2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[pgfpro]

A couple things that I have been pondering.

The 1988 RA168-E Honda engine in fuel saving mode was most efficient at 12000 rpm running 2.5bar with a BSFC of 272g/kWh making 620PS and using around 124kg/hr.

If you drop the boost to 1.9bar you could get to the 100kg/hr 2014 rule. By keeping the same 272g/kWh BSFC the same engine would now make 502HP at 12000rpm.

The new DI 2014 engine I would guess have a much better BSFC number of around 225g/kWh, this would increase the power level to around 597HP. This 225g/kWh IMO would be a very conservative number. I project that we will see more around the likes of 212g/kWh BSFC number. This would increase the power to around 631HP.

The new 2014 engines will have a lot more new technology that will improve drastically over the RA168E.
Fast Burning Head Design
Lean Burn Power/FC DI
Increased VE
Much Higher Compressor Efficiency above 80%
Much Higher Turbine Efficiency also above 80%
etc.

Then I started thinking about "road relevance"...if you could take this technology and deliver it into a passenger car it could be a whole different world!

Imagine a down sized turbocharge 1.3L engine in a light weight advance steel/composite automobile with fuel mileage around 60+ mpg freeway, that would have the ability to produce 225HP at 5000rpm and up to 342HP at 8000rpm
(based off the same engine above).
Keeping in mind this is only running the petrol engine, at any given time you could have another 100+HP the electric motor could add to it.

[Tommy Cookers]

The 1988 RA168-E Honda engine in fuel saving mode was most efficient at 12000 rpm running 2.5bar with a BSFC of 272g/kWh making 620PS and using around 124kg/hr.If you drop the boost to 1.9bar you could get to the 100kg/hr 2014 rule. By keeping the same 272g/kWh BSFC the same engine would now make 502HP at 12000rpm.
The new DI 2014 engine I would guess have a much better BSFC number of around 225g/kWh, this would increase the power level to around 597HP. This 225g/kWh IMO would be a very conservative number. I project that we will see more around the likes of 212g/kWh BSFC number. This would increase the power to around 631HP.
The new 2014 engines will have a lot more new technology that will improve drastically over the RA168E.
Fast Burning Head Design
Lean Burn Power/FC DI
Increased VE Much Higher Compressor Efficiency above 80% Much Higher Turbine Efficiency also above 80%
Keeping in mind this is only running the petrol engine, at any given time you could have another 100+HP the electric motor could add to it.

That's quite a lot of pondering !

Where does this 26% improvement in SFC come from ?

Much of the new design/technology that is valuable in road engines (and is supported in the 2014 rules) has little value in F1

Present F1 combustion works well enough at 20000 rpm (due to fast-burn properties in F1 fuel for last 20 years), so how can faster burn be gainful in the 2014 10000-120000 rpm engines ?
FB is all about reducing NOx at source in road engine ? thus eliminating the reduction catalyst, (which can't work in the presence of oxygen and must have a stoichiometric (ie fuel-wasteful for road use) mixture).
This FB is a delayed, then fast, burn to reduce 'hot time' that produces NOx ?

Lean Burn is primarily to enable reduced power operation with less throttling than traditionally needed (improving economy). This is only valuable in road use, F1 is essentially full throttle or none (in part aided by short shifting).

I'm sceptical about the other areas for major gains, just because you call something TERS doesn't mean you can often pull 100 bhp electrically free of fuel consumption. Turbines use pressure drop, you can't use the same pressure drop at the piston and the turbine , (of course there will be transients, periods of bleeding down unwanted turbine rpm).
Fuel allowance will be cut year-on-year ?

Technically there is huge potential in the fuel, mysteriously there now seems (even in the current rules) no limit on octane number. Still calling it 'pump fuel' ?

There seems to be some new methods of efficiently making Triptane (2,2,3-trimethyl butane), there must be some reason for this interest ?
A bit like isooctane,Triptane is a natural ingredient (at low levels) of crude oil, so is legitimate.
Naturally 112 octane, it is outstandingly sensitive to organometallc octane boosters and could thus be valuable if a modern substitute for TEL 'lead' was found acceptable.
With the TEL at the engine-fouling limit it was a '300 octane' fuel, ie rich mixture PN of 300, meaning a rich-supercharged tripling of 100 octane power, hence the name Triptane. Typically part-Triptane fuel allowed raising CR for major gains in economy even with some power gains.
TEL was always far from the only game in town, it was dropped because of its toxicity (to catalysts really), maybe we won't always need catalysts (of the current type) ?
Triptane has a higher heat content in the combustion-appropriate quantity than the established high octane alternative,Toluene.
Using very high octane fuel for economy via very high CR with boost IMO wouldn't give significant dissociation reactions ?

