2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

your car has an oxygen sensor that richens the mixture in microseconds after detecting literally a few oxygen atoms in the exhaust, then after about a millisecond leans the mixture till the oxygen sensor detects ...... etc etc
so the mixture is chemically correct (within about 1000 parts per million) overall (in the proportion of air and fuel)
the system has no idea of the actual quantities of air or fuel
the identical parts would work eg with a different engine without any adjustment (unlike any previous carb or injection)
(it is made that way eg so that we can all have alcohol in our fuel without knowing it, or can drive up a mountain, and our catalysts will do a job that can only be done with this correct proportioning)
it is an uncalibrated system (with feedback), that's the point of it
it works by trial-and-error done very fast
(only if you change the oxygen sensor (or add electrically to its signal) will your injection system will behave differently)

rocket people can't control their fuel/oxidizer rates better than 1000 ppm
the FIA can't weigh a F1 car more accurately than 1000 ppm
(your government weights and measures lab can't either, you can use a 'g' value of 9.815 m/sec/sec when your real value is 9.804)
your litre of petrol is accurate to about 2000 ppm at best

2014 fuel rate regime has no feedback, it relies on calibration & standardisation
with control fuel and temperature control or compensation it might be accurate to 5000 ppm (ie 99.5-100.5 kg/hr)

the fuel companies might get 110 kg/hr through the system that is officially 100 kg/hr, and we won't know
(by tailoring the fuel for density and fluidity - right now F1 fuel contains engine friction reducers)

so there will have to be control by fuel weight allocation (as in the 80s)
and the fuel rate will be a front
(I shan't be losing any sleep over this, WB)

[flynfrog]

why cant they put a choke in the fuel line. Works for air fuel is no different. FIA gives every one bolt it to your fuel system between the pump and injectors. Sure it wont be the exact number at all conditions but it will be the same for every one.

[Tommy Cookers]

in MotoGP they have a fuel allocation eg 24 litres/race for each and every race
in some races this is a problem for some bikes (although engines back off automatically)
my guess is they have developed fuel to some density limit etc (and have a fuel (war) truce) ??

in the 80s F1 turbo engines had fuel allocation rules eg 220 litres,the intent was defeated by the fuel density development
87 and 88 had official boost-limiting valves and a fuel allocation eg 2.5 bar 150 litres
each year one engine was dominant (so no-one was thinking 'did the other car get .1 litres or .01 bar more than me?')

some races are more fuel-hungry than others anyway
2014 has a kg/race fuel allocation anyway
it should be set at a meaningful level that works with the fuel rate limit, so should be race-specific ? (it isn't either ?)

the fuel line restrictor concept is plausible for litres/hr, not for kg/hr (unless fuels are standard density, which is not intended, if I understand WB the fuel kg rate (not litre rate) concept is to avoid the dieselisation of F1)
they need setup/calibration for each fuel (air restrictors work because every cars air and air pressure is the same)
the rules avoided line restrictors, they don't want any fuel held downstream ?(to temporarily boost the rate the engine gets)

[FW17]

in MotoGP they have a fuel allocation eg 24 litres/race for each and every race
in some races this is a problem for some bikes (although engines back off automatically)
my guess is they have developed fuel to some density limit etc (and have a fuel (war) truce) ??

in the 80s F1 turbo engines had fuel allocation rules eg 220 litres,the intent was defeated by the fuel density development
87 and 88 had official boost-limiting valves and a fuel allocation eg 2.5 bar 150 litres
each year one engine was dominant (so no-one was thinking 'did the other car get .1 litres or .01 bar more than me?')

some races are more fuel-hungry than others anyway
2014 has a kg/race fuel allocation anyway
it should be set at a meaningful level that works with the fuel rate limit, so should be race-specific ? (it isn't either ?)

the fuel line restrictor concept is plausible for litres/hr, not for kg/hr (unless fuels are standard density, which is not intended, if I understand WB the fuel kg rate (not litre rate) concept is to avoid the dieselisation of F1)
they need setup/calibration for each fuel (air restrictors work because every cars air and air pressure is the same)
the rules avoided line restrictors, they don't want any fuel held downstream ?(to temporarily boost the rate the engine gets)

It is quiet funny

Monza cars will be allowed start with about 125 kgs of fuel

While in Singapore it can be 200 kgs of fuel.


