2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

As I have earlier said it is the job of the teams to find mechanisms to contain cost and prevent an arms race in engine development. They have promised to do so in 2010 and 2011 but towards the end of the last year with the breaking away of Red Bull and Ferrari from FOTA the prospects of having a settlement have decreased somewhat.

It is still possible though that the teams will first sort out the next concord and then come to an agreement about engines. So by no means the new engines will be necessarily more costly than the old V8s. It is just very difficult to predict what will happen. It is entirely possible that the new engines will even be delayed again in the wake of a concord dispute. Anything can happen when things are as open politically as they are now.

[Ian P.]

First we had Engines, then they added KERS. Costs go up .... or down ...???
End result, not down.
Now they are talking about a whole new concept. Yes the engine itself is potentially simpler and less expensive, but the KERS, HERS etc. sure as heck isn't going to be free or cheap.
But Wait .... it doesn't stop there.
The advent of the fluel flow limitation at 100kg/Hr, will only reward those that can generate the highest thermal efficiency out of the engine. This aspect alone will have an enormous cost. The benefit will go to those that get it right.
From my calcs, the HP will be limited (based on fuel flow) to 640 BHP for an overall efficiency of 40% from 10,500 rpm to whatever you want to shift at (under 15,000). Bump this up to 45% and you gain 80 BHP.
This is competition at the highest level. The manufacturers will turm themselves inside out to squeeze that last fraction of a percent. You can't override this with turbo boost because of the fuel flow limit.
We will see different bore and stroke engines, different max revs, the boost profiles will all be the same, they will sound like crap, sorry sheeeeooot-pop and being a smaller overall package, the aerodynamics will be even more important than todays cars.
Don't get me completely wrong, it is going to be absolutely fascinating to see this come together. Good racing, I doubt it.

[WhiteBlue]

.. We will see different bore and stroke engines, different max revs, the boost profiles will all be the same, they will sound like crap, sorry sheeeeooot-pop and being a smaller overall package, the aerodynamics will be even more important than todays cars.

Nope, bore and stroke is pretty much standardized. And we have sufficient technical argument for the new engines to have a great sound. No reason at all why the racing should be any less thrilling than today.

[RaceFaceXC]

I have a feeling that the turbo engines will be much quieter, especially after some time to develop and refine them. The turbine housing itself, acts like a muffler and extracts much of the energy that would otherwise make noise. Extracting the most possible energy from the wasted exhaust gases would have to result in less energy exiting the tailpipe and thus less noise. This is my theory, anyway. A little bit of data to support my theory is the Audi LMP diesels. they are eerily quiet on the throttle and absolutely silent on decel. so quiet that I could hear the air rushing over the vehicle and the tires working over the sound of the engine.

Anyone have any insight on my theory one way or another?

[agip]

If you think this is quiet, then yes...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOjaxYlKdSQ[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ypmT3oFlw[/youtube]

[WhiteBlue]

I have a feeling that the turbo engines will be much quieter, especially after some time to develop and refine them. The turbine housing itself, acts like a muffler and extracts much of the energy that would otherwise make noise. Extracting the most possible energy from the wasted exhaust gases would have to result in less energy exiting the tailpipe and thus less noise. This is my theory, anyway. A little bit of data to support my theory is the Audi LMP diesels. they are eerily quiet on the throttle and absolutely silent on decel. so quiet that I could hear the air rushing over the vehicle and the tires working over the sound of the engine.

Anyone have any insight on my theory one way or another?

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The petrol turbos will not have the catalytic soot filters required by the LeMans diesels. That is the main reason for the quietness of the diesels. Noise accounts for less than 0.1% of the energy that exits the tail pipes. So there is no reason why they cannot engineer an absolutely impressive sound. Very prominent F1 engineers have come out with predictions that the sound of the V6 turbos will be thrilling and I believe those people to know their sh!t.

[flynfrog]

Trying to find and exploit loopholes to add minuscule amounts of performance to a "frozen" engine can cost a lot of money. Potentially more than that required to develop/adapt entirely new devices. Depends, of course, on how far you want to go.

Most of the f1 engine teams have been moved to other things. Its much easier to refine and existing design then to start with a clean sheet.

[RaceFaceXC]

If you think this is quiet, then yes...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOjaxYlKdSQ[youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ypmT3oFlw[youtube]

I wasn't trying to make the argument that turbocharged engines are quiet, or quieter than N/A engines.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The petrol turbos will not have the catalytic soot filters required by the LeMans diesels. That is the main reason for the quietness of the diesels. Noise accounts for less than 0.1% of the energy that exits the tail pipes. So there is no reason why they cannot engineer an absolutely impressive sound. Very prominent F1 engineers have come out with predictions that the sound of the V6 turbos will be thrilling and I believe those people to know their sh!t.

Why would a catalytic soot filter create such a decrease in volume? I am not a engineer, so I do not understand how it could reduce the volume level without inhibiting exhaust velocity and hence performance.

i thought of noise being a product of wasted energy, and the noise itself being a small amount of energy but the processes that create the noise being the source of much larger amounts of energy. so without a muffler or other noise abating technology, how would the sound be reduced so drastically without the energy wasting processes being avoided in the first place?

I think this may be getting off topic, and i apologize for that. maybe there is some other resources I could research about this topic?

thanks for your input/insight.

[amouzouris]

an engine will be a certain percentage efficient...another percentage will be wasted as heat and another percentage as sound...what the turbo is doing is making the engine more efficient using the wasted HEAT energy...sound has nothing to do with it..

[noname]

what the turbo is doing is making the engine more efficient using the wasted HEAT energy...sound has nothing to do with it..

