2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

...
All the surfaces in contact with the heat would have to ceramic. Ceramics absorb heat well, but they also retain it well. Given enough time it can reach a point where rejecting accumulated heat will be a problem.

Ceramics are used for thermal insulation, like the bottom of the space-shuttle, but they don't "absorb" anything.

[ringo]

Why would you say that?

They do conduct heat, but at a very low rate.

[Pierce89]

[quote="xpensivFact is you have 38 cc per second to deal with, end of story. What Cosworth can do with that is doubtful, but BMW or toyota?

Cossie were pretty much bullet priif when they ran the 2.65 in CART and Champ car, one of the best engines ever built, if i were the other's i'd be worried about Cosworth 2014 due to the success of thier past turbos

The champ car turbo engines ran extremely low boost( 0.4 bar or 5.9 psi)as the spec motor. Even worse, during Champ Car's multiple engine builder era, the rules limited them to like 0.15 bar or 2 psi. So, even though they were turbo motors I'd say they were virtually irrelevant in F1 , but it did give them experience revving a turbo motor over 16k rpm.

Honda, Toyota, , Merc, and Cosworth were cranking out aboyt 900 to 1000 Bhp, with penski having merc build him the "stock block " turbo enginethat wa well over 1000bhp
Mercedes-Benz 500I
The Penske PC-23 at the 1994 Indianapolis 500
Much to the surprise of competitors, media, and fans, Marlboro Team Penske arrived at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway with a brand new, secretly-built 209 cid Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine, which was capable of a reported 1000 horsepower.[10] Despite reliability issues with the engine[10] and handling difficulties with the chassis,[11] the three-car Penske team (Unser, Emerson Fittipaldi and Paul Tracy) dominated most of the month, and nearly the entire race. This engine used a provision in the rules intended for stock block pushrod engines such as the V-6 Buick engines that allowed an extra 650 cm³ and 10 inches (4.9 psi/33.8 kPa) of boost. This extra power (at least 900 horsepower, and rumored to be in excess of 1000 hp, which was up a 150-200 hp advantage over the conventional V-8s.[11])[/quote]
yeah everbody remembers the pushrod Merc, so what?

[Just_a_fan]

Why would you say that?

They do conduct heat, but at a very low rate.

...because "conduction" and "absorbtion" are two very different mechanisms requiring very different properties...?

[WhiteBlue]

The designer can not inject after the inlet compressor (or before it) to take advantage of the cooling effect of evaporation....

This makes no sense to me. Where ever you inject you will get the cooling effect of evaporating fuel. You get this with DI as well. It means you can inject at a very late time and into extremely hot compressed air. Higher compression ratio will increase your thermal efficiency.

[xpensive]

The designer can not inject after the inlet compressor (or before it) to take advantage of the cooling effect of evaporation....

This makes no sense to me. Where ever you inject you will get the cooling effect of evaporating fuel. You get this with DI as well. It means you can inject at a very late time and into extremely hot compressed air. Higher compression ratio will increase your thermal efficiency.

I am pretty convinced that the cooling effect of the fuel injection will be more efficient the more upstream you can do it?

[PlatinumZealot]

A very dangerous cooling effect. More dangerous that Renault's exhausts if you ask me.
And still with direct injection and inter-cooling it might be less of a benefit.

I know cooling the incomming air reduces the energy required on the compression stroke and also, it lessens the likenesses of detonation. All in all I do not know how much degrees celcius cooler injecting the fuel, dangerously into the turbo is than injecting into the intake ports.

[xpensive]

Injecting before the intercooler might not be the wisest thing to do, imagine condensation in there,
but one of the intriguing questions on my mind for 2014, is if they will run with intercoolers or not?

Think about it, will it be worth the packaging and drag at a boost as low as 0.8 Bar?

[bill shoe]

Injecting before the intercooler might not be the wisest thing to do, imagine condensation in there,
but one of the intriguing questions on my mind for 2014, is if they will run with intercoolers or not?

Think about it, will it be worth the packaging and drag at a boost as low as 0.8 Bar?

How far up the intake system you should inject fuel depends on if there is an intercooler.

CART turbo engines were not allowed to use intercoolers. In the later years of that formula the manufacturers came up with injectors that were more and more upstream. If I recall correctly they were eventually injecting (some of the fuel) just upstream of the turbo compressor itself.

If you use an intercooler then you don't want to inject fuel until just after the intercooler at the earliest. If you injected before the intercooler then you have cooler intake air going through the intercooler, and this makes the intercooler less effective. Better to pass the compressed air through the intercooler at full temp, let the intercooler have maximum effectiveness, and THEN inject fuel for further vaporization cooling or whatever.

