2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

The 90 deg V6 means it will have a slightly rumbling noise due to the uneven firing order. Ideally, you want to use 60 deg to have perfect smoothness but that also means a boring tone.
Fixing the bore probably means the max RPM is more or less fixed too. so the bore stroke will be 80 x 53mm.

you would need a 120 deg V angle to get even firing intervals (60 deg will only do this if it has 6 crank throws)
the rpm is formally limited to 15000, but the fuel rate (gm/sec) remains fixed at 10500 rpm and above
current indications are that the engines will run mostly at 10500-12000 rpm, the injection won't allow higher rpm anyway

[WhiteBlue]

Much of the standardization was driven by the interchangeability idea but also from the motive to limit cost. At least that was clear from listening to Tim Routsis of Cosworth during the negotiations in the engine working group.

Supercharging is not going to be an option in my view. The current induction method is geared towards maximising the use of energy from the exhaust gases for propulsion purposes. They will always have an exhaust gas turbine for that purpose. And if you have one it makes no sense to drive the compressor by a belt or gear in my view. The current solution of running the turbine, the compressor and electric motor generator unit (MGU-H) from one shaft is likely to stay. The alternative is feeding more power unnecessarily via the electric conversion which would only generate higher conversion losses. Turbo lag will not be an issue with the MGU-H spooling up the turbo. Engine and turbo management will be a bitch as will be the induction control of the MGU-H.

I expect direct fuel injection to become a main battle ground for power maximizing. It is fully intended in the new formula although fuel pressure is initially limited to 500 bar. Engineers are encouraged to find the most efficient combustion system and that is why I think that spray guided combustion will arrive sooner or later. The one thing I can't figure out is why there is a 25% port injection allowed below 8333 rpm.

[matt21]

[quote="WhiteBlue"The one thing I can't figure out is why there is a 25% port injection allowed below 8333 rpm.[/quote]

Does the regulations not say that this is valid for over 8333rpm?

If you have an injection upstream of the inlet you get better atomisation and therefor more power and better response from the engine.

[Tommy Cookers]

Supercharging is not going to be an option in my view. The current induction method is geared towards maximising the use of energy from the exhaust gases for propulsion purposes. They will always have an exhaust gas turbine for that purpose. And if you have one it makes no sense to drive the compressor by a belt or gear in my view. The current solution of running the turbine, the compressor and electric motor generator unit (MGU-H) from one shaft is likely to stay.
Turbo lag will not be an issue with the MGU-H spooling up the turbo.
I expect direct fuel injection to become a main battle ground for power maximizing. It is fully intended in the new formula although fuel pressure is initially limited to 500 bar. Engineers are encouraged to find the most efficient combustion system

with the fixed fuel rate the engine will be like no other

mechanical drive of the supercharger makes more sense than it otherwise would, like the BRM V16 RR scheme
the power recovery turbine could usefully be functionally seperate from the compressor (and any turbine driving it) eg 2 spool
(in these engines there would be no lag to be treated if the PRT and MGUH weren't burdening the (turbo) supercharger)
there is of course covert energy storage (mechanically) in these parts
the DI has relatively little benefit (compared to road use) at these high rpm

but .... the rules have been cleverly written, and address the manufacturers and 'greeners' interests
we should see them as drivers of related road car technology (hybridisation by stealth), rather than serving some engineering ideal

[WhiteBlue]

Does the regulations not say that this is valid for over 8333rpm?...

5.8 Fuel systems :

5.8.1 The pressure of the fuel supplied to the injectors may not exceed 500bar. Only those injectors
and fuel high pressure pumps specified by the FIA may be used.
5.8.2 Over 80% of the maximum permitted fuel flow rate, at least 75% of the fuel flow must be
injected directly into the cylinders.
There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted downstream
of the exhaust valves.
5.8.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and
the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data
logger.

Yep, posted that wrong but I still don't understand the purpose. Particularly when the injection system is standardized.

