2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[raymondu999]

Amount of energy, or amount of fuel?

Amount of energy.
Then they are forced to use the available amount as good as possible and you don´t need pop-off-valves, restricted fuel-flow or whatever.
Further the allowed amount for an complete event could be reduced year by year.

The energy basically goes into accelerating, braking (heating up the disc) drag and downforce though. If you consistently reduce the amount of energy available, you'll hit a point when decreasing it further will mean the car can't get through the race (a bit extreme, but it could happen). Or are you getting at them reclaiming more of their energy under braking? (ie. redeploying energy that has been used before, and reclaimed). In which case my question about giving them a set amount of "starting energy" through electricity and/or fuel would mean just about the same.

[xpensive]

That turbo layout looks surprisingly similar to the Audi upstream on this thread, which makes me wonder, PURE coincidence?

Similar? In what way? That both have turbos? Audi has exhaust manifold at the top and inlet at the bottom while PURE is other way around.

No, similar in that they both seem to be dependent on circular piping of course, which is so 80s.

[matt21]

Amount of energy, or amount of fuel?

Amount of energy.
Then they are forced to use the available amount as good as possible and you don´t need pop-off-valves, restricted fuel-flow or whatever.
Further the allowed amount for an complete event could be reduced year by year.

The energy basically goes into accelerating, braking (heating up the disc) drag and downforce though. If you consistently reduce the amount of energy available, you'll hit a point when decreasing it further will mean the car can't get through the race (a bit extreme, but it could happen). Or are you getting at them reclaiming more of their energy under braking? (ie. redeploying energy that has been used before, and reclaimed). In which case my question about giving them a set amount of "starting energy" through electricity and/or fuel would mean just about the same.

I assume that a actual car is at around 1.3 km/l and doing around 1600km per race weekend. This equals to 1230l gasoline what is approx. 37,8 GJ.
This amount would be provided to a team for one car (and only this one). You can then reduce this amount over the years.

Then I would unlimit the use of ERS. And as the teams would like to go as fast as possible they have to develop their engines and ERS to achieve better efficency. Or go completely new ways of propulsion. Could also be a way to attract manufacturers to show competence.

Has also been a prooved concept in Group C (of course without ERS). They had 60l/100km I think.

[FW17]

I assume that a actual car is at around 1.3 km/l and doing around 1600km per race weekend.

A GP weekend is about 2.5 - 3 race distances which will be about a maximum of 900 kms, where did you get 1600 kms from?


What is on top of the intake plenum?

[CMSMJ1]

^ pop off valves I suspect??

[matt21]

I assume that a actual car is at around 1.3 km/l and doing around 1600km per race weekend.

A GP weekend is about 2.5 - 3 race distances which will be about a maximum of 900 kms, where did you get 1600 kms from?

http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2009/2/8944.html

What is on top of the intake plenum?

Secondary injectors maybe. You´re allowed to inject 20% of the allowed fuel flow, max. 25 of the actual flow outside of the cylinders. Secondary effect to this is better charge cooling.

[xpensive]

What is on top of the intake plenum?

Secondary injectors maybe. You´re allowed to inject 20% of the allowed fuel flow, max. 25 of the actual flow outside of the cylinders. Secondary effect to this is better charge cooling.

Why not primary injectors, how do you know where they end up?

Anyway, I still find that dual xhaust inlet to the driving turbine, and similarity with Audi's, most intriguing.

[Tommy Cookers]

]Amount of energy, or amount of fuel?[/quote]

Amount of energy.
Then they are forced to use the available amount as good as possible and you don´t need pop-off-valves, restricted fuel-flow or whatever.
Further the allowed amount for an complete event could be reduced year by year.[/quote]
The energy basically goes into accelerating, braking (heating up the disc) drag and downforce though. If you consistently reduce the amount of energy available, you'll hit a point when decreasing it further will mean the car can't get through the race (a bit extreme, but it could happen). Or are you getting at them reclaiming more of their energy under braking? (ie. redeploying energy that has been used before, and reclaimed). In which case my question about giving them a set amount of "starting energy" through electricity and/or fuel would mean just about the same.[/quote]




This seems (to me) like a good time to say .........

Limiting total fuel quantity can (rightly or wrongly) be perceived as replacing driver-vs- driver racing with an economy run. The 2014 F1 rules limit the rate at which the engine can draw fuel, so as to maintain driver vs driver racing.

At present the fuel quantity is unlimited and so-called KERS actually generates and stores energy (in part) directly from engine power, so it's not true KE recovery. It is in part bypassing the 2.4 litre limit.
True KERS would need front wheel generators, and would be impossible without control of braking that would be a can of worms rulewise. The rulemakers are not engaging with present KERS.

Future F1 ERS will at least be (in a sense) genuine, as their source is fundamentally within the same limited fuel supply rate.

I don't think we will see much KE recovery, because it's inherently problematic. We will be shown a lot of apparent recovery on the exhaust side.
With the current fuel rate the 1.6 litre capacity limit dictates a certain exhaust condition, but if the rate is reduced in the future things could get quite interesting (and fairer).
KE recovery would be more attractive when fuel rate is substantially lower.