Also what is the purpose of this rule?

5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 155kg.

5.4.5 When establishing conformity with Articles 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3 and Appendix 4 of the F1
Sporting Regulations, the homologated power unit will include :
- The intake system up to and including the air filter, including any inlet air compressor
but excluding charge air heat exchanger.
- Fuel rail and injectors.
- Ignition coils.
- All power unit mounted sensors and wiring.
- All power unit coolant pumps and oil pumps and fuel high pressure pumps (delivering
more than 10 bars), including motors and actuators.
- The exhaust line from the engine exhaust flange up to (but not including) the tail pipe,
including any turbine and energy recovery system.
- Oil tanks, catch tanks or any breather system connected to them.
- The ERS including the ES.
- The alternator/regulator.
- All electronic control units and actuators needed to make the power unit function at all
times.
5.4.6 When establishing conformity with Articles 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and Appendix 4 of the F1 Sporting
Regulations, the power unit will not include :
- Flywheel, clutch and clutch actuation system between the power unit and the gearbox.
- Liquids.
- Heat shields.
- Studs used to mount the engine to the chassis or gearbox.
- Water system accumulators.
- Heat exchangers and their associated accessories (including but not limited to tubes,
hoses, supports brackets and fasteners).
- Hydraulic system (e.g. pumps, accumulators, manifolds, servo-valves, solenoids,
actuators) except servo-valve and actuator for power unit control.
- Fuel feed pumps delivering less than 10 bar and their associated accessories (including
but not limited to tubes, hoses, supports brackets and fasteners).
- Any ancillary equipment associated with the power unit air valve air system, such as
hoses, regulators, reservoirs or compressors.
Furthermore, any parts which are not ordinarily part of a power unit will not be included when
assessing its weight. Examples of this could be, but are not limited to :
- Wiring harnesses having only a partial association with engine actuators or sensors.
- The ES for Article 5.4.2 only.
- Ballast. This is permitted on the power unit (subject to the requirements of Article 4.2)
but any in excess of 2kg will be removed from it before measuring power unit weight.

[flynfrog]

that is there to keep crazy expensive alloys out of the engine.

It could cause a Crazy expensive block with a tungsten oil pan though

[WhiteBlue]

It is quiet funny. Monza cars will be allowed start with about 125 kgs of fuel. While in Singapore it can be 200 kgs of fuel.

It was explained at:
viewtopic.php?p=384914#p384914
Teams will not carry excessive fuel loads IMO. They do not do it now and they will not do it in the future. So the situation you post will simply not arise. Flynfrog has already explained why there is a list of parts that carry material restrictions. It is prohibited to use more expensive materials than necessary for the purpose of the formula.

[scarbs]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... f1-engine/

[WhiteBlue]

There is a very detailed article on the 2014 engines in the December issue of Racecar Engineering. You can read the four pages online at this URL. RenaultSport's Rob White gives a lot of information:

He expects the engines to run to 12,000 rpm only although 15,000 are allowed. That confirms our opinion that power will be made with boosting rather than by rpm. The reason they give is avoiding frictional losses at higher rpm. They expect approximately 1.5 bar boost pressure for a total intake pressure of 2.5 bar. Renault estimate that the electric compounding machine (MGU-H) will be on the turbine and the compressor shaft rotating at 100,000 rpm.

They also predict the use of inter coolers by all teams. A very delicate optimization strategy will be required to balance any gain in engine power - that grows with the size of the inter coolers - against the aerodynamic penalties of putting the plumbing on the car and big cooling ducts into the side pots. IMO the works teams like Ferrari and Mercedes will probably gain an advantage from the option of being in charge of that optimization themselves.

There is also information on the method of the FiA sourced fuel flow measuring system. It is not yet selected but Renault expects that they will use ultrasonic sensors manufactured by Gill. URL here My assumption that they will use the SECU in conjunction with the direct injection system to control fuel flow was obviously not correct.

