2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

11. Idle speed must be below 4,000 rpm
12. External starters are allowed

11. Fuel saving reasons?
12. Will they be able to start the engine on their own using the MGU?

My guess is that they want to promote a useful rev band and drivability with the new 8speed gear box. Remember the ratios are fixed for the season now. So they probably want to prevent manipulations to the ratios by shifting the idle speed up and down. Teams could effectively use only seven gears and select to not use the top gear or the lowest gear depending of track characteristics. The idle speed would be adapted to suit this. The back ground to this may be cost saving on gear boxes, but I'm not sure.

I reckon that the MGU-K can retain that ability but it obviously is not a requirement any more. It may be a weight or cost saving feature. I don't know enough to determine that. The requirement was dropped together with the "pit lane electric only" rule.

[WhiteBlue]

@aussiegman,

re exhaust gas (5.8.1 and 5.8.2.):
I wasn't sure of this and I think it is open to interpretation. Technically gases are regarded as fluids hence the abbreviation CFD (computational fluid dynamics) for aerodynamic computations. The regulations are ambiguous IMO. My view atm is that they try to prevent exhaust gas to be used anywhere else but by the turbine. We had the discussion that you may bypass exhaust gasses by a waste gate and use them to blow the diffusor. The prohibition could be done by these paragraphs. As I have said I'm not sure which interpretation to follow. Perhaps Scarbs will be able to shed some light when he joins the discussion. I'm convinced that with the MGU-H you don't need a primary waste gate for any significant quantity of gas. It may be only there as a safety device that can blow off under the body work and without a proper exhaust pipe in case of a catastrophic failure.

re injectors:
The rule previously stated that there was an option to inject 25% of fuel by other means that direct injection (obviously port injection). This provision is now deleted. I think it is as simple as that. All fuel must be direct injected.

[WhiteBlue]

3. No fluids bypassing the exhaust turbine can be fed back into the exhaust system.
4. Body work for coanda exhausts are prohibited by new rules.

Where is this written?

5.8.1 and 5.8.2 are regulating the exhaust and prohibit feeding back fluids into the exhaust system. ausiegman quoted the paragraphs.

5.8.5 There must be no bodywork lying within a right circular cylinder which :
a) Shares a common axis with that of the last 150mm of each tailpipe.
b) Has a diameter 40mm greater than each tailpipe.
c) Starts at the exit of the tailpipe and extends rearwards as far as a point 600mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

I read this as prohibition of Coanda type bodywork.

[aussiegman]

@aussiegman,

re exhaust gas (5.8.1 and 5.8.2.):
I wasn't sure of this and I think it is open to interpretation. Technically gases are regarded as fluids hence the abbreviation CFD (computational fluid dynamics) for aerodynamic computations. The regulations are ambiguous IMO.

I am aware of the physics behind gaseous and fluidic flows/matter and that "technically" gases can be considered liquids under certain circumstances.

However, the regulations specifically separate "fluids" and "exhaust gases" as separate terms and hence they remove any and all ambiguity. Further to this:

ARTICLE 15 : CAR CONSTRUCTION even details "3) Fluids (e.g. water, oils)"

IMO you are drawing conclusions and introducing ambiguity where none exists.

My view atm is that they try to prevent exhaust gas to be used anywhere else but by the turbine.

Yes, exhaust gas, not liquids.

We had the discussion that you may bypass exhaust gasses by a waste gate and use them to blow the diffusor. The prohibition could be done by these paragraphs.

The prohibition is included under the following which precludes any use wastegate gases for blowing the diffuser:

5.8.2 Engine exhaust systems may incorporate no more than two exits, both of which must be rearward facing tailpipes, through which all exhaust gases must pass.

5.8.3 The total cross-sectional area of the exhaust exits at the rearmost point of the tailpipes must lie between 7500mm2 and 14000mm2.

As I have said I'm not sure which interpretation to follow. Perhaps Scarbs will be able to shed some light when he joins the discussion. I'm convinced that with the MGU-H you don't need a primary waste gate for any significant quantity of gas. It may be only there as a safety device that can blow off under the body work and without a proper exhaust pipe in case of a catastrophic failure.

The turbine may require a venting system depending on a myriad of variables and requirements. IMO the turbine will require a wastegate of some description.

re injectors:
The rule previously stated that there was an option to inject 25% of fuel by other means that direct injection (obviously port injection). This provision is now deleted. I think it is as simple as that. All fuel must be direct injected.

