2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[strad]

Did we lose some posts???

[Giblet]

viewtopic.php?p=264432&f=1#p264432

forgot to tell you that I moved stuff.

[autogyro]

Did we lose some posts???

I think so, I was dreaming.
I dreamt it was 2050 and there was an interview with Jensen Buttons son Aston.
He was explaining how brilliant it was driving the silent electric F1 cars and how much more the driver could hear and feel the tyres and achieve such a superior level of car control than in the historic era.
He compared the old 2011 cars explaining how easy it was to be made deaf by the exhausts and how much this prevented a proper understanding of how the mechanical side of the car was working.
Towards the end he had to laugh at the last knee jerk reactions from the motor heads in 2016 when they tried to add a 'token' diesel burning ic engine with an amazing 40 percent fuel efficiency.
Of course the FIA threw it out on the grounds that the noise would close even more circuits than it did in 2014.

[WhiteBlue]

One of the overlooked points from the FiA Q&A document is the increased design life target of the engine. They go from 2,200 for the V8 to 4,000 for the V6 engine. I reckon that we will have only four or five engines per car and per season. Another good step towards more sustainability of F1.

Another point is the petrol injection pressure specification. It remains unchanged at 500 bar which IMO means that the 15,000 rpm specification is largely meaningless. If you can speed up direct (spray guided) petrol injection with highly efficient combustion from 9,000 to 12,000 rpm by increasing pressure from 200 to 500 bar it is not rational to think seven months later that you will achieve the same goal with revs 3,000 rpm higher. You allow the pressure to rise by 300 bar but instead of rising the speed by 3,000 rpm you rise it by 6,000 rpm. That is not logical. My view is that the 15,000 rpm limit is only existing on paper. The engines will not rev that high because the maximum power will be reached at lower revs. The change is a simple gesture on paper to appease the petrol heads.

A third point is the compounding. This release probably means that electric turbo compounding will remain a target. A permanent magnet, water cooled high power AC MGU at the shaft of the turbo unit should be good enough to generate 50-75 hp electric power for the rear wheels at full song. The same unit can also be used to spool up the turbo compressor from the battery when the engine is on low rpm. Such a feature is subject to the philosophy the rule makers would adopt. Until now we have learned that the electric turbo compounder will directly feed the rear wheel MGU when it produces power. So no battery will be employed in generator mode. It will be interesting to see if they allow the employment of the battery in motor mode to spool up the compressor to avoid turbo lag.

[Dragonfly]

If they make it one engine per season, per car, then we can expect revs satisfactory to you and some others.
I am eager waiting for such decision. It's cost saving you know - some millions $$$ x 4, divided to engines/8
And green too
And even people with disabilities can become F1 race drivers.

[riff_raff]

With a 15,000rpm limit and 267cc cylinders, they'll have to keep the pneumatic valvetrains. Before the advent of pneumatic valvetrains in F1 engines, even the N/A 3.5L V12's (with steel valve springs) could only rev to about 13,500rpm.

One of the best aspects of the current rules is the reliability of the engines. More racing and fewer mechanical DNF's.

[spinmastermic]

How much engine testing will be allowed in 2013? BMW tested their V10 in the back of there LMP car.

[PlatinumZealot]

Dyno testing in guess. like porsche's "back to the future" dyno.

[ringo]

One of the overlooked points from the FiA Q&A document is the increased design life target of the engine. They go from 2,200 for the V8 to 4,000 for the V6 engine. I reckon that we will have only four or five engines per car and per season. Another good step towards more sustainability of F1.

Another point is the petrol injection pressure specification. It remains unchanged at 500 bar which IMO means that the 15,000 rpm specification is largely meaningless. If you can speed up direct (spray guided) petrol injection with highly efficient combustion from 9,000 to 12,000 rpm by increasing pressure from 200 to 500 bar it is not rational to think seven months later that you will achieve the same goal with revs 3,000 rpm higher. You allow the pressure to rise by 300 bar but instead of rising the speed by 3,000 rpm you rise it by 6,000 rpm. That is not logical. My view is that the 15,000 rpm limit is only existing on paper. The engines will not rev that high because the maximum power will be reached at lower revs. The change is a simple gesture on paper to appease the petrol heads.

A third point is the compounding. This release probably means that electric turbo compounding will remain a target. A permanent magnet, water cooled high power AC MGU at the shaft of the turbo unit should be good enough to generate 50-75 hp electric power for the rear wheels at full song. The same unit can also be used to spool up the turbo compressor from the battery when the engine is on low rpm. Such a feature is subject to the philosophy the rule makers would adopt. Until now we have learned that the electric turbo compounder will directly feed the rear wheel MGU when it produces power. So no battery will be employed in generator mode. It will be interesting to see if they allow the employment of the battery in motor mode to spool up the compressor to avoid turbo lag.

Whiteblue didn't we go through that calculation already?
It's possible with current direct injection technology.