[pgfpro]

Where does this 26% improvement in SFC come from ?

In comparing the 2014 F1 engines to 1988 engines.

Much of the new design/technology that is valuable in road engines (and is supported in the 2014 rules) has little value in F1

Today's DI with lean burn engines have a lot common ground with the new 2014 F1 engines.
Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn quote:
Brawn added that if Formula One wants to attract new engine manufacturers - one of the reasons the change was proposed in the first place - it must stick to the 2014 switch.

"I think it sends a very bad message back in terms of Formula One to keep changing its direction on things that are so fundamental, which need so much investment to make work," he said. "I think the new engine is very exciting. I think today engines are not really a topic in Formula One; they used to be, and I think it used to add to the sport, that the engine was quite a large factor in the performance envelope or the performance cycle of the car. I think the engines are much more relevant. Our company is getting some real benefits from the technology of this engine. We are using expertise and resource within the company to develop and design this new engine. It's a much more relevant engine. We're going to be running around on two thirds of the fuel that we're running on now with, we think, comparable power outputs.

"We've got to change the engine at some stage. We will become irrelevant with the engine if we don't look to change. The world's changing and I think the new engine is a far more relevant engine for Formula One for the future. If we're going to get new manufacturers into Formula One, which I think is a good thing, then why will they come in to build an antique V8 engine? They won't. They will only come in with this new engine, so we want to attract manufacturers back into Formula One and this new engine is very important [in doing that]."
Renault Sport managing director Jean-Francois Caubet agreed with his statment.

Present F1 combustion works well enough at 20000 rpm (due to fast-burn properties in F1 fuel for last 20 years), so how can faster burn be gainful in the 2014 10000-120000 rpm engines ?
FB is all about reducing NOx at source in road engine ? thus eliminating the reduction catalyst, (which can't work in the presence of oxygen and must have a stoichiometric (ie fuel-wasteful for road use) mixture).
This FB is a delayed, then fast, burn to reduce 'hot time' that produces NOx ?

I was comparing the 2014 engine to the RA168E from 1988 in which had a fast burn head design for its day but by all means was not that fast at 37*BTDC ign. advance at 12000rpm running 84% Toluene. Todays F1 engine will have a much faster burn then the engines of 1988. I believe in 2014 with DI etc. that they will have to be even faster do to the extra load from the turbo.
FB is also a HP maker due to the higher compression you can run or in the 2014 engines case higher compression with boost. Look at the Northstar engine.

I'm sceptical about the other areas for major gains, just because you call something TERS doesn't mean you can often pull 100 bhp electrically free of fuel consumption. Turbines use pressure drop, you can't use the same pressure drop at the piston and the turbine , (of course there will be transients, periods of bleeding down unwanted turbine rpm).
Fuel allowance will be cut year-on-year ?

Sorry I'm not to sure what you are saying here could you please explain???

[Tommy Cookers]

While I remember, the 2014 engines will have a controlled fuel rate, rising with rpm, then steady, so you would have an huge incentive to use full throttle at all times(even deliberately slogging at lowish rpm) or zero power throttle, and never partial throttle.


I agree ........

that DI will allow a higher CR than otherwise
(because in reality detonation has a time element as well as the temperature/pressure element, this was accepted from certain WW2 aircraft engines). DI that works at 12000rpm max is easier than 20000rpm, but still a big step.

that such advanced DI would allow optimum injection rate (variation?), this MIGHT allow higher CR with injection rate limiting peak combustion/heating to an optimum, but road applicability more likely ?

that 2014 engines would gain overall from a higher-turbulence (if this is what FB means) combustion chamber, if working as above (also relatively lower pumping losses with this at 2014 rpm)

I don't see .........

how DI of itself can make combustion faster, unless combustion is slow due to a lean homogeneous mixture (DI being inherently stratified charge), running lean won't be used in F1.

how combustion faster than present is beneficial, because CR is already optimised around combustion initiation and progress, faster burning would cause detonation unless CR is reduced
If there was scope here, wouldn't engines already have twin or multiple spark plugs ? (it was found unneccessary)

that 37 ign advance is not bad in reality, given there is some delay in combustion initiation and progress, and the above tradeoff


OK, I've given a bit of ground as above, if my interpretation of some of the terminology is correct.


Brawnspeak clearly shows that F1 is to become a continuing ad for the aspects certain manufacturers want to feature (via the rules written around a suite of road-relevant technology)
Fine in a way, but not everything gives better performance in F1, and (more importantly) other road-relevant approaches are excluded.

