2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Nobody in his/her right mind will use anything but the DI that is described by the regulation. Carburettor or spraying will never have anywhere near the fuel efficiency of DI. The regulation states without any further specification an absolute mass flow of fuel. That mass flow is valid for the total consumption of the engine. So how would anybody use an inefficient method like a carburettor if DI is available? Someone has to explain this to me! Or am I reading the the regulation wrong again?

[FW17]

Are manufacturers allowed to peruse Gasoline Direct Injection Compression Ignition like systems

[Tommy Cookers]

Nobody in his/her right mind will use anything but the DI that is described by the regulation. Carburettor or spraying will never have anywhere near the fuel efficiency of DI. The regulation states without any further specification an absolute mass flow of fuel. That mass flow is valid for the total consumption of the engine. So how would anybody use an inefficient method like a carburettor if DI is available? Someone has to explain this to me! Or am I reading the the regulation wrong again?

fuelling before the supercharger compression makes that process work much better, reducing the supercharging power needed for the given charge massflow, also heating it less, potentially allowing a higher CR in the combustion chamber (WW2 was won this way)

in a sense it is free intercooling, haven't many race turbos done it ?
this is (part of) what a rich mixture does in many supercharged engines

we are without rich mixture here, so there would be some reduction of in-cylinder cooling with reduced DI
(but many would willingly trade-off such a reduction to gain some evaporative cooling in the supercharging process ?)

you seem to think that the events in-cylinder are greatly improved by DI, but you never explain why

[WhiteBlue]

Are manufacturers allowed to peruse Gasoline Direct Injection Compression Ignition like systems

I havn't seen anything in the regs that would prohibit such technology. But the experts have told us it would not work for racing engines.

..you seem to think that the events in-cylinder are greatly improved by DI, but you never explain why

You have not answered my question there, TC. But I'm going to answer yours. I believe that combustion efficiency is much improved by direct injection versus carburettor or port injection. At least that is what we see in high performance sports cars, although we do not see the ultimate level of rpms that we are expecting from the F1 engines from 2014. F1 regulations allow for higher fuel injection pressure than known commercial systems are using nowadays. Pressure is going up from 200 bar to 500 bar. This leads me to believe that the fuel efficiency advantage enjoyed by the DI systems will also be experienced by the 2014 F1 cars.

There is also a significant change in the latest 2014 tech regs that allows competitive sourcing of injection equipment. The July 2011 version required all competitors to use FiA standardized high pressure fuel pumps and injectors. That provision has now been lifted. It means that manufacturers are free to develop faster direct injection systems using all the head room the 300 bar higher fuel pressure will allow them to exploit.

I understand that for fuel efficiency it is best to compress the air without fuel because you can prevent early combustion much better. In order to do this you need a fuel delivery system that work in microseconds. You need to be able to have the fuel delivered into the fully compressed air, atomised and evaporated in a very short time. This process also fully exploits the cooling effect of the evaporating fuel only that it looses no cooling to the surrounding metal parts of the engine because the effect is contained in the compressed air charge.

As I said the commercial DI systems are much more fuel efficient than their port injected competitors and head and shoulders over primitive means such as carburettors. Those are the considerations that lead me to my expectations about DI. I might add that DI was also identified as one of the crucial fuel efficiency technologies by people like Gilles Simon when the engine project was first discussed in 2009. Those sources are not in this thread but in it's predecessor.

PDF of a newer Simon interview

[Bredd]

Benson has just tweeted about the thermal efficiency of the 2014 engine. Says from what he has learned today should be around 40%.

[WhiteBlue]

I assume that is including the heat recovery by electric compounding. Our own estimates here have been very similar.

[Tommy Cookers]

Benson has just tweeted about the thermal efficiency of the 2014 engine. Says from what he has learned today should be around 40%.

the thermal efficiency of a piston engine is the efficiency within the cylinder
the brake thermal efficiency is the thermal efficiency less the mechanical losses
TE x Mech Effic = BTE

BTE is another name for overall efficiency
BTE will always be less than TE

the world has seen 2 papers (on F1 engines) to engineering institutions (the SAE) in 60 years, both when the engines became obsolete
IMO that won't change, but we will get a lot of hype from now on (Mosley's legacy)
paying for recovery turbines and MGU-Ks and MGU-Hs and energy storage in our road cars, we'll be driving electrically in urban areas

