2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[rjsa]

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

Those who care about this formula don't matter, and those who matter do not care. It won't fly. Won't happen. They'll stick to the V8 and figure something else latter on. If we're lucky they will just get the V10s down from the shelves.

[pgfpro]

Sorry some of the numbers didn't transfer over from the spreadsheet.

344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 227 or 1.3bar = 525hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 228 or 1.3bar = 590hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 227 or 1.3bar = 656hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 227 or 1.3bar = 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

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 ?

What I'm saying is the intake boost will have to decrease from 10500k to 15000k based on the fuel rule. Or the VE will drop at the higher rpm and intake boost can stay the same or increase.

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 ?)

It would be just one engine with dynamic compression changes control by intake boost pressure, cam profile and turbine design.

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

Yes it will have a much smaller rpm range then what I posted. This was just to see the vast changes.

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

This would all be crankshaft HP.

Keep in mind the BSFC and VE are just a guess on my part.

My spreadsheet's inputs are
engine size
rpm
intake pressure
elevation
IAT
injector size
VE
how many cylinders
a/f ratio
bsfc
primary/psi
seconadry/psi
primary emp
secondary emp
% waste-gated
number of turbo's
fuel spec gravity
egt
turbine outlet pressure

[pgfpro]

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?

Sorry I was going to answer this and spaced it.

To be honest I don't have enough specs on the V8 engines of today?

Is there a fuel flow limit on today's engines?

[Tommy Cookers]

@pgfpro

what rpm/manifold pressure would you choose ?

is this driven by the turbine driving the MGUH being so much more capacious than engine supercharging demands ?

[xpensive]

I believe that my old "shortcut" of 17.5 Hp per 1000 cc, Bar absolute and 1000 Rpm works pretty well here?

Comparison with pgfpro's numbers above; 1600 cc, 1.9 Bar and 12500 Rpm would mean 665Hp vs his 692?

[Tommy Cookers]

@xpensive

any view on the apparent min rpm/max boost or high rpm/lower boost approaches ?

lower boost allows higher compression ratio, thereby efficiency ? and lower power taken for supercharge ??
but higher rpm causes greater friction

how big should the turbines capacity be (for electric power recovery, beyond the capacity for supercharging) ?

is recovery really viable, compared with drawing power from the (high compression) pistons ?

[xpensive]

Don't know much about those things really TC, but there might however be other things to consider here.

Quite obviously, as pfgpro has described, output will be constant between 10500 and 15000, why so will the xhaust mass-flow, but will the outlet temperature be the same, perhaps a higher boost at a lower Rpm will be advantageous recovery-wise?

However, enjoying a flat power-curve like that must per definition be the way to go gearshift-wise?

Edit:Bad thinking. Mass-flow and energy being the same, obviously so is temperature.

[Tommy Cookers]

but surely the flat power curve is only available (ie by using a large rpm range) if much of the time the CR over the piston is needlessly low (because the useable CR varies strongly with boost, which varies with rpm) ??

[xpensive]

Any idea of the upshift Rpm-range with an F1-gearbox, perhaps far less than 10500-15000?

[Tommy Cookers]

someone said 16%

[xpensive]

someone said 16%

Please elaborate TC?

[Tommy Cookers]

the 2014 F1 will have 8 gear ratios fixed all year (or 8 gearbox ratios so fixed and the maybe 2 final drive ratios eg Monaco and general ??)
the car would use the 7 most related to the task in hand
so this is a wider ratio box than currently ?

so I assume the engine would drop 16% rpm on an upchange

[xpensive]

Suggesting that the upshift might come as early as at 12000, while dropping to 10500, do I get you right?

According to pgfpro, that would call from a boost differential between 1.0 and 1.3, is that significant?

[Tommy Cookers]

I think we all agree that 10500-12000 is useable (actually 10500-12200 matches 16% rev drop)

what I'm saying is will they design for 10500-12200 ?
or 12900-15000 ?
or 13800-16000 even ?

very different boosts and different compression/expansion ratios

[pgfpro]

@pgfpro

what rpm/manifold pressure would you choose ?

is this driven by the turbine driving the MGUH being so much more capacious than engine supercharging demands ?

IMHO I think the higher rpm will be where they will use the turbine to generate most of there electricity.

My earlier examples.

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

As you can see the higher the rpm the less hp required to run the compressor at the given hp. But at what rpm would be those most advantageous I'm not to sure. Still working on the turbine simulator.Edit I think this is wrong now LOL