The MGUH (or TERS) is turbocharger connected to an electrical motor/generator.
It works in response to pressure in the exhaust flow, not to heat as such, thus much of the 'TE' is unrecoverable. Much of the residual cylinder pressure is lost in the 'near-instantaneous' blowdown, and is unavailable to a turbine.
To put it another way, just how stupid and lazy would the FIA have us think engine designers have been (for the last 80 years since the turbo was made to work) to have ignored all this TE going to waste, if it was or is largely recoverable ?
All F1 practical engines dump about 70% of their fuel's heat energy as 'waste' heat and the 2014 rules will hardly change this.
An F1 size gas turbine could do much better(at huge cost), but it's not allowed.
Much more TE could be recovered if combined with steam plant (BMW)

The turbo, being connected to the inertial mass of a (very powerful) generator will need electric motoring assistance to 'spool up' anyway (CVT not allowed?).

The only magic is the advertising effect.

[garrett]

Why water injection is still forbidden for the new engine formula? Is it still fear for power explosion? But, as the injection of water decreases the noxious emission and helps for fuel efficiency, so it would fit into future "green" policies imo.

[pgfpro]

The MGUH (or TERS) is turbocharger connected to an electrical motor/generator.
It works in response to pressure in the exhaust flow, not to heat as such, thus much of the 'TE' is unrecoverable. Much of the residual cylinder pressure is lost in the 'near-instantaneous' blowdown, and is unavailable to a turbine.
To put it another way, just how stupid and lazy would the FIA have us think engine designers have been (for the last 80 years since the turbo was made to work) to have ignored all this TE going to waste, if it was or is largely recoverable ?
All F1 practical engines dump about 70% of their fuel's heat energy as 'waste' heat and the 2014 rules will hardly change this.
An F1 size gas turbine could do much better(at huge cost), but it's not allowed.
Much more TE could be recovered if combined with steam plant (BMW)

The turbo, being connected to the inertial mass of a (very powerful) generator will need electric motoring assistance to 'spool up' anyway (CVT not allowed?).

The only magic is the advertising effect.

OK that explains it. Thanks!!!

I now see where your coming from and do agree that this new rule is just a minor way of recovering waste from the exhaust.

The problem is the 4 cycle piston engine is just not the best design for efficiency, so they are making very small gains instead of thinking outside of the box for a whole different power plant.

[matt21]

The MGUH (or TERS) is turbocharger connected to an electrical motor/generator.
It works in response to pressure in the exhaust flow, not to heat as such, thus much of the 'TE' is unrecoverable. Much of the residual cylinder pressure is lost in the 'near-instantaneous' blowdown, and is unavailable to a turbine.

I would like to contradict here.
A turbine is, if well designed, not only using pressure of the exhaust flow to generate work, but also a certain amount of the temperature.
Furthermore, as BMW has done in 1983 with the M12 and with the actual twin-scroll N55, the turbine is using the kinetic energy by leading seperate exhaust lines into the housing.

[Tommy Cookers]

I always had in mind that in heat engines there is many relationships between heat and pressure, when heat manifests itself as pressure it can do work via a turbine (or piston). The FIA is creating public confusion with its chosen terminology TES and MGUH.

AFAIK .........

In any car engine making a fair percentage of its full power, the cylinder pressure at the start of blowdown is 6-7bar (this is to avoid the piston having to majorly pump out exhaust on the upstroke). One tenth of this near-instantaneous presure difference would accelerate the exhaust gas to sonic speed. 6-7 bar causes initially a shock/supersonic event (that's why engines can be noisy), which loses much pressure but keeps things hot. This type of event is notoriously dissipatory, not conservational.
The modern implementation of the Atkinson cycle, having expanded more in the cylinder, has lower blowdown losses but has only half filled the cylinder, so its bhp/litre is no good for F1.
It's all trade-offs.

In simple terms (I'm told) the exhaust (eg as available to the turbo) has a higher temperature than is justified by its pressure.
Things improve when the exhaust is denser (ie the turbo is allowed to increase back pressure), because the 6-7 bar doesn't drive it so pointlessly fast.
Isn't this why turbos are inherently quieter ?

Certainly turbos are (mostly) designed around trying to catch whatever they can, as you show with the BMW.
The big (philosophical) question is how much (of what) do they catch (when they say KE this may be an intentionally careful claim).
I should love to see a paper that clarifies this, ie with real time measurements from port to tailpipe.

The non-turbo engine is making these losses anyway, and the turbo doesn't have to be driven by this lossy part of the exhaust energy to work. There are turbos/turbines that are designed to work only on the steady (residual) pressure.
In large part the turbo works by boosting the massflow without increasing frictional losses. Even mechanically driven superchargers can improve efficiency in this way, it's not a mystery.

The BMW was the first turbo winner of the WDC (1983?), I think they had some naughty fuel, Renault felt robbed, and a discreet fuel war started. I wonder if this will happen again, the same 2 countries ?
(the fuel regs seem to have been opened up)

Nice drawing, BTW !