[Tommy Cookers]

You have not answered my question there, TC.
I believe that combustion efficiency is much improved by direct injection versus carburettor or port injection. At least that is what we see in high performance sports cars, F1 regulations ...... Pressure is going up from 200 bar to 500 bar. This leads me to believe that the fuel efficiency advantage enjoyed by the DI systems will also be experienced by the 2014 F1 cars.
I understand that for fuel efficiency it is best to compress the air without fuel because you can prevent early combustion much better. In order to do this you need a fuel delivery system that work in microseconds. You need to be able to have the fuel delivered into the fully compressed air, atomised and evaporated in a very short time. This process also fully exploits the cooling effect of the evaporating fuel only that it looses no cooling to the surrounding metal parts of the engine because the effect is contained in the compressed air charge.
I might add that DI was also identified as one of the crucial fuel efficiency technologies by people like Gilles Simon when the engine project was first discussed in 2009. Those sources are not in this thread but in it's predecessor.

thanks for the Simon reference (STEEL pistons though ?)

again my answer is that 100% DI prevents any cooling in the supercharging process, which IMO our 2 fellow posters who are experienced turbo engine builders/users incorporate in their engines

the issue is how many or few of the efficiency gain routes with DI in road use will be equally valuable in racing

combustion efficiency should mean eg does all the fuel get burnt, and does it get burnt at the right time for best thermal efficiency
if DI keeps fuel away from the cylinder etc it will save a tiny amount of fuel going unburnt, tiny in race power but emissions-significant for road use
for DI to minimise cooling of cylinder etc there must be stratification ie an overall lean mixture that tends to disadvantage in racing, again DI scores in road use (partial power leaning to avoid throttling losses) rather than in racing

DI helps VE by not displacing the 3% of induction air that PI does, and it cools entirely in the combustion chamber
(carburettors giving large droplet size at open throttle do the same, and can give more power than PI according to David Vizard)

IMO the crucial thing is thermal efficiency, which we assume relates (when combustion speed is not an issue) rigidly to CR
DI (as I have been posting for 6 months) aids CR by reducing time exposure at high temp, so deterring detonation
I suspect that combustion speed in SI engines is not dominated by droplet size ie DI vs PI
combustion speed was not a big issue with 20000 rpm 107 mm bore NA engines (albeit with fuel optimised for combustion speed)
2014 fuel will be optimised for energy content and detonation resistance (the Octane limit has been scrapped)

anyway, if DI speeds combustion that will demand some (relative) lowering of the CR

dissociation also impedes efficiency gains with raising CR, particularly in race engines
(at high powers/temperatures combustion CO2 temporarily changes to CO (witholdng heat), then reverts to CO2 on expansion, the returned heat arriving too late in the stroke to be used efficiently)
by chemistry rich mixtures deter dissociation (but 2014 won't be using them), can the fuel companies work on this property ?

IMO race engine designers have not been stupid or lazy and left a mess for DI to clear up
if DI improves best efficiency on the road from eg 31% to 33%, its advocates won't rush to say that the gain in F1 will be less

[autogyro]

Combustion speed will mainly be dictated by the chemicals allowed in the fuel.
I expect Ferrari to maintain their advantage here.

Carbs are an interesting subject that I discused with David Vizard at length many years ago when he asked me to introduce a line of octane booster chemicals for sale.
Carbs are all about fuel atomization using the energy in the inducted air.
This opens up a science (almost an art) in designing, modifying and shaping the induction ports and surfaces to make the most use of this energy.
Smooth ports or rough ports which work best? Getting the right venturi and jet angles to promote swirl etc.
I used Weber 45Dcoe sidedrafts on long circuits and 48IDA downdrafts on short circuits.
The sidedrafts gave a higher top end but reduced mid amd low range.
The downdrafts (same venturis, similar jetting) gave abetter 'range' with slight loss at top end.
All down to the assistance of gravity to the atomization even with the right angled bend in the inlet maifold on the downdraft.
Port injection uses pressurised fuel and uses this energy to atomize at the expense of some air forced back up the inlet.
As David Vizard 'says less air into the engine but better over all control of the amount of fuel'.
I would not use either carbs or port injection for the new formula.
Cooling the induction charge should be achieved with heat exchangers not fuel, that would compromise the fine control needed for the allowed amount.
It would also throw out the fine control needed for valve throttling, which I believe will be looked at seriously.

