2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[pgfpro]

The Gymkhana Three Fiesta was built by the same team that produced his Monster World Rally Team hatch, and includes a boosted 2.0-liter four-pot capable of 850 horsepower (de-tuned with a restrictor plate to output 650 hp in the name of tractability) and 660 pound-feet of torque.

What are the fuel consumption details of this engine?

Those Fiesta's are awesome that's for sure!!!

My engine consumes around 146 Kg/hr at 7500rpm and 211 Kg/hr at 12000rpm. I Could make a lot more HP at 7500rpm but traction and drive-train parts become a major issue.lol

The one thing I have been wondering about is if the F1 engineers will take the DI to a new level as far as high rpm stratified charged fuel delivery???

[Tommy Cookers]

before I forget .......

an ideal DI would improve efficiency by cutting losses due to dissociation ?

in the combustion process (commencing around 1000 C) some carbon dioxide will break down into carbon monoxide and oxygen, absorbing heat and constraining pressure rise, then this change will reverse itself as expansion lowers temperature, and heat is re-released.
The effect of this is that efficiency is lowered as the re-release is rather late in the expansion process.
Suitably controlled DI would reduce this loss of efficiency.

Dissociation allows a higher CR by discouraging detonation though ?

Power gains with rich mixtures independent of CR and induction pressure are said to be (in part ?) due to such chemical effects, the large amount of carbon monoxide inherent from rich mixture deters some dissociation.
(independent of the usual rich mixture mechanisms that allow higher CR etc)
BTW 'better filling due to extra (rich) charge cooling', also displaces some air with fuel vapour, unless (with DI) cooling only occurs in the combustion chamber


Presumably F1 (and drag racer) fuels are chemically doctored to reduce dissociation ?

Presumably dissociation effects are related in some way to rpm ?
Dissociation will occur in the octane testing of any modern pump fuel ?

Interesting to see that detonation is less of a problem at high rpm eg your 12000 rpm
(our octane nos are established at 600 and 900 rpm not at F1 rpm)


Although DI would allow stratified charge (to allow overall fuelling ratios that wouldn't combust if homogeneous) this wouldn't be used in F1 ?

[Ferraripilot]

How much conjecture has been offered regarding where these turbo engines will produce maximum torque compared to the current V8 formula? I suspect the same as all turbo engines compared to NA that a measureable amount more torque will be available at a lower RPM. Any simulated bhp figures offered regarding these units floating around yet? I would estimate near 700bhp but with 400lbs torque below 10k rpm.

[pgfpro]

How much conjecture has been offered regarding where these turbo engines will produce maximum torque compared to the current V8 formula? I suspect the same as all turbo engines compared to NA that a measureable amount more torque will be available at a lower RPM. Any simulated bhp figures offered regarding these units floating around yet? I would estimate near 700bhp but with 400lbs torque below 10k rpm.

IMHO base on the fuel rule( 5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5) and my optimist BSFC number of .32 I think the torque numbers on the engine will be around...

344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC

so they will have to rely heavily on the MGUK

[Cold Fussion]

How much conjecture has been offered regarding where these turbo engines will produce maximum torque compared to the current V8 formula? I suspect the same as all turbo engines compared to NA that a measureable amount more torque will be available at a lower RPM. Any simulated bhp figures offered regarding these units floating around yet? I would estimate near 700bhp but with 400lbs torque below 10k rpm.

IMHO base on the fuel rule( 5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5) and my optimist BSFC number of .32 I think the torque numbers on the engine will be around...

344 ft/lbs tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft/lbs tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft/lbs tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft/lbs tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC

so they will have to rely heavily on the MGUK

How do you arrive at such a BSFC? Also you should remove the slash from units otherwise they are incorrect.

[pgfpro]

How much conjecture has been offered regarding where these turbo engines will produce maximum torque compared to the current V8 formula? I suspect the same as all turbo engines compared to NA that a measureable amount more torque will be available at a lower RPM. Any simulated bhp figures offered regarding these units floating around yet? I would estimate near 700bhp but with 400lbs torque below 10k rpm.

IMHO base on the fuel rule( 5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5) and my optimist BSFC number of .32 I think the torque numbers on the engine will be around...

344 ft/lbs tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft/lbs tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft/lbs tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft/lbs tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC

so they will have to rely heavily on the MGUK

How do you arrive at such a BSFC? Also you should remove the slash from units otherwise they are incorrect.

Its just a guess based on that twenty year old four valve engines are running .37 BSFC numbers with a ton of fuel still being used for thermal management so one would think that F1 could come up with a much better BSFC value with the modern tech. that they will be using?

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote="pgfpro"}
IMHO base on the fuel rule( 5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5) and my optimist BSFC number of .32 I think the torque numbers on the engine will be around...

344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC

so they will have to rely heavily on the MGUK[/quote]


what is your expectation on the (absolute) induction pressure that would be associated with these values of torque ?