You are taking a very simplistic view (remember how far the teams will push the boundaries of the regulations) and overlooking the simple fact that without 5.8.1 and 5.10.2 you could feed fuel into the intake post compressor for cooling benefit by using a system that does not involve injectors.

If 5.8.1 and 5.10.2 regulations were not included in these provisions it is the FIRST thing I would do to try and recoup the loss of cooling through fuel evaporation. Use a system that did not involve fuel injectors.

Please try and tell me with these provisions how you could stop me???

[rjsa]

The return of gicleurs to the F1 toolbox would be just so amusing...

[WhiteBlue]

re injectors:
The rule previously stated that there was an option to inject 25% of fuel by other means that direct injection (obviously port injection). This provision is now deleted. I think it is as simple as that. All fuel must be direct injected.

You are taking a very simplistic view (remember how far the teams will push the boundaries of the regulations) and overlooking the simple fact that without 5.8.1 and 5.10.2 you could feed fuel into the intake post compressor for cooling benefit by using a system that does not involve injectors.

If 5.8.1 and 5.10.2 regulations were not included in these provisions it is the FIRST thing I would do to try and recoup the loss of cooling through fuel evaporation. Use a system that did not involve fuel injectors.
Please try and tell me with these provisions how you could stop me???

I don't think we have a dispute at all. I have said that all fuel has to be direct injected. That includes any abuse such as the one you describe. Btw, such an abuse was already prevented by the previous version of the 2014 tech regs. This version simply makes a further restriction for the method of fuel injection by banning the previously allowed port injection. I see no disagreement there.

[matt21]

7.6 Cooling systems :
The cooling systems of the power unit, including that of the charge air, must not intentionally make use of the latent heat of vaporisation of any fluid with the exception of fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine as described in Article

I read this as you can not use a vaporisation process like spraying water on the intercooler or a refrigeration cycle.
IMHO it doesn´t prohibit air-to-water-intercoolers as it is the same principle as the engine cooling system and it is coverd by the same paragraph.

[WhiteBlue]

7.6 Cooling systems :
The cooling systems of the power unit, including that of the charge air, must not intentionally make use of the latent heat of vaporisation of any fluid with the exception of fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine as described in Article

I read this as you can not use a vaporisation process like spraying water on the intercooler or a refrigeration cycle.
IMHO it doesn´t prohibit air-to-water-intercoolers as it is the same principle as the engine cooling system and it is coverd by the same paragraph.

I agree with your view. That is exactly what I meant to say. Refrigerants that are condensed and evaporated are forbidden. Air to liquid coolers are not prohibited. It would make no sense. They are used in every F1 car for engine cooling.

[Tommy Cookers]

10. Energy flow diagram published showing unlimited power flow between MGU-H to MGU-K

This sounds like turbo-compounding to me.
For this I would like to get as much as energy out of the exhaust gases.
So big turbo with no wastegate (or just as backup) and use of the MGU-H to help the turbo at low revs.

IIRC the MUK motor output is limited to 120 kW (161 hp)
how much exhaust energy is available ?
(recovering power from the exhaust flow is limited by loss of crankshaft power with exhaust pressure increases caused by the loading from the recovery turbine)

[WhiteBlue]

The energy flow is all defined between the different devices. Between the MGUs the flow is unlimited. Between the MGU-K and the engine/wheels the flow is limited to 120 kW. Between the MHU-K and the ES (batteries) the flow to the MGU-K is limited to 4 MJ/lap and the flow from the MGU-K is limited at 2 MJ/lap.

[Tommy Cookers]

120 kw power output from the MUK using entirely exhaust recovered power would need the PRT to recover at 135 kW

what happens to the crankshaft power if there was a power recovery from the exhaust at a rate of 135 kW (180 hp) ??

[WhiteBlue]

Not likely to happen although it would be legal. Read Ringo's computation on the recovery potential.

[Tommy Cookers]

Ringo's and pgfpro's posts suggest to me that about 75 hp would be delivered (costing about 5 hp in crankshaft power) ie 70 free hp

clearly further recovery would cost weight, the level of min weight limit implies a corresponding targeted level of recovery

the minimum weight now seems much higher than was expected, will recovery be correspondingly higher ?

[aussiegman]

I don't think we have a dispute at all. I have said that all fuel has to be direct injected.

Definitively NO, that was one of the things you said but that is not ALL you said.

In your previous post under point 3 was this:

3. No fluids bypassing the exhaust turbine can be fed back into the exhaust system. I guess that kills waste gates as you cannot exhaust them legally by any other means as the designated exhaust system.

