2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[dren]

Just looked at the regulations. If a 4 cylinder or 5 cylinder engine is preferable, you can make a V6 but not use a cylinder or two. Just completely blank those off. It just states the engine has to have 6 cylinders, not 6 pistons, 6 combustion chambers, etc. I don't think that would fly, but you never know. I also don't know if having more fuel per cylinder (and thus allowing for higher boost pressures) would be of benefit vs. a 6 cylinder since the bore diameter is the same either way. If the engine is stipulated as having to be 1.6L, is that for all 6 cylinders, or just for the volume in which you actually use? That may allow for longer stroke, but that also causes issues with piston sidewall forces.

[FW17]

Also, instead of directly waste gating the boost pressure when lifting off the throttle when braking, would it be possible to harness the energy through the MGU on the turbo? Then during acceleration, you would motor the turbo MGU.

That is a key capability of the hybrid electric turbo. You use any surplus turbine energy for electricity generation and use electricity to keep the turbo spooled up all the times.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have used a VGT with turbo compounding over the above mentioned system.

aware tat VGT is not permitted

[dren]

The regulations don't really allow a push to pass button, but they state max pedal position must equate to max torque demand for given ECU map. So, just have a bunch of ECU maps and a battery charge display in the cockpit. Have a max normal operating map that uses all energy available, but stores none. Have several maps that will accumulate battery charge at varying degrees each lap. Then switch to the "pass" map and dump your full 161hp to the MGUK for just over 30s.

It may be of more benefit to run with smaller batteries for only the estimated 15hp or so boost from the MGUK recorvery when braking.

[WhiteBlue]

Also, instead of directly waste gating the boost pressure when lifting off the throttle when braking, would it be possible to harness the energy through the MGU on the turbo? Then during acceleration, you would motor the turbo MGU.

That is a key capability of the hybrid electric turbo. You use any surplus turbine energy for electricity generation and use electricity to keep the turbo spooled up all the times.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have used a VGT with turbo compounding over the above mentioned system.

aware tat VGT is not permitted

I'm sure that VGT would be used if it were legal. The intention of the rule is cost containment. There was some talk that in later years such restrictions would be lifted in order to provide development scope. But I reckon that all will depend of the cost control methods that the F1 commission will decide once they have a new concord agreement signed.

[FW17]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have used a VGT with turbo compounding over the above mentioned system.

aware tat VGT is not permitted

I'm sure that VGT would be used if it were legal. The intention of the rule is cost containment. There was some talk that in later years such restrictions would be lifted in order to provide development scope. But I reckon that all will depend of the cost control methods that the F1 commission will decide once they have a new concord agreement signed.[/quote]

I think VGT would be cheaper than a e-boost, but not sure about complexities of turbo compounding.

[WhiteBlue]

I think VGT would be cheaper than a e-boost, but not sure about complexities of turbo compounding

The engine working group thought different. We have to accept their judgement as a matter of fact. We might disagree but that will not change the rules that govern F1.

[autogyro]

I also dont see much point in harvesting energy off throttle using an MGU coupled to a fixed blade pitch turbo.
A VGT would give much better potential.
In anycase you will only have to use energy plus losses to speed the turbo up again.
Where is the gain?

I would disengage the engine from the rest of the powertrain off throttle and keep all the valves open to use air flow through the stationary engine to keep the turbo rpm up but then I wouldnt use the other MGU on the crank nose either.

[Tommy Cookers]

Also, instead of directly waste gating the boost pressure when lifting off the throttle when braking, would it be possible to harness the energy through the MGU on the turbo? Then during acceleration, you would motor the turbo MGU.

isn't it established with race turbos that off-throttle the supercharger's output can be diverted to it's input side, so as to minimise the slowing of the turbo ?
the 2014 unit will have more inertia, including the extra turbine size and the MG unit, so will slow less
the best way in this situation is to let it run freely, bleed-down generating and then motoring to spool up is worse than pointless
battery or other storage capacity is better used for increased recovery from braking
(exhaust recovery is best used instantaneously, not needing storage)
there's quite a lot of stored energy in the turbo/MG at 100,000 rpm

[pgfpro]

Also, instead of directly waste gating the boost pressure when lifting off the throttle when braking, would it be possible to harness the energy through the MGU on the turbo? Then during acceleration, you would motor the turbo MGU.

isn't it established with race turbos that off-throttle the supercharger's output can be diverted to it's input side, so as to minimise the slowing of the turbo ?
the 2014 unit will have more inertia, including the extra turbine size and the MG unit, so will slow less
the best way in this situation is to let it run freely, bleed-down generating and then motoring to spool up is worse than pointless
battery or other storage capacity is better used for increased recovery from braking
(exhaust recovery is best used instantaneously, not needing storage)
there's quite a lot of stored energy in the turbo/MG at 100,000 rpm

TC, that's is one of the reasons for the BOV on the cold side. The other is to keep large surge spikes from killing the thrust side bearing of the center cartridge.