[langwadt]

snip

Nowhere in the revised 2014 regulations does it simply state that 100% of fuel must be injected via DI. That regulation simply is not there. Maybe its not there for a reason??

I see what you mean, seems like the rules is a jumble of new rather clear cut rules and old rules that wasn't deleted that some what contradict the new rules.
Wonder if it will be cleaned up or it will be left as a new source of controversies that will be banned/allowed through out the season

[Forghieri]

Are manufacturers allowed to peruse Gasoline Direct Injection Compression Ignition like systems

I havn't seen anything in the regs that would prohibit such technology. But the experts have told us it would not work for racing engines.

..you seem to think that the events in-cylinder are greatly improved by DI, but you never explain why

You have not answered my question there, TC. But I'm going to answer yours. I believe that combustion efficiency is much improved by direct injection versus carburettor or port injection. At least that is what we see in high performance sports cars, although we do not see the ultimate level of rpms that we are expecting from the F1 engines from 2014. F1 regulations allow for higher fuel injection pressure than known commercial systems are using nowadays. Pressure is going up from 200 bar to 500 bar. This leads me to believe that the fuel efficiency advantage enjoyed by the DI systems will also be experienced by the 2014 F1 cars.

There is also a significant change in the latest 2014 tech regs that allows competitive sourcing of injection equipment. The July 2011 version required all competitors to use FiA standardized high pressure fuel pumps and injectors. That provision has now been lifted. It means that manufacturers are free to develop faster direct injection systems using all the head room the 300 bar higher fuel pressure will allow them to exploit.

I understand that for fuel efficiency it is best to compress the air without fuel because you can prevent early combustion much better. In order to do this you need a fuel delivery system that work in microseconds. You need to be able to have the fuel delivered into the fully compressed air, atomised and evaporated in a very short time. This process also fully exploits the cooling effect of the evaporating fuel only that it looses no cooling to the surrounding metal parts of the engine because the effect is contained in the compressed air charge.

As I said the commercial DI systems are much more fuel efficient than their port injected competitors and head and shoulders over primitive means such as carburettors. Those are the considerations that lead me to my expectations about DI. I might add that DI was also identified as one of the crucial fuel efficiency technologies by people like Gilles Simon when the engine project was first discussed in 2009. Those sources are not in this thread but in it's predecessor.

PDF of a newer Simon interview

You might be interested in this article http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/23786/ ... ivoluzione

[WhiteBlue]

I don't speak Italian, so I have put this through a Google translation.

December 7, 2012 16:14
2014: direct injection at 500 bar is a revolution!

The revolution in Formula 1 engines in 2014 will have beneficial effects on the search for cars. With the adoption of V6 Turbo 1.6-liter engine also in Grand Prix will take effect on downsizing by which you can reduce fuel consumption by thirty percent: the cars, in fact, can use up to 100 kg of fuel to 'hours. It is a fascinating challenge and demanding that it will not be only through the adoption of ERS (Energy Recovery System), the power generator that will be mounted in parallel with the turbocharger, but also thanks to direct injection.

INJECTION PRESSURE 500 BAR! In this field there will be a real revolution. The current V8 of 2.4 liters aspirated indirect injection feature: the gas is blown into the intake funnel at 100 bar pressure, a value which is half of that achieved in the thrusters JDI of large series production. The objective of 2014, then, is to move the bar to the experimental values ​​that had never been achieved in the automotive industry: 500 bar! A major engineering challenge, five times the known values ​​of F1, but increasing by 150% the parameters achieved by the motor road.

MARELLI AND THE 'LEADER IN F.1 The Magneti Marelli is an Italian company that supplies the injectors to all the teams involved in the Circus: The House of Corby, on the outskirts of Milan, is determined to keep control of this specific sector by offering to motorists of the injectors that are able to pulverize the gasoline in a spray to 500 bar.

YOU MEASURE OF SPRAY DROPLETS Each manufacturer of engine tries to better propagation of the spray into the combustion chamber in search of maximum efficiency: In addition to improving performance, they also reduce the power consumption. Thanks to the studies in CFD and laboratory tests that are carried out in Bologna, Magneti Marelli is able to ensure that every manufacturer spray best suited to the characteristics of its V6 Turbo. It has gotten to the point that it is possible to measure the diameter of the individual droplets in the order of size of a few microns.

