2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

4MJ i business,equalling some 100 ml of gasoline, but where do we store it, WB?

The idea was not to store it but feed it directly to the MGUK. Piping it through a battery will only cause further conversion losses. If we assume that the MGUH produces on average 22.5 kW over a 90s lap we would add 2 MJ electric Energy that we can use to push the rear wheels with electric torque. Naturally the peak value would be higher at 40-45 kW to compensate for over run and part load. But it sounds sensible.

[Saribro]

Hmm, so that would, in effect, result in a 2MJ for semi-constant boost with another 2MJ in the fashion currently available? That would certainly clear up my confusion on the 4MJ limit in charge difference for the energy storage.

[xpensive]

2 MJ of direct feedback, this is for Toyota or BMW. Cosworth is a dead duck.

[WhiteBlue]

2 MJ of direct feedback, this is for Toyota or BMW. Cosworth is a dead duck.

Why do you think so? A relatively simple turbo racing engine should not be beyond the capabilities of Cosworth. They have lobbied very hard to achieve a bunch of technical and resource restrictions. It should allow them to finance and develop a competitive engine. The injection system and the electronics will be supplied by an FiA selected single supplier. The turbo will come from one of the three big companies that supply all the industry. Neither Merc nor Renault or Ferrari will make their own turbo. So there is practically no technology involved that Cosworth do not already use or have access to. I bet the engines will have identical power down to 3 or 4 % the way the regulations have been written about materials, minimum weight and layout.

[xpensive]

2 MJ per lap is on average 20 kW over a hundred seconds WB, this is mighty stuff. I find it hard to believe that teams like HRT can find that over the counter? Ferrari will probably build something together with Avio, Mercedes with KKK and Renault with Garret, no way in the world that Cosworth will find someone to share the costs.

[ringo]

Does anyone has reasonably good engine simulation software? Roughly what boost are we looking at with full fuel-flow at 10,500 rpm? Same question for 15,000 rpm? Assume good intercooling, etc.

Holm86-- As WhiteBlue says there is nothing to force teams to go above 10,500 rpm in order to produce peak power. I disagree with his overall perspective a bit because I think there is great value in the nature of the power curve, and if you rev from 10,500 to 15,000 rpm then you get the ideal power curve (~ constant power) which is very nice to drive and requires fewer gear changes.

Here are the assumptions:

turbine efficiency is the same throughout the turbine speed range and engine speed range.

The intercoold temperature is about the same through the speed range and rev range.

Engine is always at stoichometry.

adiabatic temperature is constant; since it's annoying to find.



Now the thing with these regulations, is that the better turbine and better charge air cooling will have a big advantage.
I see costs sky rocketing when it comes to turbine and compressor selection.

I used a compressor that holds it's efficiency pretty much throughout the range. This is not the case though. I might add in varying efficiencies matched with the air flow to my excell when i do get the time.
Things will change a lot with the change in effciency. Especially the HERS power draw. Too many things to consider for these engines.

This formula wont be cheap by any means. Some teams are going to go bankrupt.

[noname]

I see costs sky rocketing when it comes to turbine and compressor selection.

None of the engine manufacturers has the capability to design and build the turbo by itself, and they will not be able to gain neccessary knowledge and experience.

That leaves the job to external suppliers and there are not so many of them. All I am aware of seen F1 as a possibility to learn something road-relevant. Unfortunately the way the (turbo) rules evolve make them less and less road relevant and so less and less interesting for turbo makers. No matter how much you would like to pay them, and F1 OEMs are not so keen to pay a lot.

It's fair to say focusing on Le Mans makes much more sense.

[ringo]

the turbos and their research have to be paid for. You can imagine the R&D costs when it comes to a monaco spec turbo/hers system or a brazil spec.

[xpensive]

So you, ringo to preent "results" without giving away input data

[WhiteBlue]

I don't agree with the power and torque curve. The power will definitely reduce from 10,500 rpm. The friction will cause losses at higher rpms and the combustion efficiency is also likely to suffer.

The turbo development is not so expensive as you may think. There are lots of restrictions to keep the cost down. You are not allowed to use variable geometries, multiple stages or exotic materials. It is pretty much the same situation as racing clutches or F1 brakes. All teams have access to competitive materials.

[ringo]

So you, ringo to preent "results" without giving away input data

Ok i'll pm the excell file if you want it.

edit: I'll put the inputs on here. Gimme a while to neat up the file.

[ringo]

I don't agree with the power and torque curve. The power will definitely reduce from 10,500 rpm. The friction will cause losses at higher rpms and the combustion efficiency is also likely to suffer.

Yes the friction will cuase problems. However you need correlations for friction losses for this engine. We don't have that data.
This graph is indicated power, not brake power. If it was brake power i would guess a mechanical efficiency of 80% or so. Though this will vary with speed.
I am still developing this simulator. So it will get better over time.

But i must tell you, the power graph is theoretical like this, as the engine has specific enthalpy. The power is a product of enthalpy and mass flow, so the power is directly proportional to fuel and air mass flow.
The first time i did the constant power engine, the power was dictating the fuel mass flow. This engine is the other way round. The fuel mass flow is dictating the air mass flow, hence the boost pressure required to stay in stoichometry.
The boost then dictates the inside cylinder conditions hence the specific enthalpy.

I'll try and include some kind of turbine data that varies with the air flow, that way things will look more dynamic. As you realize that the torque is increasing when the engine speed is lower. This is due to the turbine out put unrealistically running at full efficiency.
I'll also try to include some variable adiabatic flame temp in it. i'm no programer though so it'll take some time.

The turbo development is not so expensive as you may think. There are lots of restrictions to keep the cost down. You are not allowed to use variable geometries, multiple stages or exotic materials. It is pretty much the same situation as racing clutches or F1 brakes. All teams have access to competitive materials.

Yes that is true, but knowing that the compressor efficiency is a performance differentiator, i wont be surprised if millions are spent to create the best turbine and HERS. If NASA spend millions on simple airfoils, i doubt these turbo and compressor blades will get less attention.

The turbo, Intercooler and lubrication are most critcal here. Their influence really shows in any engine calculation.

edit, i also assumed a constant volumetric efficiency in these calculations. That is not the case in reality.

[rjsa]

It the power decay is at least as steep as the power building from the fuel flow (which I doubt) something bellow 15k rpm could be the shifting point.

So I'm still going with full revs for the engines. Until we get a more complex model or reality to prove me wrong.

Because who ever designed the rules have more tools than us and they wouldn't set a 15k limit if it was not to be reached.

[tok-tokkie]

I appreciate that those graphs are preliminary.

That torque graph where short shifting gains you torque and the torque curve is flat will result in much less gear changing. I don't find the noise of F1 an interesting aspect but it is going to sound very different with this wide torque band.

I really am looking forward to the fresh technical challenges & resulting innovation as a consequence of incorporating HERS (MGUH). Restricted fuel flow & fuel load add to the challenge & technical interest of F1.

[noname]

the turbos and their research have to be paid for. You can imagine the R&D costs when it comes to a monaco spec turbo/hers system or a brazil spec.

The number of units team can use during the year will be limited to the point when developing spec for one race will not make sense.

The main difference, probably, would be in the way they will use their systems.

A lot of work will be done on the dynos.