[donskar]

Long life engines save money -- no argument -- but only AFTER they go through a very expensive design and development cycle. I wonder about the real savings? Especially since all engine manufacturers will continue to develop -- and spend -- along the margins of the rules.

[Pierce89]

One of the overlooked points from the FiA Q&A document is the increased design life target of the engine. They go from 2,200 for the V8 to 4,000 for the V6 engine. I reckon that we will have only four or five engines per car and per season. Another good step towards more sustainability of F1.

Another point is the petrol injection pressure specification. It remains unchanged at 500 bar which IMO means that the 15,000 rpm specification is largely meaningless. If you can speed up direct (spray guided) petrol injection with highly efficient combustion from 9,000 to 12,000 rpm by increasing pressure from 200 to 500 bar it is not rational to think seven months later that you will achieve the same goal with revs 3,000 rpm higher. You allow the pressure to rise by 300 bar but instead of rising the speed by 3,000 rpm you rise it by 6,000 rpm. That is not logical. My view is that the 15,000 rpm limit is only existing on paper. The engines will not rev that high because the maximum power will be reached at lower revs. The change is a simple gesture on paper to appease the petrol heads.

A third point is the compounding. This release probably means that electric turbo compounding will remain a target. A permanent magnet, water cooled high power AC MGU at the shaft of the turbo unit should be good enough to generate 50-75 hp electric power for the rear wheels at full song. The same unit can also be used to spool up the turbo compressor from the battery when the engine is on low rpm. Such a feature is subject to the philosophy the rule makers would adopt. Until now we have learned that the electric turbo compounder will directly feed the rear wheel MGU when it produces power. So no battery will be employed in generator mode. It will be interesting to see if they allow the employment of the battery in motor mode to spool up the compressor to avoid turbo lag.

I wish they would allow fully electric turbos, where the turbine just sins a generator wich charges a battery which in turn powers the compressor. From what I've read this reduces lag greatly because the battery always has power, even at low revs, and the compressor is not saddled with the extra weight and inertia of the turbine

[flynfrog]

what about the weight of the electric motor?

[autogyro]

Why power the compressor?
Just drive a generator when the turbo is over used for boost and let the turbo spool naturaly.
Use the electricity to compensate for lag by useing the KERS motor system.
With a compact KERS system(hmm) there will be little weight or packaging problems.

[Saribro]

Probably easier to package too, as turbine and compressor could be placed independently.

[WhiteBlue]

Whiteblue didn't we go through that calculation already? It's possible with current direct injection technology.

I don't understand what you are talking about. Of course you can run an engine with direct injection at 18,000 rpm. But that is not the issue I'm talking about. The question is how you run the engine with maximum power on a limited fuel budget and fuel flow.

IMO that requires a combustion process with the highest possible fuel efficiency. That would be the spray guided process which uses very high injection pressure and outward opening nozzles. It is pioneered by Bosch and state of the art is 200 bar and 9,000 rpm. To speed this process up even further you obviously need to increase the pressure (and likely also the injector actuator speed). The published set of specs going from 200 to 500 bar and raising revs from 9,000 to 12,000 fits neatly with that theory.

We really need to focus on the point that it will be much easier to extract high power from limited fuel at lower revs using the turbo compressor to build up torque instead of building the power by revs.

IMO the release of higher revs by the FiA for the V6 engines is a simple act on paper to appease the noise lovers. The injection pressure limit is not increased at the same time which is a clear hint that this is simply a red herring. The engines IMO are not going to run in that rev band and my opinion is shared by some race engine specialists in another technical forum.

There are obviously ways and means to crack the current situation for Ecclestone and the V8 noise lovers. They must try to get a very low boost limit or they can try to stop the implementation of the 100kg/h fuel flow limit. I'm not sure that the fuel flow limit is set in stone.

It is most likely fixed in the agreement between the manufacturers that preceded the F1 commission vote for the V6 engines. But it is not clear weather the fuel flow limit has also passed the F1 commission. If it has not passed it would be subject to the same challenge as the I4 decision of the FiA was. That is actually my biggest concern at the moment.

Long life engines save money -- no argument -- but only AFTER they go through a very expensive design and development cycle. I wonder about the real savings? Especially since all engine manufacturers will continue to develop -- and spend -- along the margins of the rules.

The manufacturers have apparently covered this issue by agreeing on a resource limitation for engine development. According to previous comments from Cosworth there will be an annual homologation of the power train. Year by year they are supposed to liberate aspects that will further improve the fuel efficiency. This may not only cover the engines but also the energy recovery systems.

I wish they would allow fully electric turbos, where the turbine just sins a generator wich charges a battery which in turn powers the compressor. From what I've read this reduces lag greatly because the battery always has power, even at low revs, and the compressor is not saddled with the extra weight and inertia of the turbine

According to latest info they will have one unit which will have a compressor, a turbine and an MGU on one shaft. The MGU will be allowed to feed electric power to the rear wheel MGU but not to the battery. It is not clear if the turbo MGU is allowed to use battery power to spool up the compressor. That may come at a later time.