2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[PlatinumZealot]

There are limits to the amount you can compress the mixture without detonation that have nothing to do with what year it is.
Ringo is correct.

You obviously do not understad that they use direct injection where the compression happens 95% before you inject. The injection is so late that you practically compress only air and no "mixture".

The year is relevant, because spray guided combustion is a recent invention which wasn't around before 2006.

Remember how you did not believe that direct injection is fast enough to do the job? well...

[PlatinumZealot]

you don't understand that the mixture still get compressed no matter when you put it in..otherwise the engine wouldn't work..static compression can only go so high to allow for a much higher number under boost...if you started with 17:1 after ,,oh pick a number...14 lbs of boost..what is your compression ratio? at 9lbs? at 24lbs? I say static coompression will not be over 10.5:1

You have to run high boost to make up for low compression ratio. With Direct injection you can have a nastily high static compression ratio and still run boost. If that is what you were saying.

Example.. (just basic quick and dirty please people)

10 to 1 compression ratio + 14psi boost gives 140psi before ignition.

13 to 1 compression ratio + 14 psi boost gives 182 psi before compression.

The higher compression will take more work from the engine to compress the gases, BUT the net increase in power after combustion is about 7%.

My guess is a compression ratio anywhere from 11 to 12.5. direct injection makes the diference

[ringo]

I don't see it that way. The direct injection at comrpession is ussually for lean running. Fuel will be injected on the uprstroke.

And i agree that it's the same whiteblue who though direct injection anwyhere over 10,000rpm is not possible, who is now saying injecting at 15000 in the smallest time gap right before complete compression will be the norm.

10.5 is about right, 12.5 doesn't yeild much power gains, using my little engine calculator with all things being equal. I got a 12hp increas, with 0.85lb of boost, 40c intake air temp, 559 to 572 hp.
This is with the 27.8g/s flow.

Is 12hp worth it?
Maybe but it depends on the other factors.

[WhiteBlue]

You obviously have increased your estimate considerably, Strad. Regarding the lean running we can safely assume that all teams will run as lean as possible with the new fuel rule.

I still do not believe that the direct injection will have maximum fuel efficiency above 12,000 rpm. This leads me to believe that that rev band will not be regularly used. Creating power from the blown engine torque should be more efficient.

[PlatinumZealot]

You obviously have increased your estimate considerably, Strad. Regarding the lean running we can safely assume that all teams will run as lean as possible with the new fuel rule.

I still do not believe that the direct injection will have maximum fuel efficiency above 12,000 rpm. This leads me to believe that that rev band will not be regularly used. Creating power from the blown engine torque should be more efficient.

I think this is fair to say, because Higher engine speeds lead to less precise fueling and reduced power per stroke (visocous and friction effects more significant.)

BUT more power is there.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92873

White said that the way the rules were being framed - especially with a single turbocharger and a single exhaust outlet - ensured that the engines would sound impressive.

"The rules look like they are heading towards a rev limit of 15,000rpm, and the fuel flow limit is intended to drive the operating speed of these engines up towards the upper end of that range, rather than the lower," he added.

"There is a detail in the rules that makes it interesting for the engine people to push the rpm up above 10-11,000rpm, where the engines would have perhaps naturally ended up in the previous incarnation of the rules.

This sounds like they will introduce an artificial boost limit to force the designers to use higher revs. With limited fuel flow this will necessarily further reduce the ICE power to please the noise lovers.

This would be the second time we are going to loose power for audio purposes after they gave up the I4.

With the electric turbo compounder some of this lost power might be recovered so that the loss is not quite so drastic but we could well end up with engines that have cumulative power loss of 10% compared to a low revving I4. The I4 was supposed to do something like 820 hp combined with the energy recovery. The high revving V6 could be under 750 hp in comparison.

IMO it is not worth to loose power in order to generate emotional values like a specific noise. I'm not convinced that the lower revving engines with lesser cylinder count would have been quieter. They are just different in the frequency spectrum. The restriction to one single turbo will do a lot to keep the frequencies up anyway.

[Dragonfly]

Honestlty, I don't understand why so much attention to sound and noise.
It's the power that's behind the driver which is of significance for me and they are going to lose quite a chunk of it. Less power - easier to drive cars, less skills and a computer keyboard instead of a steering wheel.

[WhiteBlue]

http://de.zinio.com/pages/RacecarEngine ... 8379/pg-62

Race car engineering has a nice article



I thought that this would be the best application for F1. Particularly if you use an axial turbine.