It's not only about heat. You have a pressure drop across the turbine stage (and not that small), as well.

The way you are mixing exhaust gases with ambient has significant impact on noise. Chevron nozzle used in the jet engines are good example.

[Ian P.]

The comparison of the "new" turbo formula to the prior turbo era engines is a bit of a stretch. The old engins had no boost or fuel flow restrictions, had multiple turbos so 3 cylinders each, were running upwards of 1200 BHP in qualifying trim and had a grenade approach to reliability.
The modern engines will tie all 6 cylinders together into a single exhaust, while there are no defacto boost limits, there effectively is one with the restricted fuel flow. Notice how the FIA mandated the flow rate to ramp up to 10,500 rpm and then go flat. Otherwise designers would have run up to max HP at significantly lower revs.

[hardingfv32]

i thought of noise being a product of wasted energy, and the noise itself being a small amount of energy but the processes that create the noise being the source of much larger amounts of energy. so without a muffler or other noise abating technology, how would the sound be reduced so drastically without the energy wasting processes being avoided in the first place?

I think the sound is a product of the fluctuation in flow, valve activity, turbulence, etc. Heat is generated when you try to reduce the sound level. Could the turbos reduce the fluctuations and also use the heat generated from the effect?

Brian

[RaceFaceXC]

an engine will be a certain percentage efficient...another percentage will be wasted as heat and another percentage as sound...what the turbo is doing is making the engine more efficient using the wasted HEAT energy...sound has nothing to do with it..

I understand how a turbine extracts energy from an expanding gas fairly well... And that the turbine gets very little or maybe no energy from the sound being generated. This is not really what I was inquiring about. I was asking, more specifically if a turbine and associated parts (housing, blades, etc) would result in a lower volume (as in dB) out of the "tailpipe".

I think the sound is a product of the fluctuation in flow, valve activity, turbulence, etc. Heat is generated when you try to reduce the sound level. Could the turbos reduce the fluctuations and also use the heat generated from the effect?

Brian

Why is heat generated when you try to reduce the sound level?

what the turbo is doing is making the engine more efficient using the wasted HEAT energy...sound has nothing to do with it..

It's not only about heat. You have a pressure drop across the turbine stage (and not that small), as well.

The way you are mixing exhaust gases with ambient has significant impact on noise. Chevron nozzle used in the jet engines are good example.

I have a well rounded background in how sound behaves when it applies to jet exhaust. the chevron nozzle design was developed to enhance mixing of hot, high velocity gas with cold low velocity gas while resulting in a lower turbulent flow and less energy being converted into audible sound. I actually did research and wrote a paper on this exact subject.

The pressure drop across the turbine results in lower velocity and lower temp. gas. this should also result in less noise, no?

an engine will be a certain percentage efficient...another percentage will be wasted as heat and another percentage as sound...what the turbo is doing is making the engine more efficient using the wasted HEAT energy...sound has nothing to do with it..

But the sound comes from the wasted energy in the hot, fast moving exhaust gases. So reducing the energy in the gases should result in less noise, no?

I can't help but feel like this discussion is turning into an argument, but I had no intention of that. I just wanted to understand why the engine design that is the subject of this thread would be so loud and spectacular if the engineers were trying to extract the most amount of energy possible from the very thing that is creating the noise in the first place.

P.S. - does anyone have any idea about where I could find out more about the turbo diesel systems in ALMS (specifically the Audi). I cannot believe that a soot catalytic converter would be responsible for virtually silencing such a powerful machine. Im not saying that is untrue, I just do not understand how it could be.

[WhiteBlue]

Wikipedia

Diesel exhaust contains relatively high levels of particulate matter (soot), consisting in large part of elemental carbon. Catalytic converters cannot clean up elemental carbon, though they do remove up to 90 percent of the soluble organic fraction[citation needed], so particulates are cleaned up by a soot trap or diesel particulate filter (DPF). A DPF consists of a Cordierite or Silicon Carbide substrate with a geometry that forces the exhaust flow through the substrate walls, leaving behind trapped soot particles. As the amount of soot trapped on the DPF increases, so does the back pressure in the exhaust system. Periodic regenerations (high temperature excursions) are required to initiate combustion of the trapped soot and thereby reducing the exhaust back pressure. The amount of soot loaded on the DPF prior to regeneration may also be limited to prevent extreme exotherms from damaging the trap during regeneration.

By considering the bolded part you may appreciate that filtering the exhaust through a ceramic block with very fine pores the sound will also be reduced considerably.



The diesel particulate filters tuck in either side of the engine and behind the turbos. Peugeot 908 Spa 2011.

[pgfpro]

From my experience on the turbo cars I have built and tuned on the turbo does reduce some of the sound when running a full exhaust system.

But on my last turbo Talon I had a 3" exhaust pipe that was only two feet long. This was extremely loud.

My 1.6L turbo Del Sol with a up pipe.


The same with a friends Nissan SR20 with a rear mount turbo running a 3" dia. 1 1/2 foot exhaust dump pipe. We thought it would be about as loud as it was when it had a performance header and full exhaust. But it turned out to much louder. All three of these cars could be heard from a long ways away when going down the track.

So I would guess that the F1 new setups will be very loud with very short post turbo exhaust?

Now whats strange on my new 2.0L 800+ HP turbo compound setup the exhaust notes is a lot less aggressive and sounds more like a jet engine. But it sure is a lot nicer to drive on the streets.


EDIT:
One more thing I thought of is when I owned a RX7 Turbo II I remove the CAT for flow reasons and the exhaust note became a lot more louder.