FLUID DYNAMICS OF COMBUSTION is clear that it has launched a study of fluid dynamics exasperated even during the combustion engine to achieve in reality the same results that are obtained in virtual simulation.In a complete cycle you can guarantee three hits injection and maybe even three switch candle.

FIVE MOTOR FOR A SEASON Having a good propagation of flame in the combustion chamber is very important to avoid the formation of residues which may give rise to phenomena are harmful to the reliability and power consumption. Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault are working hard in this area where you can find important performance without affecting duration: in 2014, in fact, the engines available for a full season will be only five, three less than today. One can well understand what the commitment of engineers to meet the targets of reliability that are needed to approve each unit that should last four races!

ROLLS WITH EIGHT TIMES MORE STRESS 'HIGH The injection pump is the daughter of the one used in Indycar, while much attention is paid to the ignition coils. There's one for each cylinder: 'Today we turn with an energy of 60 mJ and a spark voltage of 5/6 kg / volt - says Roberto Dalla, Head of Magneti Marelli Motorsport - The coil motor 2014 will be capable of 120 mJ and a discharge voltage of 40 kg / volt, namely eight times more than now! '. Obviously, the injection system will be piloted by an electronic control unit that will not be that Mes, but may be developed specifically for these engines very driven.

THE PUMP DOES NOT FEAR THE PULSE The third element of the injection system is the piston pump that will be electronically controlled: we must make sure to stay as close as possible to 500 bar pressure granted, taking into account that the pressure pulsations could create of regulatory issues if we do not succeed in controlling the peaks: through the pump must be closer to the limit. It is clear, therefore, that increase the electronic component of the management is not restricted by FIA parameters.

JUST THE FEARS Newey Adrian Newey reason to believe that in the first two years of the new Formula 1 the mechanical part of the car could take over aerodynamics, which is the undisputed queen of today ...

But unfortunately I do not understand much from the translation either. Perhaps an Italian speaker can tell us what is new compared to our knowledge of this thread. All I understand is that Magneti Marelli aims to supply some engine makers with a system of their own.

[Blanchimont]

From the part "ROLLS WITH EIGHT TIMES MORE STRESS 'HIGH", i get the follwing.

The 2014 spark plugs seem to operate with an energy of 120 mJ and a discharge voltage of 40 kV, compared to 60 mJ and 6kV in the 2012 engines.
And as WB mentioned, the injection system will be controlled by a Magneti Marelli system, not the MES one.

What influence does the higher energy and voltage have on the combustion of the fuel? Does it help to ignite more precisely/faster and therefore maybe can increase the efficiency of the combustion?

[Holm86]

From the part "ROLLS WITH EIGHT TIMES MORE STRESS 'HIGH", i get the follwing.

The 2014 spark plugs seem to operate with an energy of 120 mJ and a discharge voltage of 40 kV, compared to 60 mJ and 6kV in the 2012 engines.
And as WB mentioned, the injection system will be controlled by a Magneti Marelli system, not the MES one.

What influence does the higher energy and voltage have on the combustion of the fuel? Does it help to ignite more precisely/faster and therefore maybe can increase the efficiency of the combustion?

It only makes sense to have more energy in the ignition system in the new engines. Charged engines have a higher pressure in the combustion chamber which makes it alot harder to create a spark. The higher the pressure the more energy you need to create a spark.

[Forghieri]

From the part "ROLLS WITH EIGHT TIMES MORE STRESS 'HIGH", i get the follwing.

The 2014 spark plugs seem to operate with an energy of 120 mJ and a discharge voltage of 40 kV, compared to 60 mJ and 6kV in the 2012 engines.
And as WB mentioned, the injection system will be controlled by a Magneti Marelli system, not the MES one.

What influence does the higher energy and voltage have on the combustion of the fuel? Does it help to ignite more precisely/faster and therefore maybe can increase the efficiency of the combustion?

It only makes sense to have more energy in the ignition system in the new engines. Charged engines have a higher pressure in the combustion chamber which makes it alot harder to create a spark. The higher the pressure the more energy you need to create a spark.

Not all the information, but makes more sense than the google translate version of the former article.

http://m.hupu.com/bbs/3816328.html