would have a larger bore and stroke with higher thermal loading.

But also higher thermal efficiency.

[Pingguest]

This is exactly the wrong conclusion. With dual torque control the KERS power will apply for the whole lap. I'm not so sure the peak power will be 720 hp then. Even a more realistic power assumption of 670 hp will be sufficient for are more efficient chassis with ground effect and reduced aero forces.

This opinion is shared by most technical experts like Scarbs who have looked into those issues in depth.

If KERS power will apply the whole lap, then what's the rationale behind a time limit per lap?

There will not be a time limit per lap. It is not consistent with dual torque mode.

The non-existence of a time limit per lap remains to be seen. In almost all articles about the new regulations an artificial time limit per lap is mentioned. Dieter Rencken is usually well-informed as well.

[WhiteBlue]

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/noise-2/

Noise
April 2, 2011 by joesaward
The other day, by nefarious means, I had the opportunity to hear a computer simulation of the sound of the 2013 Formula 1 engines. This sounded pretty good to me and I heard it in comparison to a recording of the current engines and one of the old turbos from the 1980s. It was not hard to hear the difference, but the noise for the 2013 engine sounded pretty good to me and, in some respects, was better than the old turbos of the 1980s, providing less whistle and a little more buzz. The current engines scream rather more than the next generation but the noise was actually rather easier on the ears. If the simulation is correct – and the man with the computer in question was clearly someone qualified to know what he was talking about – then I think the 2013 engines will be fine. There is no question that noise is an important element in the sport, but the actual pitch of the noise is not the key point. Formula 1 must be noisy, in order to fit in with the violence of the cars (controlled though that may be). In my experience people who see F1 up close and personal for the first time talk about the noise but are more impressed by the speed of the acceleration, the machine-gun-like gearchange and the stunning power of the brakes.

It is hard to express it any better than Joe does in this blog entry. Perhaps t will help to balance the propaganda from Bernie and the noise lovers and create a more realistic perspective.

[ringo]

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/noise-2/

Noise
April 2, 2011 by joesaward
The other day, by nefarious means, I had the opportunity to hear a computer simulation of the sound of the 2013 Formula 1 engines. This sounded pretty good to me and I heard it in comparison to a recording of the current engines and one of the old turbos from the 1980s. It was not hard to hear the difference, but the noise for the 2013 engine sounded pretty good to me and, in some respects, was better than the old turbos of the 1980s, providing less whistle and a little more buzz. The current engines scream rather more than the next generation but the noise was actually rather easier on the ears. If the simulation is correct – and the man with the computer in question was clearly someone qualified to know what he was talking about – then I think the 2013 engines will be fine. There is no question that noise is an important element in the sport, but the actual pitch of the noise is not the key point. Formula 1 must be noisy, in order to fit in with the violence of the cars (controlled though that may be). In my experience people who see F1 up close and personal for the first time talk about the noise but are more impressed by the speed of the acceleration, the machine-gun-like gearchange and the stunning power of the brakes.

It is hard to express it any better than Joe does in this blog entry. Perhaps t will help to balance the propaganda from Bernie and the noise lovers and create a more realistic perspective.

You gots to be kidding!!??

I guess you watch f1 with your tv muted.

Noise lovers... Boy if you were ever President of the FIA, God help us.

[rjsa]

At first noise was being discarded as a non issue. Now People are taking their time to try to please us believers.

Things are improving. Let's hope the I4 nonsense is forgotten soon enough and I and Ferrari are kept happy.