[matt21]

What is on top of the intake plenum?

Secondary injectors maybe. You´re allowed to inject 20% of the allowed fuel flow, max. 25 of the actual flow outside of the cylinders. Secondary effect to this is better charge cooling.

Why not primary injectors, how do you know where they end up?

Anyway, I still find that dual xhaust inlet to the driving turbine, and similarity with Audi's, most intriguing.

If I read the rules right direct injection is mandatory.

[Greenish]

From the Audi article,

The variable turbine geometry (VTG) of the turbocharger has provided another key to this technological breakthrough. It makes it possible to guide the exhaust gas flow in a way that the turbine can continuously be adjusted to varying operating conditions such as load changes. “Without it, the entire concept of a compact downsized engine with an inboard single turbocharger would have been inconceivable,” says Ulrich Baretzky. “The response of a single, large charger without VTG would be far too low. Thanks to the variable geometry we have resolved this issue.” While guide vane ring adjustment has long become standard in Audi production vehicles the modification required to handle the high thermal loads occurring in motorsport posed a special challenge.

According to the 2014 F1 rules, though, variable geometry turbines are banned. I understand the reasoning would be to reduce costs for those high-temp mechanisms and materials, but based on this quote it seems like that could be problematic... Or is it not a big deal since there won't be a large boost range?

[pgfpro]

IMO I think that the new "motor-generator-assisted turbocharger" will not need VTG and or a wastegate. It will utilize a assisting mode and produce torque to supplement the available exhaust gas energy in accelerating the rotor up to a given rotor speed.

Honeywell Garrett Quote https://www51.honeywell.com/technologyl ... &techId=43
"The system can be so designed that the assisting motor torque reaches zero value at or about the torque peak speed of the engine when the turbocharger is running at peak efficiency. An electric control system is employed to allow the assisting motor to supply torque to the turbocharger rotor over the low engine speed range, and the electric control system can switch to a generator mode over the high engine speed range. Through the use of such a control, the amount of power generated by the assisting motor can be matched to the excess exhaust gas energy necessarily provided at the high engine speed range so that a constant boost level can be maintained in the air intake system. Accordingly, one important benefit of the present invention is the elimination of the conventional waste gate thereby mining or eliminating the inefficiencies of prior systems directly related to the unharnessed and wasted exhaust gas flow. Furthermore, when the assisting motor-generator is producing electric current from the excess exhaust gas energy as the engine is running at high speeds in the generator mode, the regeneration current can be fed into the vehicle electric system for the purpose of charging the batteries and the assisting motor-generator can provide a braking action to the turbocharger rotor. Thus, the assisting motor can take current from the batteries when boost needs to be augmented over the low engine speed range and can feed current back into the batteries over the high engine speed range when there is a need to limit the maximum turbocharger speed and when there is excess energy available in the engine exhaust gas stream.


Accordingly, the improved turbocharger and controller system of the present invention can combine the elements of a rotary electric machine and a turbocharger in an optimal integrated design that can maximize the torque applied to the turbocharger rotor and can minimize any compromise in the turbocharger basic design configuration, with an electric controller that can eliminate the waste gate of prior art systems, thereby improving engine performance and operating efficiency, and decreasing engine emissions."

This could possibly be a plug and play system or with or without very little changes, since the technology is over ten years old and has been improve on.

Borg Warner and Mitsubishi have similar systems that are most likely being tested.

[xpensive]

Computer-generated image of new P.U.R.E V-6 turbo motor
Source

I think this image is deliberately misleading, the driven turbine's outlet and the intake-plenum's inlet indicates there will be an intercooler in between, but nobody would place the inlet like that? I believe at this low boost, some 0.7 Bar, there is no need for an intercooler, why we will see the turbo-outlet feeding directly between the two plenums.

[noname]

I believe at this low boost, some 0.7 Bar, there is no need for an intercooler, why we will see the turbo-outlet feeding directly between the two plenums.

Why boost should be so low? To compound the power which is being mentioned here and there (70-90kW?) you need reasonable DP across the turbine stage, thus implies higher (than in turbocharged-only) exhaust pressure, and this leads to a need of high inlet pressure (to minimize pumping work).

And with limited energy efficiency becomes of paramount importance. Any potentially beneficial mean is being investigated, I think.

[xpensive]

A rather simplistic lazy-dog;

a) A useful equalizer, based on today's 750 Hp from 2.4 liter at 18 kRpm, is 17.5 Hp per liter, kRpm and Bar absolute.
b) Fuel flow for the turbos is limited to 27.7 g/s, which at 47.2 kJ/g and an efficiency of 35% means 460 kW or 620 Hp.
c) Based on a), a 1.6 liter engine with 620 Hp at 12 kRpm would need 1.85 Bar absolute or 0.85 boost to make use of the fuel.

This is of course based on the assumption that each and every input parameter has a proportional impact on output power, where proportionality here means that if one input parameter doubles it's value, so does the resultant output power.

[noname]

Is the same Lambda assumed in both cases? What if it'll change?