2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

Actually, I believe that was the original idea with F1T Don.

And yes, MrM banned the CVT as soon as Patrick Head made it work.

[bill shoe]

Not sure if this is an interesting point: In 2014 turbos are allowed but not required.

A 2011-spec V8 is 2.4L, 18K rpm, and 750 hp.

Therefore a 1.6L engine going 15K rpm without a turbo could make 417 hp. Add in KERS for 150 hp and you're up to 567 hp. This is not a weak powertrain in a 600 or 700 kg car.

Our concensus is that fuel flow for 2014 is good enough for around 600 hp, so a conventional turbo engine will have around 750 hp total with KERS.

567 hp is not competitive if the other cars have 750 hp, but it is closer than I would have initially thought.

[ringo]

10.5k? The things rev up to 15k in the regs, no? As I understand it, there's a rudimentary equation; something like at any given RPM, power = torque*rpm/5252

If power is "basically" or "close to" flat, while rpm is increasing, would that not mean torque would be decreasing in an inversely proportional manner to that rpm?

here's my prediction.

this assumes the turbine is at full efficienct from zero rpm; which is not the reality. The first part of the curve would start from zero torque instead of infiniti at the beggining.

What's the peak torque of the current v8s ?

[donskar]

One thing I look forward to in the new formula is a bit LESS engine reliability. My knowledge of turbo engines is limited to street racer type implementations, but it seems turbos have special requirements such as blowoff valves, turbo timers, intercoolers and piping, precise fuel metering, and lots more (I'll take nitrous). F1 turbos are likely to be FAR more complex, with many more moving parts and ancillaries than the current, bulletproof V8s. Do you tech gurus out there foresee lots of engine failures in the new formula? I wonder if a low-tech, low boost engine (remember Repco?) might be successful in the first several races?

[xpensive]

...
Our concensus is that fuel flow for 2014 is good enough for around 600 hp, so a conventional turbo engine will have around 750 hp total with KERS.
...

27.8 gram/sec, or 37.6 cc/sec, where gasoline holds 34.2 kWs/cc, means a powerinput of 1285 kW,
multiply that with the mechanical efficiency of the engine and you have the output to the gearbox.

If this V6 turbo should return 35%, then you will have 450 kW, or 612 Hp.

But with only a one percent increase in efficiency, you will gain 17 Hp.

[matt21]

I have no definitive numbers. But I expect the torque to be around 240-280 Nm.

I would expect a power curve like this.




Also, in order to have an argument to use intercoolers:




Both pictures are taken from the SAE-Paper on the Honda RA168E-engine from 1988.

Edited in order to avoid misunderstanding

[wuzak]

Also, in order to have an arguement PRO intercoolers:




Both pictures are taken from the SAE-Paper on the Honda RA168E-engine from 1988.

Well, I don't know about PRO intercoolers.

What I see there is that lower intake temps allow for more power, but higher BSFC (lower efficiency). That is, more power is produced because more fuel can be dumped in. With the 2014 rules they can't just dump more fuel in.

Interesting that the BSFC seems to be constant above 70°C. How much boost will be required, and what temperature will that produce after the compressor in the 2014 engines?

If an intercooler is necessary, could they achieve enough cooling with a liquid to air intercooler, so that the compressed air doesn't need to be diverted from its path to the engine?

[matt21]

The lower B.S.F.C. is a result from worser vaporization.
Is there anything in the regulations prohibiting fuel heating?

the SAE-paper: http://www.zzw30.com/HondaRA168EEngine.pdf

[xpensive]

10.5k? The things rev up to 15k in the regs, no? As I understand it, there's a rudimentary equation; something like at any given RPM, power = torque*rpm/5252

If power is "basically" or "close to" flat, while rpm is increasing, would that not mean torque would be decreasing in an inversely proportional manner to that rpm?

here's my prediction.

this assumes the turbine is at full efficienct from zero rpm; which is not the reality. The first part of the curve would start from zero torque instead of infiniti at the beggining.

What's the peak torque of the current v8s ?

Neat graph ringo, xactly what I mean, but you should perhaps cut off the tail left of 3-4 kRpm?

[cossie]

[youtube]http://youtu.be/F_gglJI7x_Y[/youtube]hopefully the new engines sound better than the new IRL be farting honda, car looks like --- the engine sounds worse
http://www.smackforum.net/showthread.ph ... apless-IRL

[Lycoming]

One thing I look forward to in the new formula is a bit LESS engine reliability. My knowledge of turbo engines is limited to street racer type implementations, but it seems turbos have special requirements such as blowoff valves, turbo timers, intercoolers and piping, precise fuel metering, and lots more (I'll take nitrous). F1 turbos are likely to be FAR more complex, with many more moving parts and ancillaries than the current, bulletproof V8s. Do you tech gurus out there foresee lots of engine failures in the new formula? I wonder if a low-tech, low boost engine (remember Repco?) might be successful in the first several races?

Its possible that we will see a reliability drop largely due to the fact that its a new design, but I don't think it will be precipitous. In the long term though, there's no reason that reliability will be worse than it is now. The mclaren mp4-4 from the last turbo era only had 1 engine failure from 16 races.

also ross brawn says the current V8s have 350 Nm of torque (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FipsVzlcUL0) but that sounds to me like like something the V10s would do.

[xpensive]

As a substitute for overtaking and botched pitstops for fuel, some unreliability would be welcome I guess, but I don't xpect much of that if you consider such a low boost as 0.7 to 1.0 Bar?

Wether 350 Nm is plausible depends at what Rpm, at 15k it would mean an engine power of 550 kW or 750 Hp at that very Rpm.

But if you have a Mercedes engine, make that 16k and 800 Hp, which is probably what Brawn meant...

[raymondu999]

here's my prediction.

this assumes the turbine is at full efficienct from zero rpm; which is not the reality. The first part of the curve would start from zero torque instead of infiniti at the beggining.

What's the peak torque of the current v8s ?

Neat graph ringo, xactly what I mean, but you should perhaps cut off the tail left of 3-4 kRpm?

Cheers guys. However would the air box not be going through an increasing velocity, and be feeding more air into the engine? That would cause the engine to *not* flatline, would it not?

[ringo]

You mean to the turbo opening?

[raymondu999]

Would the cars not have an "air box" (like over the heads of the drivers today) as we do today?