As for the "will there be intercoolers?" debate-- Yes, there will be intercoolers of some kind. CART engines did not have intercoolers, but this was due to rules banning them as opposed to there being no benefit from them. If low-boost CART engines could benefit from intercooling then any boosted engine would benefit as long as rules and money permitted.

[bill shoe]

Since I'm pondering CART turbo engines...

Honda and Toyota came up with special CART turbo engines that were only used for oval-track qualifying. Their special feature was that only one bank of exhaust drove the turbo, and the other exhaust bank exited unrestricted like a naturally aspirated engine. This resulted in slightly better peak power, although I honestly don't understand the mechanism that made this happen. The downside was extreme turbo lag, and this is why it was only used during qualifying on oval tracks.

I've checked the 2014 F1 rules and I see nothing in the turbo or exhaust rules that would require both banks of exhaust to go through the turbo (strictly speaking a turbo is not required at all). Therefore, I think that putting a single exhaust bank through the turbo is a viable concept for 2014 F1. We know the 2014 F1 regs allow active spooling up of the turbo via the turbo-MGU, so the lag problem has a plausible countermeasure. Interestingly, the rules allow up to 2 exhaust outlets even though passing both exhaust banks through a single turbo would appear to require only a single exhaust outlet. Was this an intentional accommodation for the CART-type system I've described?

EDIT: I think the two exhaust outlets in the rules are intended for turbo exhaust and wastegate exhaust, so this makes sense for a conventional all-exhaust-through-the-turbo strategy. However, for the CART-type system I described, it would be easy to merge the bank of naturally aspirated exhaust and the wastegate exhaust into a single outlet. The turbo exhaust would still be the other outlet, so this CART-type concept still complies with the rules.

[WhiteBlue]

I am pretty convinced that the cooling effect of the fuel injection will be more efficient the more upstream you can do it?

The cooling effect is not the primary objective. The designers will be aiming at generating maximum power from every drop of fuel. It is well known that the combustion becomes more inefficient the more upstream you inject the fuel.

[ringo]

Why would you say that?

They do conduct heat, but at a very low rate.

...because "conduction" and "absorbtion" are two very different mechanisms requiring very different properties...?

Ceramics have low thermal conduction, meaning less heat moves through in a given time, but it doesn't mean that it can't transfer the same heat energy as a metal.
It just takes longer.
Conversely it takes longer for it to lose heat, once that heat is accumulated.

When i said absorb, i am referring to specific heat capacity. It takes more energy to raise a unit mass of ceramics temperature by a degree than it does a metal.

So yes it is 2 different things, though i loosely used the word absorb.

[ringo]

Injecting before the intercooler might not be the wisest thing to do, imagine condensation in there,
but one of the intriguing questions on my mind for 2014, is if they will run with intercoolers or not?

Think about it, will it be worth the packaging and drag at a boost as low as 0.8 Bar?

I think it will be worth it.
Intercooling is the key word in turbo efficiency. If they don't have it, then it would be a complete gimmick to have electric pit lane running in the name of saving energy.

[Just_a_fan]

Absorb means to take something in through pores/spaces. A sponge absorbs water, it doesn't conduct it. Water absorbs oxygen, it doesn't conduct it.

Conduction occurs through the mass of the material; absorbtion occurs through interstices (spaces) in the material i.e. it occurs through the "not mass" of the material.

Totally different and should not be confused. They certainly should not be used to describe the same physical process.

Note also the difference between absorb and adsorb.

These three are not interchangeable in any technical discussion. They're just not.

[Ian P.]

While the discussion is .... absorbing .... the basic material properties for ceramics hold tremendous promise for IC engines and turbo components specifically.
Yes the properties of ceramics can vary widely, but this provides opportunities to taylor them to the application.
Imagine a piston weight 10 to 20% of the comparable aluminum unit. At accelerations of 10K Gs, this reduces connecting rod loads, bearing loads and vibration forces considerably.
Same piston with near zero thermal expansion, thermal conductivity a mere fraction of the aluminum equivalent and such a low specific heat that it absorbes (there's that word again) a fraction of the heat that an aluminum piston would.

While all this can get a guy giddy with excitement, the FIA has tossed it all in the bin so to speak. The best we can expect to see are ceramic coatings on metal parts, and yes, the new rules allow this but with limits on thickness.

Same applies for turbo components. Turbines are to be metal which means high nickle chrome alloys or good old un-obtanium.

Thermal effeciency will be the designers goal and the BIG discrepency between engines. A 1% improvement in efficiency (eg. 38 to 39%) will yeild a 2.5% gain in HP (about 20 BHP).
The limitation on fuel flow rate will drive the entire design process.
Watching the engine developments is going to be more interesting than the actual racing. One thing it is NOT going to be ....is cheap.