2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Anth]

Now that Williams are working with jaguar on the new jag supercar, which will have a 1.6 turbo engine is this a sign that they are moving away from cosworth and developing their own engine?

[FW17]

Now that Williams are working with jaguar on the new jag supercar, which will have a 1.6 turbo engine is this a sign that they are moving away from cosworth and developing their own engine?

Off topic

But how does 2#94hp gas turbines provide enough power for 4#195hp electric motors?

[autogyro]

Now that Williams are working with jaguar on the new jag supercar, which will have a 1.6 turbo engine is this a sign that they are moving away from cosworth and developing their own engine?

Off topic

But how does 2#94hp gas turbines provide enough power for 4#195hp electric motors?

By charging batteries.
Anyway, the turbines are not confirmed for the production car AFAIK.

[WhiteBlue]

42% sounds might precise, it would be interesting to learn how you arrived at such a definite number WB?

We are in the 33% efficiency territory. For a quick evaluation you can say that you simply devide the fuel saving percentage by the factor of three which you can do if the engine develops similar power. Thats how I quickly figured 42% for the new power train. It can't be too far of if you get to the same figures.

[alelanza]

And ass a response to the question below, the answer is no, track layout doesn't matter whatsoever.

Given how knowledgeable i know you are X, i can only imagine there's a difference in concept somewhere here, are you talking about consumption at WOT? because otherwise layout does matter as it determines % of time spent at WOT, partial throttle and off throttle.

(...)
If you want to express that in milage you have to look at 180L of petrol for a 300 km race today which translates into 60L/100km (3.92 mpg). In 2013 this will go down to 39L/100km (6.03 mpg). This is not impressive by road car standards but it will at least start to approach what LMP1 cars do today. Mind you LMP1 will still be much better than F1 but F1 would not look quite so ridiculous.

It is, try to push 1.6l 100bhp car to it's limit, and you'll see... 30l/100km,
for example my little Ford Escort 1.6i (90bhp) on the racetrack burned about 28l/100km. You don't want to know how much fuel eaten my friend's IS200(2.0 R6 155bhp).

Tikavi, thanks for bringing a dose of reality into this thread

[xpensive]

42% sounds might precise, it would be interesting to learn how you arrived at such a definite number WB?

We are in the 33% efficiency territory. For a quick evaluation you can say that you simply devide the fuel saving percentage by the factor of three which you can do if the engine develops similar power. Thats how I quickly figured 42% for the new power train. It can't be too far of if you get to the same figures.

With all due respect WB, I have to say that your way of arriving at 42% was rather presumptious, just because the FIA throws out a number for fuel savings, together with an "xpected" power output, it doesn't mean it will play out that way?

At Alejandro;, never mind, I just get tired of wiseguy remarks once in a while, Don's mpg numbers were obviously typicals.

[noname]

Assuming todays V8s:
1. Are producing 750 bhp (560 kW)
2. To do so are consuming 3.76 litres/minute (0.046 kg /second)
3. Caloric value of fuel is 43 MJ/kg
We are getting thermal efficiency of the engine = 28.5%

If the 2013 goals will looks like this:
1. 600 bhp
2. Fuel consumption 2.29 litres/minute (~100 kg/hr, fuel density 0.73)
We'll get thermal efficiency of the engine = 37.5%

Courtesy of Pat Symonds but I am OK with his estimations.

Just one remark, in Motorsport what you do need is performance. Increasing efficiency does not have to translate into performance gains.

[WhiteBlue]

With all due respect WB, I have to say that your way of arriving at 42% was rather presumptious, just because the FIA throws out a number for fuel savings, together with an "xpected" power output, it doesn't mean it will play out that way?

I'm pretty sure those figures will stand up. They have had years to go over them in endless expert talks and crunch numbers. The participants of the expert group have a lot more resources than you and I and we have come to similar results.

Assuming todays V8s:
1. Are producing 750 bhp (560 kW)
2. To do so are consuming 3.76 litres/minute (0.046 kg /second)
3. Caloric value of fuel is 43 MJ/kg
We are getting thermal efficiency of the engine = 28.5%

If the 2013 goals will looks like this:
1. 600 bhp
2. Fuel consumption 2.29 litres/minute (~100 kg/hr, fuel density 0.73)
We'll get thermal efficiency of the engine = 37.5%

Your figures do not consider the huge increase in recovered energy. The kinetic energy recovery alone will be four times the amaunt we have today. And then you have to add the compressor power and the electric energy that will be recovered by the turbo compounder. Total power is suposed to exceed 800 hp.