This is what RCE thinks was originally intended as the 2013 engine.



Here is some text with data. The engine was supposed to have 580 hp without compounding. After the V6 decision the available power will be less. If they set a boost limit to force the engines from 8,500 rpm up to 15,000 the power will be less again. The simulation shows that the original engine plan called for seriously lower revs.

[rjsa]

IMO it is not worth to loose power in order to generate emotional values like a specific noise. I'm not convinced that the lower revving engines with lesser cylinder count would have been quieter. They are just different in the frequency spectrum. The restriction to one single turbo will do a lot to keep the frequencies up anyway.

The problem here is your misunderstanding of what F1 is. F1 is a show, it's funded by sponsors willing to have their brands exposed. As any show, it needs to have emotional value and F1's specific noise as you say is the one thing setting it apart from other race series. Because on the competition side F1 is just trying to raise it's head from the mud they put themselves into.

[PlatinumZealot]

This sounds like they will introduce an artificial boost limit to force the designers to use higher revs. With limited fuel flow this will necessarily further reduce the ICE power to please the noise lovers.

This would be the second time we are going to loose power for audio purposes after they gave up the I4.

With the electric turbo compounder some of this lost power might be recovered so that the loss is not quite so drastic but we could well end up with engines that have cumulative power loss of 10% compared to a low revving I4. The I4 was supposed to do something like 820 hp combined with the energy recovery. The high revving V6 could be under 750 hp in comparison.

IMO it is not worth to loose power in order to generate emotional values like a specific noise. I'm not convinced that the lower revving engines with lesser cylinder count would have been quieter. They are just different in the frequency spectrum. The restriction to one single turbo will do a lot to keep the frequencies up anyway.

They don't need to enforce a boost limit because of the fuel limit. So, I do not think boost limits will be enforced.

As for the noise, I think the Rpm (not the fuel flow) has more to do with that. Like Moto GP - small engines, low fuel flow high rpm - lots a noise. So they are using rpm to counteract the muffling effect of the turbo. So it doesn't matter how much power you have, the noise is not greatly affected by it - it is the rpms and the quality of sound that is able to pass through the turbine blades.

[WhiteBlue]

They don't need to enforce a boost limit because of the fuel limit. So, I do not think boost limits will be enforced.

That does not make sense. If there is no boost limit nobody will run fuel limited engines that high. Just have a look at the Cosworth simulation in the race car engineering report. To force the engineers to run high revs they will introduce a low boost limit. The boost limit will prevent the designers to use the potential torque from the turbo charger. So there will be no alternative to revving the engine high. The pity is that there will be less power than a lower revving engine would make of that fuel.

[ringo]

The turbiine has to come up to speed from the exhaust energy so a fuel limit will do the trick.
Just some regs on turbine diameter, vane angle ect can keep things in check.

The turbine can't build boost as it feels, there are turbine maps that clearly show the limitations of the turbine flow with turbine speed.

So a fuel limit can actually dictate a lot when it comes to the power output as well as engine characteristics.

[WhiteBlue]

So a fuel limit can actually dictate a lot when it comes to the power output as well as engine characteristics.

This sounds very nebulous. How can a fuel flow limit of 25g/s stop an exhaust turbine to build up compressor pressure. Most of the recent and even primitive waste gate controlled turbochargers reach the maximum compressor pressure at 1,500 rpm. That is way under the fuel flow limit. I think you have a lot of explaining to do.

I still think that the only effective way to force engineers over 12,000 or even 10,000 rpm is by limiting the boost to a very low value. I would even be tempted to make a numerical prediction on the boost level.

[noname]

This sounds very nebulous. How can a fuel flow limit of 25g/s stop an exhaust turbine to build up compressor pressure. Most of the recent and even primitive waste gate controlled turbochargers reach the maximum compressor pressure at 1,500 rpm. That is way under the fuel flow limit. I think you have a lot of explaining to do.

If you are looking for power you need both high boost and high flow.

You may use small turbo and have have a high boost at low revs (as in the "ordinary" street casr) but it would be just too small to provide enough flow at the high revs.

I bet if the rules will look like similar as the ones for I4 the F1 turbo will be (almost) useless below 5-6k revs. VNT could help... if they would not been banned.

[Pierce89]

the new 1.6L V6 will probably fit in my back pocket(sans turbo of course)