[pgfpro]

[quote="pgfpro"}
IMHO base on the fuel rule( 5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5) and my optimist BSFC number of .32 I think the torque numbers on the engine will be around...

344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC

so they will have to rely heavily on the MGUK

what is your expectation on the (absolute) induction pressure that would be associated with these values of torque ?[/quote]

344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 525hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 590hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1 bar = 656hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1 bar = 689hp

[seinfeld]

how awesome would it be if porche could enter with a flat 6. Mazda with a rotary. and of course the usualy combustion engines. that would get my interest again

[Shrek]

how awesome would it be if porche could enter with a flat 6. Mazda with a rotary. and of course the usualy combustion engines. that would get my interest again

same here, the 2014 LMP rules really could get interesting

[Tommy Cookers]

Its just a guess based on that twenty year old four valve engines are running .37 BSFC numbers with a ton of fuel still being used for thermal management so one would think that F1 could come up with a much better BSFC value with the modern tech. that they will be using?

...... which engines please ?

Honda F1 'economy-turbos' that are generally quoted seem to show 200 gm/hp-hr ie .44 lb/hp-hr BSFC at .98 AFR
a legendary (cherry-picked) figure for the Wright Turbo Compound (at max economy) was .38 lb/hp-hr

I assume your torque figures are related to your BSFC value of .32
below 10500 rpm the engine would be throwing away available fuel flow, so would operate over 10500-13500 rpm range mostly, the average torque over this range would be less than at 10500 ?

Apologies in advance if I have got something wrong

[rjsa]

Pure suspends engine development:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101562

Could be it, could not: There will be no 1.6l V6 full of gadgets. I stick to my bet.

[pgfpro]

Its just a guess based on that twenty year old four valve engines are running .37 BSFC numbers with a ton of fuel still being used for thermal management so one would think that F1 could come up with a much better BSFC value with the modern tech. that they will be using?

...... which engines please ?

Honda F1 'economy-turbos' that are generally quoted seem to show 200 gm/hp-hr ie .44 lb/hp-hr BSFC at .98 AFR
a legendary (cherry-picked) figure for the Wright Turbo Compound (at max economy) was .38 lb/hp-hr

I assume your torque figures are related to your BSFC value of .32
below 10500 rpm the engine would be throwing away available fuel flow, so would operate over 10500-13500 rpm range mostly, the average torque over this range would be less than at 10500 ?

Apologies in advance if I have got something wrong

The engines that have been running around the .37 to .38 BSFC are the GSR 1.8L Honda and the DSM 4G63 2.0L from the early 90's making over 1000HP.

I think today's new injector extreme high flow, atomization technology will be a major benefit for F1 compared to the mid 80's era. This will be the biggest contributor in BSFC numbers. The combustion chamber design of today's engines will also have a decent advantage.

I agree that as the rpm increases you will see the torque numbers drop off big time due to the fuel rule.
Example:
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
268 ft.lbs/ tq @ 13500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32 BSFC abs/kpa 200 or 1.0 bar = 689hp

[Tommy Cookers]

Its just a guess based on that twenty year old four valve engines are running .37 BSFC numbers with a ton of fuel still being used for thermal management so one would think that F1 could come up with a much better BSFC value with the modern tech. that they will be using?

The engines that have been running around the .37 to .38 BSFC are the GSR 1.8L Honda and the DSM 4G63 2.0L from the early 90's making over 1000HP.

I think today's new injector extreme high flow, atomization technology will be a major benefit for F1 compared to the mid 80's era. This will be the biggest contributor in BSFC numbers. The combustion chamber design of today's engines will also have a decent advantage.

I agree that as the rpm increases you will see the torque numbers drop off big time due to the fuel rule.
Example:
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
268 ft.lbs/ tq @ 13500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32 BSFC abs/kpa 200 or 1.0 bar = 689hp

You're sure that the .37/8 BSFC are with a rich mixture for thermal management (not with AFR close to 1) ?

Sorry,I got the max rpm wrong, now I think 12000 or 12500 max would prevent falling below 10500 on upchanges at max power, and when the car is below 10500 only in situations when it couldn't use more than the lower fuel rate associated with these lower revs
(also the power at max revs would be lower than at 10500 due to the greater mechanical losses at higher revs)

I still think the potential of the super performance DI is for 'partial power' operation with lean mixture (and compression ignition only at extreme PPs), this is seen as the future for road engines (by those who don't like 'Twin/Multi Air' or VVT ?)
...... that is the gains at AFR close to 1 are less IMO

If/when the fuel rate is reduced a lot it would take us down some PP road (weird for F1), if the engines were still 1600cc

The F1 way to deal with a big reduction in fuel rate would be to stay at AFR around 1 and make smaller engines

Anyway, we should all see this future soon enough !


BTW .... regarding your compound turbo, 99% of turbocharged aircraft engines also had a mechanically driven centrifugal supercharger

[heho07]

Does anyone know can engine manufactures develop new engine through 2014 season and beyond.