2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Dragonfly]

Are you serious or just trying to have the last word? Had it been another place, not called "Technical" I'd answer you. But here I leave to you to answer your own question. It's easy really.

[alelanza]

Rev. limit is one of the worst regulations. It's quite dissapointing to watch if a car can get a good slipstream (with DRS or not, doesnt matter ), and the only thing that doesnt allow a pass is when rev. limit kicks on. (

That's a consequence of gearing, not rev limitter.

[andrew]

Are you serious or just trying to have the last word? Had it been another place, not called "Technical" I'd answer you. But here I leave to you to answer your own question. It's easy really.

I see what you are meaning but I think JET is hinting at fuel companies looking to get a bigger bang out of less fuel.

Maybe a seperate topic to discuss fuel mixtures and the possibilities for the new engine format or would this be going into the realms of fantasy and too much speculative conjecture?

[WhiteBlue]

People who want higher revs first have to invent new combustion and injection technologies. F1 is going for direct petrol injection with spray guided combustion. The known systems for this technologies go up to 200 bar injection pressure and 9,000 rpm. F1 was opening a development window by allowing 500 bar injection and 12,000 rpm. If you want to go beyond that you probably need 1,000 bar pressure and potentially a new kind of injector nozzle that isn't invented yet. If you press for higher revs without the development of new injection systems you will be a lot less fuel efficient. It means that you may run high revs for a short time but soon you would have to tune the engine down to save fuel. So the whole high revving would be pretty useless. And as the turbo engines of the eighties show you simply don't need the revs to generate the power. You generate the power from the torque of the blown engine. So all this talk of revs is just not leading anywhere unless someone comes up with a faster injection and combustion system.

[rjsa]

People who want higher revs first have to invent new combustion and injection technologies. F1 is going for direct petrol injection with spray guided combustion. The known systems for this technologies go up to 200 bar injection pressure and 9,000 rpm. F1 was opening a development window by allowing 500 bar injection and 12,000 rpm. If you want to go beyond that you probably need 1,000 bar pressure and potentially a new kind of injector nozzle that isn't invented yet. If you press for higher revs without the development of new injection systems you will be a lot less fuel efficient. It means that you may run high revs for a short time but soon you would have to tune the engine down to save fuel. So the whole high revving would be pretty useless. And as the turbo engines of the eighties show you simply don't need the revs to generate the power. You generate the power from the torque of the blown engine. So all this talk of revs is just not leading anywhere unless someone comes up with a faster injection and combustion system.

That's not the right way to put this. Both righier revs and supercharging are ways of putting more air (and thus more fuel) into the combustion chamber over a given period of time. With higher revs you fill and burn more times a second, while with supercharging you just push more mixture in each explosion.

[autogyro]

All it means is that the motor heads have forced F1 to go backwards twenty years.
F1 will now become a 'historic' formula with a very limited shelf life.

[rjsa]

All it means is that the motor heads have forced F1 to go backwards twenty years.
F1 will now become a 'historic' formula with a very limited shelf life.

Yeah, right. I live in the suburbs here in Sao Paulo and the last gas pump is to be closed tomorrow since we are all runing on fuel cels or solar pannels now.

[agip]

Why going turbo if you're not going to allow high boost pressure in order to promote higher revs because of the sound factor?

Sorry but I think the current V8 sound horrible. V10 and V12 are another story, of course.

I would take the ultra-low pitch sound of a V6 Turbo all day...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vmZDzD5 ... F327A78BD8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z0hjQry ... F327A78BD8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2OMLN0 ... F327A78BD8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1AzLw36 ... re=related[/youtube]

[Formula None]

I was looking forward to turbo-compounded 4 bangers. Oh well. Will be interesting to see where they go with compact mid-bank turbo layouts & central exhausts.

I assume the water radiators will shrink in size some, since we're burning less fuel to make similar power, but in this age of efficient packaging and slim bodywork, where are they going to stuff the intercooler(s) and associated plumbing? Hard to imagine seeing something as svelte as the RB5/6/7 again, when the engine is going to get shorter & more stuff will have to be crammed into the sidepods.

To that point: will large air-to-air intercoolers still be used, or might we see air-to-water intercoolers, or some interesting uses of heat pumps? For example, evaporator near the turbo or intake, to minimize intake plumbing complexity & the volume of the working fluid (air vs water/refrigerant). Condenser would be smaller, more like a water radiator. Not sure if this is feasible or remotely efficient relative to air-air cooling, but it seems like the flexibility you could gain with component placement & heat exchanger size would be valuable.

[Dragonfly]

Are you serious or just trying to have the last word? Had it been another place, not called "Technical" I'd answer you. But here I leave to you to answer your own question. It's easy really.

I see what you are meaning but I think JET is hinting at fuel companies looking to get a bigger bang out of less fuel.

Maybe a seperate topic to discuss fuel mixtures and the possibilities for the new engine format or would this be going into the realms of fantasy and too much speculative conjecture?

