2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[pgfpro]

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

Checking my notes A/F 12.8 max. power on a 14.5 stoich race fuel.

I'm hoping they will be able to take something like the "Mahle" DI pre-chamber gasoline jet ignition to the next level.

I was checking that out a while back. My Dad used to be a WWII airplane mech. and I remember him talking about those.
Sounds like they had to supercharge them to keep a decent Delta P number???

[g-force_addict]

Wouldn't its flatter powerband compensate for less high end HP?

Even tough 2014 turbo will produce less HP at the highest rpms, they may well produce MORE HP at mid rpms thus requiring less frequent gear changes?

[garrett]

Renault and Mercedes have rumoured to have had problems in funding and Ferrari problems in R&D.

The rumours of terminating the V6 turbos restarting, it´s wishful thinking of some people again.
And it´s only rumours from the start.
Where did you get that from?? Renault and Mercedes are 50% committed to the development of the new engines today and they are on schedule as far as I´m informed.
And where is the coherence between the time-out of one private engine operation because of reasons we can only speculate about at the moment and the total re-change of the regulations? Why Merc, Renault and ferrari should stop when Pollock fails. In contrary, it´s one of Renaults wishes to expand the number of the customers from current four, at least because the engines will become cheaper for all teams. So, if Cosworth and PURE will not take part, this problem will be solved.

The abort or even delay of the V& will happen only over the dead body of the manufacturers:

Ross Brawn:

"Every change actually costs a lot of money for the people investing in new engines. We're committed to a new engine programme, it's progressing, we've been able to justify the budgets to our board and we don't want to see a deferment or a delay in that new engine."

Jean-Francois Caubet:

"We have already delayed the engine once, from four cylinder to go to six cylinders. I think it cost us around ten or 15 million, probably the same for Mercedes and probably the same for Ferrari. So we have blown nearly 50 million for nothing. If you delay one year, we think it will be never (happen) because the delay will be '15 and then '16. For Renault, it is a strategic choice."

[Tommy Cookers]

any rpm below 10500 the fuel rate is less than the max, so power is less than the max
any rpm above 10500 the fuel rate is the max, so power is less than the max, as frictional losses would be increased

so you would need to stay close to 10500, by making lots of gearchanges

IMO

[pgfpro]

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 95kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 656hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 689hp
315 ft.lbs/ tq @ 11500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 208 or 1.1bar = 692hp
290 ft.lbs/ tq @ 12500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 191 or 0.9bar = 692hp
269 ft.lbs/ tq @ 13500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 177 or 0.8bar = 692hp
250 ft.lbs/ tq @ 14500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 165 or 0.6bar = 691hp
242 ft.lbs/ tq @ 15000rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 159 or 0.6bar = 691hp

This is what i come with going off my personal engine spreadsheet.

[Holm86]

So no idea of going beyond 13500 rpm.?

What does the spreadsheet of a current 2.4 V8 look like? Or is this alot harder to specify because we dont know the exact fuel flow?

[rjsa]

So no idea of going beyond 13500 rpm.?

What does the spreadsheet of a current 2.4 V8 look like? Or is this alot harder to specify because we dont know the exact fuel flow?

Not exactly. You have to maximize the area under the power curve, and with the frozen gear ratios I (wild) guess much of the RPM band will be used.

[Holm86]

So no idea of going beyond 13500 rpm.?

What does the spreadsheet of a current 2.4 V8 look like? Or is this alot harder to specify because we dont know the exact fuel flow?

Not exactly. You have to maximize the area under the power curve, and with the frozen gear ratios I (wild) guess much of the RPM band will be used.

I guess youre right. But with 8 gears i believe the rpm drop between gears wont be that big.

[rjsa]

The same 8 gears from Monaco to Spa...

EDIT: That, again, if this thing goes thru, which I doubt. The V8s will be around much longer than anticipated.

[pgfpro]

Some other things to ponder.

I think the MGUH could be a benefit to produce more power at higher rpm.

Example:1
1.6L V6 at 10500rpm
210 abs/kpa to maintain the 100kg/hr rule
64mm exhaust wheel .83 A/R turbine
= 2.37 turbine expansion ratio
= 47.6 turbine shaft hp
= -9psi engine delta p
= 691hp

Example:2
1.6L V6 at 15000rpm
141 abs/kpa to maintain the 100kg/hr rule
64mm exhaust wheel .83 A/R turbine
= 1.72 turbine expansion ratio
= 22.2 turbine shaft hp
= -8psi engine delta p
= 691 hp

Now as you can see with a the higher rpm and a lower boost level engine you will have a 1psi gain in engine delta p, that doesn't seem like a lot but this was just a example using a small turbine spec. If the engineers can map the turbine with lower expansion ratios this will move the expansion ratio more to the left of the phi curve of the turbine map. So at the more vertical part of the turbine map one will have more room for ramping up flow numbers before they reach their max flow numbers and start relying on just higher turbine pressure ratios. Then they will be able to load the turbine with the MGUH? Edit I think this is wrong now LOL

The other part I didn't cover is that at higher rpm VE will start to decrease so intake boost pressure can be increase also while maintaining the fuel rule. This will also aid engine delta p at higher rpm and engine flow during the cam's
exhaust valve/ intake valve overlap.