[WhiteBlue]

mechanical drive of the supercharger makes more sense than it otherwise would, like the BRM V16 RR scheme
the power recovery turbine could usefully be functionally seperate from the compressor (and any turbine driving it) eg 2 spool
(in these engines there would be no lag to be treated if the PRT and MGUH weren't burdening the (turbo) supercharger)
there is of course covert energy storage (mechanically) in these parts

It was already explained that the new 2014 F1 system will have no lag either and that it will have higher efficiency.

the DI has relatively little benefit (compared to road use) at these high rpm

It would be interesting to find out how you justify this POV. High revving engines like the Ferrari 458 Italia (9,000 rpm) or McLaren MP4-12C use DI and they do not have the benefit of 500 bar injection. The new engines will for all we know only exceed those sports cars by 1,500 rpm.

but .... the rules have been cleverly written, and address the manufacturers and 'greeners' interests
we should see them as drivers of related road car technology (hybridisation by stealth), rather than serving some engineering ideal

If you are interested in old fashioned technology that serves no wider purpose for the society as a whole you can be disappointed. But for people who want F1 to become an engineering competition in the global arena of automotive technology again beside its entertaining function the rules are good news.

[Tommy Cookers]

mechanical drive of the supercharger makes more sense than it otherwise would, like the BRM V16 RR scheme
the power recovery turbine could usefully be functionally seperate from the compressor (and any turbine driving it) eg 2 spool
(in these engines there would be no lag to be treated if the PRT and MGUH weren't burdening the (turbo) supercharger)
there is of course covert energy storage (mechanically) in these parts

It was already explained that the new 2014 F1 system will have no lag either and that it will have higher efficiency.


(TC response) there is a performance cost to spinning up the turbine array electrically, but the rules compel this system

the DI has relatively little benefit (compared to road use) at these high rpm

It would be interesting to find out how you justify this POV.

DI road cars benefit in various ways from lower emissions and raised compression ratios
gains in useable CR are less at higher rpm, since detonation is in part time-dependent
current F1 fuel is about 93 octane with 14:1 CR
the 2014 fuel will be as high octane as they want anyway, there is now no upper octane limit (why, if DI is around?)
DI has not been a game-changer in racing, although it's been around for 75 years

[Nando]

Wait a minute, the F1 fuel used today is only 93 Octane?
I can´t even buy that low octane at my gas station :S

I thought it was 99 like V Power from Shell or similar products from other companies.

[Holm86]

Wait a minute, the F1 fuel used today is only 93 Octane?
I can´t even buy that low octane at my gas station :S

I thought it was 99 like V Power from Shell or similar products from other companies.

Depends on how you measure the octane. In America they measure it differently .. 93 US is about the same as 98 EUR.

[Tommy Cookers]

somewhere on this site there is a reference to a magazine article based on an interview with a Shell person re their fuel formulation for F1
the person said essentially that the fuel had been formulated for best combustion speed, and that the octane no was not important, and well away from the limit
Honda gave a paper saying that their 60s 125cc race motorcycles only needed 65 octane at full power (18000 rpm)

right now I don't remember where the 93 came from, sorry !

[Nando]

Depends on how you measure the octane. In America they measure it differently .. 93 US is about the same as 98 EUR.

somewhere on this site there is a reference to a magazine article based on an interview with a Shell person re their fuel formulation for F1
the person said essentially that the fuel had been formulated for best combustion speed, and that the octane no was not important, and well away from the limit
Honda gave a paper saying that their 60s 125cc race motorcycles only needed 65 octane at full power (18000 rpm)

right now I don't remember where the 93 came from, sorry !

Holm, ok but seeing as F1 originated from Europe you would assume the 93 figure is from Europe?

that´s interesting Tommy, from what i understand Octane is a measurement of how well the fuel can withstand temperature and pressure?

P.S. i believe you, sometimes information are simply stored in the brain while irl sources just dissappear,
if you find anything i´d be happy to read about it, i would never guess they ran that low Octane in F1.
I thought it was around 99-102 somewhere around there.

[piast9]

that´s interesting Tommy, from what i understand Octane is a measurement of how well the fuel can withstand temperature and pressure?

As far as I know - it is not. They use a test engine with variable compression to test its value which causes knocking. Then they check what mixture of isooctane and n-heptane would cause the same number of knocks in the same conditions and the octane number is the percent content of the isooctane. The tests may be however conducted in different ways thus there are two different values for that parameter.

[Nando]

Interesting stuff, thanks!

[strad]

I thought octane was how hard you could squeeze it before it self detonates.?.?

[jamsbong]

Regarding port injection. Lexus uses this at partial load. Like cruising. It is easier to maintain the correct air fuel ratio within all the volume the mixture with port injection. DI is inherently difficult to distribute mixture evenly.

DI is able to cool the air more effectively though. This is because the air heats up as it is being compressed and the larger temperature difference allows a faster heat transfer. As a result, the engine is more efficient and thus giving u more power.