Petrol companies are constantly doing this now and for the last 23 years I've been following F1. Shell for example made lighter fuel for Ferrari a few years back and special engine oil for their ceramic lined cylinders on the V10.
So, the fuel (lubricants) war is here and has never stopped.
That's why fuel is sampled and controlled by the FIA and is governed by the Technical rules.
Therefore the claims of JET are groundless.

[ringo]

Personally I think that the best way to go would be to have no boost or rev limit, but seriously restrict the amount of fuel available. How tense would the ends of races be, with people running out of fuel?

I'm actually quite excited by this new formula!

And engine maps are so strictly restricted already?

I wont hold my breath for the freedom that some dream of.

There will be strict engine rules, as that is the only way to control expense.

V6 midbank single or double side turbo. That's as free as it's going to be.

[donskar]

Personally I think that the best way to go would be to have no boost or rev limit, but seriously restrict the amount of fuel available. How tense would the ends of races be, with people running out of fuel?

I'm actually quite excited by this new formula!

And engine maps are so strictly restricted already?

I wont hold my breath for the freedom that some dream of.

There will be strict engine rules, as that is the only way to control expense.
V6 midbank single or double side turbo. That's as free as it's going to be.

I wonder if strict engine rules really control expense and if so, by how much. With all the "easy" routes to more power/efficiency ruled out, the technicians must explore all sorts of "tiny" ways to eke out a gain -- fuel and oil formulae, materials research, and much more. That must be quite expensive, too.

[Giblet]

If we didn't have strict engine rules, the big teams would be running parallel engine programs to find the best solution.

[WhiteBlue]

People who want higher revs first have to invent new combustion and injection technologies. F1 is going for direct petrol injection with spray guided combustion. The known systems for this technologies go up to 200 bar injection pressure and 9,000 rpm. F1 was opening a development window by allowing 500 bar injection and 12,000 rpm. If you want to go beyond that you probably need 1,000 bar pressure and potentially a new kind of injector nozzle that isn't invented yet. If you press for higher revs without the development of new injection systems you will be a lot less fuel efficient. It means that you may run high revs for a short time but soon you would have to tune the engine down to save fuel. So the whole high revving would be pretty useless. And as the turbo engines of the eighties show you simply don't need the revs to generate the power. You generate the power from the torque of the blown engine. So all this talk of revs is just not leading anywhere unless someone comes up with a faster injection and combustion system.

That's not the right way to put this. Both righier revs and supercharging are ways of putting more air (and thus more fuel) into the combustion chamber over a given period of time. With higher revs you fill and burn more times a second, while with supercharging you just push more mixture in each explosion.

That is so obviously wrong that you can easily formulate the answer by yourself. You will not increase the power of an engine that is restricted to 65% of current fuel supply by putting more air into it. The engines will not be air rstricted as the old V8s are. The fuel is the restriction. It means that every single hp gained has to come from burning the fuel with higher efficiency. The 2013 I4 was planned with very efficient direct injection and spray guided combustion in mind. Any deviation from that development path will drop power instead of increasing it. I will say it again:
REV LIMITS ARE TECHNICALLY MEANINGLESS WITH SEVERELY RESTRICTED FUEL FLOW UNLESS YOU COME UP WITH TOTALLY NEW TECHNOLOGY.

[rjsa]

People who want higher revs first have to invent new combustion and injection technologies. F1 is going for direct petrol injection with spray guided combustion. The known systems for this technologies go up to 200 bar injection pressure and 9,000 rpm. F1 was opening a development window by allowing 500 bar injection and 12,000 rpm. If you want to go beyond that you probably need 1,000 bar pressure and potentially a new kind of injector nozzle that isn't invented yet. If you press for higher revs without the development of new injection systems you will be a lot less fuel efficient. It means that you may run high revs for a short time but soon you would have to tune the engine down to save fuel. So the whole high revving would be pretty useless. And as the turbo engines of the eighties show you simply don't need the revs to generate the power. You generate the power from the torque of the blown engine. So all this talk of revs is just not leading anywhere unless someone comes up with a faster injection and combustion system.

That's not the right way to put this. Both righier revs and supercharging are ways of putting more air (and thus more fuel) into the combustion chamber over a given period of time. With higher revs you fill and burn more times a second, while with supercharging you just push more mixture in each explosion.

That is so obviously wrong that you can easily formulate the answer by yourself. You will not increase the power of an engine that is restricted to 65% of current fuel supply by putting more air into it. The engines will not be air rstricted as the old V8s are. The fuel is the restriction. It means that every single hp gained has to come from burning the fuel with higher efficiency. The 2013 I4 was planned with very efficient direct injection and spray guided combustion in mind. Any deviation from that development path will drop power instead of increasing it. I will say it again:
REV LIMITS ARE TECHNICALLY MEANINGLESS WITH SEVERELY RESTRICTED FUEL FLOW UNLESS YOU COME UP WITH TOTALLY NEW TECHNOLOGY.

You really should read it and try to understand.

I'm not talking about the present proposed set of rules, but about your wrong concept on more torque 'from the blown engine'.

It will have more power as long as it burns more fuel, and when you divide that power by whatever revs you have you will then have your torque. Or multiply your torque by the revs and you have your power, do the math the way you like, the result is aways the same.