[Holm86]

The same 8 gears from Monaco to Spa...

EDIT: That, again, if this thing goes thru, which I doubt. The V8s will be around much longer than anticipated.

But the compromise would be in the final drive right? So i guess it would stille be possible to have the gear ratios pretty close.

And i hope the V8 will be replaced as scheduled. The engine regulations i F1 has been so crappy the last years since the V10's.

And as i mentioned earlier in this thread i dont get why theres so much fuss about the cost of these engines. Theyve had 3 years to develop them. In Le Mans for instance engine regulations can be redefined from year to year. But the manufartures i Le Mans dont complain. And they have far more freedom in their designs. In F1 almost everything is predefined.

[amouzouris]

The same 8 gears from Monaco to Spa...

EDIT: That, again, if this thing goes thru, which I doubt. The V8s will be around much longer than anticipated.

But the compromise would be in the final drive right? So i guess it would stille be possible to have the gear ratios pretty close.

And i hope the V8 will be replaced as scheduled. The engine regulations i F1 has been so crappy the last years since the V10's.

And as i mentioned earlier in this thread i dont get why theres so much fuss about the cost of these engines. Theyve had 3 years to develop them. In Le Mans for instance engine regulations can be redefined from year to year. But the manufartures i Le Mans dont complain. And they have far more freedom in their designs. In F1 almost everything is predefined.

well...that's exactly the reason they will be expensive... they've spent more money on development because they have 3 years to develop them...they have a lot of time to develop the engines....if they only had 1 year though...time would be limited and they would have spent that much money.... then all that money spent must be gained back....and to gain them back they will increase the prices of the engines thus making them more expensive...

[Tommy Cookers]

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 95kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 656hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 689hp
315 ft.lbs/ tq @ 11500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 208 or 1.1bar = 692hp
290 ft.lbs/ tq @ 12500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 191 or 0.9bar = 692hp
269 ft.lbs/ tq @ 13500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 177 or 0.8bar = 692hp
250 ft.lbs/ tq @ 14500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 165 or 0.6bar = 691hp
242 ft.lbs/ tq @ 15000rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 159 or 0.6bar = 691hp

This is what i come with going off my personal engine spreadsheet.

Interesting !

comparing 15000 with 10500 I'm thinking frictional bhp would be about 60 more at 15000
are we saying that the turbo (and related pressures) take 60 bhp less at 15000 ? ..... or how much less ?


surely we have 2 different engines here, a 'slow' 1.1 bar boost engine and a 'fast' 0.6 bar boost engine ?

surely the optimal CR of these 2 would be very different ie hugely dependent on the boost used ?
(the induction and exhaust system design would be rpm-specific also ?)

(without VVT etc) surely one would choose one or the other design, and run it over the smallest rpm range possible ?


BTW your power measurements (related to your BSFCs measured), was this rolling road or crankshaft ? interesting any way!

[Holm86]

The same 8 gears from Monaco to Spa...

EDIT: That, again, if this thing goes thru, which I doubt. The V8s will be around much longer than anticipated.

But the compromise would be in the final drive right? So i guess it would stille be possible to have the gear ratios pretty close.

And i hope the V8 will be replaced as scheduled. The engine regulations i F1 has been so crappy the last years since the V10's.

And as i mentioned earlier in this thread i dont get why theres so much fuss about the cost of these engines. Theyve had 3 years to develop them. In Le Mans for instance engine regulations can be redefined from year to year. But the manufartures i Le Mans dont complain. And they have far more freedom in their designs. In F1 almost everything is predefined.

well...that's exactly the reason they will be expensive... they've spent more money on development because they have 3 years to develop them...they have a lot of time to develop the engines....if they only had 1 year though...time would be limited and they would have spent that much money.... then all that money spent must be gained back....and to gain them back they will increase the prices of the engines thus making them more expensive...

But the engines should have been allready in 2013. But they also complained about that and said that was not enough time.

[garrett]

The CVC shareholders and their managing director Ecclestone are not interested in what they denounce as "green c....", because their interest is confined to get out the utmost shareholder value of F1. Thats why they oppose technical innovations, additionally I suppose Ecclestone fears it could occur to someone something like the following: "If the engines are not affordable for the teams, so give them a bigger share of the cake in the CA negotiations and the problem is solved."

But: Norbert Haug recently said if someone would consider the idea of keeping the V8 for another season they should do as well; but the customers will have to pay for another year of development and the engines will be even more expensive.

Should they even be dropped, at least Mercedes and Renault will pull out of F1 as it would be a slap in the face for them with the aborted inline four in first and the waste of another one and a half year development in second place. The customers will have to take care of the services of the ex Merc and Renault for themselves (or by engaging tuners like Heini Mader in earlier years). I don´t think this will be cheaper. Someone will have to pay the bill when the music stops to play.

If PURE and Cosworth pull out, there will be more customer slots for the three manufacturers and the price of the engines will decrease, something that Cosworth used in a similar version with their V8.

Additionally, (because I read of revving up to 19.000, V8 and so on) please do not forget the wider context of the new regulations which surpasses F1 by far) an example:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct ... ormat=HTML