The article then goes into the complexities of future power management during qualifying and racing. It is going to become very complex for the race engineers in 2014. The batteries size and the power utilization is obviously growing in the regulation and you want to make the best possible use of it. Battery power will be used to spool up the turbo in order to avoid turbo lag and it will be mandatory to use stored energy while travelling in the pit lane. Designing and packaging the hybrid system will have another big impact on the chassis design and packaging job. The bigger teams have already dedicated resources to their 2014 chassis design. Report from Lotus F1

There was also confirmation from Jean Todt back in September that the FiA will stick to the new formula introduction against the reported opposition from FOM. Todt still does not want to impose a budget cap on the teams but he is not going to give up the FiA's policies and power.

For me, the FIA must have a bigger impact, not erosion. I'm not a dictator trying to control. The contribution and the role of the FIA has to be protected, to be respected.... We cannot be a federation without having any revenue. So where do we find our revenues? It makes me smile when I read that we are going to lose control. I will never allow things which are under our responsibility to be dealt with by anybody else. Sometimes it's a downside of F1. People live in their little environment, in their little kingdom, and they don't see what is happening. But the world is changing. We must be ambassadors of the sport, ambassadors of the industry. I will expect more drastic proposals to reduce the costs.

So Todt wants more money for the FiA which he will generate by higher fees and he has no intention to give up or delay the 2014 turbo formula. He obviously wants the teams to propose more robust budget or resource restrictions in order to keep a healthy grid and have the new engines. I hope the talks they have tomorrow in Paris will generate a break through on those issues.

[Tommy Cookers]

Interesting !

the MGU-H is not exactly a turbo-compounding machine though ??
(it cannot act as a motor to drive the car, it acts as a power recovery turbine in the generator mode, the recovered electrical energy bieng either stored or used contemperaneously by the MGU-K acting at that time as a motor ??)

[WhiteBlue]

Renault estimate that the electric compounding machine (MGU-H) will be on the turbine and the compressor shaft....

...the MGU-H is not exactly a turbo-compounding machine though ?? (it cannot act as a motor to drive the car, it acts as a power recovery turbine in the generator mode, the recovered electrical energy bieng either stored or used contemperaneously by the MGU-K acting at that time as a motor ??)

As you have written the electric turbo compounding function needs two MGUs. The MGU-H is used for electric power generation and the MGU-K (formerly known as component of KERS) is converting the electricity back to torque. I did not want to explain this architecture again in detail because it was amply described in this thread. Hence the abbreviated description of the MGU-H as electric compounding machine.

[Tommy Cookers]

the MGU-K can be 120 kW
presumably the recovery of KE in the braking phase would be at 120 kW ?
(more than presently done with 60 kW KERS (which recovers only about 3% of total KE) ?
(the 2014 limit on recovered energy use/lap is much higher than at present)

[WhiteBlue]

I see the reason for the much bigger MGU-K in its use as a motor in the compounding design. It must be sufficiently sized to allow the total extraction of heat energy from the exhaust gas without having to store the energy in a battery. That would have a much lower efficiency than converting the power immediately in the MGU-K. So the current 60 kW was not an option. 100 kW is probably more realistic and they have over sized the limit in the regulation to avoid any bottle necking. I very much doubt that you can practically harvest 120 kW just from the rear wheel brakes of an F1 car. You have to store that energy because you cannot use it in the MGU-H. The battery charging rate would probably not be up to the energy flow.

[Tommy Cookers]

on that basis I see the 100+ kW recovery from the PRT occurring only after a reduction in the fuel rate maybe in 2016
(loading the turbine to a point of significant exhaust pressure rise never seen in turbo road cars)

[Dragonfly]

I may have understood wrong but my impression is that both units will share one common battery. And the rules allow a mechanical link only from the MGU-H to the turbine. And the harvested and stored energy can be used by both units as demanded for driving the wheels and eliminating turbo lag respectively.

[Holm86]

Is it legal on the new engines to offset the cylinder bore from the center of the crankshaft?? Some engines has this to reduce friction and gain a bit more torque.

Its just offset by a few mills so when peakpressure occurs the piston rod is parallel to the cylinderwall so the peakpressure forces i directet straight down to the crank.