[Tommy Cookers]

All F1 practical engines dump about 70% of their fuel's heat energy as 'waste' heat and the 2014 rules will hardly change this.
An F1 size gas turbine could do much better(at huge cost), but it's not allowed.
Much more TE could be recovered if combined with steam plant (BMW)
The problem is the 4 cycle piston engine is just not the best design for efficiency, so they are making very small gains instead of thinking outside of the box for a whole different power plant.

I'm semi-guessing that a F1 size gas turbine could be about 47% efficient, so dumping 53% of its fuel heat (GTs were allowed in F1, and almost won the Indy 500). Could be combined with steam cycle ?
Very big GTs are maybe 58% efficient, and using its waste (exhaust) heat combined with steam cycle is better (eg that's where we get much of our electricity)
Hot Air Engine (Sterling Cycle) is an old sort of slow running piston engine about 70% efficient but too bulky for its power
About 35 years ago there was a Fiat study recommending cars having coolant system connectable to domestic heating system, on return from work the car was plugged in and left running for 1 hour, heating the house. TRUE !
On tickover 100% of the fuel energy is going as waste heat, a lot !

Lots of waste heat is fine to heat apartments etc, about 80 years ago it was banned in the USA to force the power companies to take their product to the countryside. Now the politicians (say they) want power companies to use waste heat for heating apartments !

[matt21]

The modern implementation of the Atkinson cycle, having expanded more in the cylinder, has lower blowdown losses but has only half filled the cylinder, so its bhp/litre is no good for F1.

I think this could be useful within the new LMP 1 regulations.

Isn't this why turbos are inherently quieter ?

This is one reason. One other is the reduction in pressure by the turbo and another the circumstance of havin another volume (the turbo) absorbing sound.

I should love to see a paper that clarifies this, ie with real time measurements from port to tailpipe.

The turbine performance increases as the pressure drop between the inlet and outlet increases, i.e. when more exhaust gas is dammed upstream of the turbine as a result of a higher engine speed, or in the case of an exhaust gas temperature rise due to higher exhaust gas energy.

http://www.3k-warner.de/products/turboc ... rbine.aspx
I have a book about turbo engines and my study papers somewhere. Try to find the thing about different pressures and temperatures.

BTW, the picture was just from another thread.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9433

[matt21]

Why water injection is still forbidden for the new engine formula? Is it still fear for power explosion? But, as the injection of water decreases the noxious emission and helps for fuel efficiency, so it would fit into future "green" policies imo.

Water injection is only useful if you can turn up the boost then as you prevent from detonation. But raised boost doesn´t help as you have a maximum fuel flow.

And if you would like to reduce NOX take a catalytic converter.

[xpensive]

...
The BMW was the first turbo winner of the WDC (1983?), I think they had some naughty fuel, Renault felt robbed, and a discreet fuel war started. I wonder if this will happen again, the same 2 countries ?
(the fuel regs seem to have been opened up)
..

...IIRC it was in 1993 when Toyota ran their turbos on nitro and VW protested, wasn't it?

[pgfpro]

This is a good example of exhaust temperature of a conventional turbo with 1450*F and 1650*F while mantaining the same boost etc on the cold side.

1) 1650*F
-6 engine delta P
16.7 back pressure
15.7 turbine corrective flow
47% wastegated

2) 1450*F
-7 engine delta P
16.7 back pressure
15.7 turbine corrective flow
43% wastegated

[Tommy Cookers]

Why water injection is still forbidden for the new engine formula? Is it still fear for power explosion? But, as the injection of water decreases the noxious emission and helps for fuel efficiency, so it would fit into future "green" policies imo.

I can say that in reality what people call WI is actually and always was a mix of water and methyl alcohol IMO
This is (or was until recently) a standard product for all types of aircraft engines, even some jets, called Methmix ?
The methanol is to stop freezing and has most of the cooling effect

Good question, though !

[Tommy Cookers]

...
The BMW was the first turbo winner of the WDC (1983?), I think they had some naughty fuel, Renault felt robbed, and a discreet fuel war started. I wonder if this will happen again, the same 2 countries ?
(the fuel regs seem to have been opened up)
..

...IIRC it was in 1993 when Toyota ran their turbos on nitro and VW protested, wasn't it?

My (clear?) recollection was that the Brabham-BMW was near the season end found by due process to have used non-compliant fuel but there was no points penalty. The team was then owned by a Mr Ecclestone.
Renault had seemed certain to win the championship, but as well as the above factor also had many failures late in the season.

I hadn't heard of the 1993, but that doesn't mean much !

There now seems to be a rule designed to stop a nitro effect (or peroxide effect), 'only use external Oxygen' clause
I wonder when that appeared ?