2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Pierce89]

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.

I agree with virtually every single word of this. These powertrains will be extremely fascinating to people like us, but we're a tiny tiny bit of the people F1 wants to reach. To regular people, the only difference they'll notice, is the cars don't have a banshee wail like they used to.
But hey, if they're willing to spend all that money to fascinate a few of us gearheads, then I won't complain.

[hardingfv32]

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

I think because you are attempting to stop or kill the sound waves.

Brian

[machin]

The actual energy in sound is incredibly low.... one example Ive been told in the past is that there is more energy associated with the heat generated by stamping your feet than there is energy in the sound you can create blowing into a trumpet....

[xpensive]

The actual energy in sound is incredibly low.... one example Ive been told in the past is that there is more energy associated with the heat generated by stamping your feet than there is energy in the sound you can create blowing into a trumpet....

Joshua was of a somewhat different opinion.

[hardingfv32]

How do the pressure waves and sound relate?

Maybe it is the pressure waves moving the control chamber wall. Internal friction in the walls?

Brian

[strad]

are not sound waves a form of pressure wave?

[xpensive]

Wiki is your friend, enter Sound power!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_power

[WhiteBlue]

All this sound discussion is is pointless when you consider that less than 1% of the engine power will go into sound energy.

Sure enough F1 fans want loud engines and the engineers at the manufacturers are aware of that and will engineer the sound impressively. This is mainly a question of how you dampen or even amplify the sound by suitable channelling. The engineers do it all the time for road cars, but with other objectives.

Please believe me that petrol turbos will be very much louder than the LeMans diesels. Diesels have no choice in how they design the sound channels. The channel geometry is given by the particulate filter technology and it happens to make the exhaust quiet. This will not happen to the 2014 F1 petrol turbo engines!!!

The FiA would have loved turbo diesel engines because they have even higher efficiency than the new petrol turbos will have. But they ware aware of the sound issue and that killed the diesel for F1.

[strad]

they weren't that quiet in the 80s...why do we think they will be this time?

[Shaddock]

I wonder. With the ban on OT-EBD maps now; how possible would it be; when these 1.6L engines come out; to work around that?

Would it be possible for example; to substitute it with the pressure blow-off valve?

Very unlikely in my view. Waste gates may not even exist on those designs because any surplus of turbine power over the compressor demand would be sapped by the MGUH. The MGUH is supposed to contribute 90 kW to the motive power. If they have a waste gate at all it would merely be a safety feature.

I don't see a reason why the teams wouldn't put an external wastegate on the turbos. How they configue the actuator is the clever part. There has to be a blow off or recirculating valve on the cold side, a blow off would give a very nice sound on upshifts.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't see a reason why the teams wouldn't put an external wastegate on the turbos. How they configue the actuator is the clever part. There has to be a blow off or recirculating valve on the cold side, a blow off would give a very nice sound on upshifts.

I don't understand how you see the design of the system. In my view the MGUH will compensate all the power/torque that is demanded/not needed by the compressor. It means that the MGUH in motor mode will spool up the compressor to avoid lag. It also means that the MGUH as a generator will place additional load on the turbine when the compressor does not demand enough power/torque from the turbine to provide the cylinder load. This will all be controlled in closed loop by the power electronics of the MGUH. There will not be an over power situation from the turbine side which will require the regular opening of a waste gate unless they design the system in a way that it cannot cope automatically. So the waste gate will be entirely a safety feature for cases of malfunctions in the system. Every operation of the waste gate reduces the efficiency of the power train. So they will aim to operate it as little as possible.

[Kittredge305]

will be interesting to see/know, how the flow will be metered.

[Pierce89]

I wonder. With the ban on OT-EBD maps now; how possible would it be; when these 1.6L engines come out; to work around that?

Would it be possible for example; to substitute it with the pressure blow-off valve?

Very unlikely in my view. Waste gates may not even exist on those designs because any surplus of turbine power over the compressor demand would be sapped by the MGUH. The MGUH is supposed to contribute 90 kW to the motive power. If they have a waste gate at all it would merely be a safety feature.

I don't see a reason why the teams wouldn't put an external wastegate on the turbos. How they configue the actuator is the clever part. There has to be a blow off or recirculating valve on the cold side, a blow off would give a very nice sound on upshifts.

Theoretically they shouldn't need a wastegate. When the exhaust flow creates more energy than the given boost level requires, they will harvest the excess energy as electricity using the MGU attached to the turbo shaft, instead of just dumping that energy out a wastegate.
The blow-off valve is a different story, obviously, as you can't dump boost into a decelerating engine, but on TV, I doubt we'll hear the blow-off valve.

[Shaddock]

I'm going to disagree. The engine builders are going to have a boost limit in their mind, say 30 psi, but they are also going to want this peak as low down the rev range as possible to make the engine tractable. After the engine has hit this point in the rev range you are going to need to bleed gasses past the turbine otherwise you will end up with too much boost to the engine and a turbo that overheats.

The process of artificially braking the spinning turbine shaft after peak boost has been achieved at approx the half way point in the engines rev range by 'harvesting' energy from it will create a back pressure. As the engine tries to accelerate to it's peak rpm, the extra exhaust gas produced will not be able to escape past the turbine blades as they will already have reached their max rpm/boost levels.

The idea of not running a wastegate only works if the desired peak boost occurs at max engine rpm (engine designers don't won't this), or some very clever variable geometry blades are used.

[xpensive]

I'm going to disagree. The engine builders are going to have a boost limit in their mind, say 30 psi, but they are also going to want this peak as low down the rev range as possible to make the engine tractable. After the engine has hit this point in the rev range you are going to need to bleed gasses past the turbine otherwise you will end up with too much boost to the engine and a turbo that overheats.
...

Only the boost will be much lower than that, probably less than one Bar (15 psi), the flow limit will see to that.