Exhaust gas is NOT a fluid under the regulations and this has been shown by the examples given, particularly 15(3) which states “3) Fluids (e.g. water, oils)” and the use of separate and disparate terms “fluids” and “exhaust gases” in 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 which provides for differentiation.

Further wastegates are not “killed” as you proffered and are specifically discussed under 5.9.1 as “devices needed for control of pressure charging systems”.

So in these instances you were incorrect in your assumption of the definition of fluids and gases and general interpretation of the regulations surrounding wastegates.

So now we move on to your point 2

2. All fuel injection by DI only. No provision for 25% port injection any more.

I DISAGREE all fuel must be direct injected. Where does it say in the regulations that 100% of fuel must be delivered via DI?? It simply isn’t there.

There is only the provision for the following:

a) one DI per cylinder;
b) no injectors upstream of the intake valves;
c) no injectors downstream of the exhaust valves;
d) only the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system; and
e) fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine

When you look at 5.8.1 is actually two (2) regulations:

5.8.1 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system), all the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system.

5.8.1 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system), only the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system.

If this were removed, nowhere else in the regulations does it require or state that 100% of fuel (as a fluid) has to be delivered through direct injection. It simply states that under fuel systems:

5.10.2 There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted upstream of the intake valves or downstream of the exhaust valves.

So, you MUST have one DI per cylinder and use no other injectors. There is nothing about any non-pulsed fuel delivery system such as a non pulsed fuel atomizer spray which would in theory be allowable without 8.5.1 in the pre intake valve area where there is the requirement for only fluids entering the compressor inlet to exit the exhaust system.

In theory you could use a non-pulsed fuel delivery system in the compressor inlet (regardless of the fact that the effects would be unstable and the wear on components likely not worth the effort) as you could argue that the fuel was being used for “normal combustion in the engine”.

This is spoken to in 7.6 Cooling systems: The cooling systems of the power unit, including that of the charge air, must not intentionally make use of the latent heat of vaporisation of any fluid with the exception of fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine as described in Article 5.14” which leads to “5.14.2: Other than engine sump breather gases, exhaust gas recirculation, and fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine, the spraying of any substance into the engine intake air is forbidden.”

5.14.2 specifically ALLOWS you to spray fuel into the engine intake air for the normal purpose of combustion. DI does not at any stage require you to spray fuel into the engine intake air only the cylinder regardless of the presence of air or not.

So when you take 5.10.2, 5.8.1 and 5.14.2 as well as the other regulations therein where does it require you to inject 100% of fuel via DI???

That includes any abuse such as the one you describe. .

I disagree.

Btw, such an abuse was already prevented by the previous version of the 2014 tech regs. .

Firstly it’s not an abuse it’s an interpretation.
Yes, under the previous regulations port injection was possible for 25% via port injection and 75% via DI. As 100% of the fuel flow was attributable to these two system is stopped any other method of fuel introduction. This was dropped as an unworkable and totally unviable regulations and hence removed.

This version simply makes a further restriction for the method of fuel injection by banning the previously allowed port injection. I see no disagreement there.

I disagree with what you are assuming and with the way you are getting there through the assumptions and the comments you have made thus far and that’s the disagreement. It feels very much like a post comment wiggle and shake on your behalf.

It was not the recent removal of the 25% allowance for port injection that now requires only DI injection as nowhere in the current version does it state where 100% of fuel flow must come from.

5.10.2 does not require that 100% of fuel must come from the DI system, it simply states:

5.10.2 There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted upstream of the intake valves or downstream of the exhaust valves.

8.5.2 which is the ONLY provision to stop the introduction of fuel by “other means” post compressor and pre intake valve and does not actually require all fuel to come from the DI system as shown above.

Further 5.8.2 is not as you firstly described something that “kills waste gates as you cannot exhaust them legally by any other means as the designated exhaust system” it is totally unrelated.

So I'll ask my question in a different way:

Please tell me:

1) Where in these provisions it states explicitly or implicitly that 100% of fuel must come from DI?
2) That wastegates are “killed”?
3) How under the regulations would you ban a pre compressor fuel delivery system that did not involve an “injector” where fuel is provided for “normal combustion??

[Blanchimont]

So, you MUST have one DI per cylinder and use no other injectors. There is nothing about any non-pulsed fuel delivery system such as a non pulsed fuel atomizer spray which would in theory be allowable without 8.5.1 in the pre intake valve area where there is the requirement for only fluids entering the compressor inlet to exit the exhaust system.

Wouldn't a simple fuel atomizer also be considered as a kind of injector?