[xpensive]

What should be remembered here, is that percentages can decieve at times, increasing the engine's efficiency from 30% to 42%, actually means a 40% increase in efficiency, not 12%. In all honesty, I fail to see how that would be possible?

[WhiteBlue]

As usual we will have to wait and see. Many people said that direct injection and 12.000 rpm would not be possible. The same was said about electric turbo compounding and recovering 1.6 MJ kinetic energy per lap. We will see real development come back to the series, albeit with restricted resources hopefully.

[noname]

Your figures do not consider the huge increase in recovered energy. The kinetic energy recovery alone will be four times the amaunt we have today. And then you have to add the compressor power and the electric energy that will be recovered by the turbo compounder. Total power is suposed to exceed 800 hp.

Discussion was about engine, not powertrain, efficiency (“Based on that thinking I would expect the engines to have an efficiency of 42%”).

So far I know about 120 kW (160 bhp) KERS. Together with the 600 bhp that would give 760 bhp when the powertrain is operated at its full potential, so close to what we have today. 2013 rules say about max. 2 MJ of recovery and max. 4 MJ discharge per lap. Most of the energy will be harvested from brakes (if, again, we refer to Symonds – he estimates it will be up to 1.3 MJ per lap), the rest by other means. That opens the doors for gizmos like e-turbo. As you can get from it more than 0.7 MJ/lap (2-1.3) there is some energy which can be used i.e. to drive ancillaries (fuel pump, hydraulic pump, etc…).

That energy is not for free, as it affects exhaust back pressure and some engines are quite sensitive to that.

But go back to numbers. If we look at possible 2013 energy balance then actually there is a chance to go a bit above 42%:

1. Average fuel consumption in 2010: 2.75 kg/lap (115.5 MJ/lap available)
2. In 2013 consumption to be 65% of what was in 2010 -> 1.79 kg/lap (75.2 MJ/lap)
3. V8 thermal efficiency = 28.5% -> 32.9 MJ/lap
4. 2013 efficiency = 37.5% -> 28.2 MJ/lap
5. If we add max allowable discharge rate (4MJ/lap) -> 42.8% (powertrain efficiency)

Of course how the rules will finally look like is to be decided. The same can be said about their implementation by the OEMs and the teams.

[xpensive]

...
But go back to numbers. If we look at possible 2013 energy balance then actually there is a chance to go a bit above 42%:

1. Average fuel consumption in 2010: 2.75 kg/lap (115.5 MJ/lap available)
2. In 2013 consumption to be 65% of what was in 2010 -> 1.79 kg/lap (75.2 MJ/lap)
3. V8 thermal efficiency = 28.5% -> 32.9 MJ/lap
4. 2013 efficiency = 37.5% -> 28.2 MJ/lap
5. If we add max allowable discharge rate (4MJ/lap) -> 42.8% (powertrain efficiency)

Of course how the rules will finally look like is to be decided. The same can be said about their implementation by the OEMs and the teams.

I'm confused to put it mildly, not only apples and pears here, more like a whole fruitbasket.

I was only thinking about the efficiency of the ICE itself, but if you add all these predicted gizmos, not yet materialized,
the scenario becomes completely different as we can pick any numbers we wish to come true, when the gizmos don't xist?

If we confine the discussion to efficiency of the xisting 2.4 V8 vs a possible 2013 I4 turbo, while taking noname's numbers, an increase from 28.5 to 37.5% is a relative efficiency improvement of 31.6%, which is indeed mindboggling if true.

[djos]

Why don't we just add twin electric compounding turbos to the existing 2.4ltr V8 plus the direct injection systems and be done with it? That would be far cheaper than building a boring new 4cyl engine that no one wants in F1 !!!

[noname]

I was only thinking about the efficiency of the ICE itself, but if you add all these predicted gizmos, not yet materialized,
the scenario becomes completely different as we can pick any numbers we wish to come true, when the gizmos don't xist?

That's, at least for me, the issue I see in many discussion about 2013 rules.
It's not about new engine but the whole new powertrain, which include technology non-existing yet (although under development, quite advanced already).

The rules in their current form force the OEMs and the teams to look for maximizing powertrain efficiency and, as usual in real life, that does not have to translate into maximizing efficiency of its components.

Ability to use all these gizmos is another topic and there is a lot to learn, as energy management will be much more complicated than today.

[xpensive]

FIA President Jean Todt in Diario Sport today, June 7th, 2011;

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92057

Xcerpt;

"If I talk to Renault, they say that if we don't introduce this engine for 2013 they will leave F1; if I talk to Mercedes and Ferrari, they ask me to delay the introduction for a few years. They aren't against the rules, they just wanted them postponed."

So there it is, it's a French thing now, there is no telling where this will end now...what a mess!