If the BOV is large enough it could dump all the positive boost out of the cold side and keep the turbo speed up. I think you might see this on the 2014 engines. This would come in handy after a long straight away going into a slow tight corner. On sweepers and when a driver has to check up in traffic I think you will see the turbo just "chirp surge" because they will want to keep the charge system in positive pressure.

IMO I brought this up in my other post above because I just don't see that the turbo's turbine will produce anymore then
50 HP max that the MGUH can use at any given time. I know I will get some heat from this but after several hours calculating using my spreadsheets and other turbo company radial turbo calculators the energy is just not there, even with extreme generous compressor/turbine efficiency numbers enter into the equation's. I think this is why you see the engineers talking about different aero setups because we will see less HP over all then today's cars.

Don't get me wrong I love the new rules but I just think its going to take some time to get back to where we are today when it comes to matching HP output.

[Tommy Cookers]

if your position is that the compliance window is to be 1 cycle (2 engine revolutions) that seems unenforcable, and thereby unworkable (how can very accurate validation via 'rule 3' measurements be obtained every few milliseconds ?)

The main point is that the whole control system is under the direct control of the FiA. So any functionality or program to mess with the flow rates would have to be supplied by Microsoft/McLaren

This argument applies to ..... as well as to exploiting accumulating properties of the common fuel rail. And individual teams could not program such functions into the software.

Just as a general remark: Could you explain in a straightforward way by calculation or detailed technical description how you would exploit a loop hole in the regulations to burn more fuel than allowed by the regulations?
.

your statements quoted above (they mean anything at all) are wrong
the FIA cannot determine whether the control signals are in every respect legitimate unless they calibrate the fuel system responses/fuel responses (which are both specific to the engine supplier not CONTROL items) in every possible mode of use
so the teams will be able to generate some margin on day 1, because .....

no-one can exactly determine (except by calibration) the response of even production car systems when implementing rapid and complex fuel pulsing strategies (that are the reason for the new technology and F1's encouragment of it)
according to the C.Satowski paper 'Pulse to pulse coupling ...' from the IEEE/ASME Transactions in Mechatronics 2011

I infer from your response that you think the fuel rate limit is intended to apply and be judged every 2 engine revolutions
I think it is intended to apply and be judged over a more practical time window inferrable from the totality of the rules
the window will be typically the time between gearchanges,the teams will play the game and the FIA will be happy (in the races)
BTW do the rules require the fuel pressure to be exactly constant ?
do the rules specify the viscosity and density (under pressure etc) of the fuel ?
if you think my estimates (of the margin for constant mixture fuelling with the above time window) are wrong please tell me

[WhiteBlue]

your statements quoted above (they mean anything at all) are wrong

I'm going to show you step by step that I'm not "wrong".

the FIA cannot determine whether the control signals are in every respect legitimate ...

I actual fact they can... and I'm going to prove it to you.

..unless they calibrate the fuel system responses/fuel responses (which are both specific to the engine supplier not CONTROL items) in every possible mode of use

There is no need for calibrating the fuel system. They will simply measure the flow. That measurement is indeed a function of the control system. But you seem to have a problem to understand the concept. So I will elaborate.

so the teams will be able to generate some margin on day 1, because .....
no-one can exactly determine (except by calibration) the response of even production car systems when implementing rapid and complex fuel pulsing strategies (that are the reason for the new technology and F1's encouragment of it)
according to the C.Satowski paper 'Pulse to pulse coupling ...' from the IEEE/ASME Transactions in Mechatronics 2011

I do not doubt that there are scientific opinions out there which speculate about such things. But we are not talking calibration here. The regulations require measurement which includes calibration and accuracy to report meaningful data.

5.10.4 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.

The regulations require the teams to fit sensors which measure among other things the fuel flow to each injector and those signals must be supplied to the FiA data logger. To me this seems to contradict your statement that control of each fuel flow is impossible. Are you sure you know the nature of the sensors that are going to be used?

I infer from your response that you think the fuel rate limit is intended to apply and be judged every 2 engine revolutions

I believe that an interval well under 50 ms would be a probable or likely target. It is specified as the interval that must not be exceeded to confirm the engine configuration across a more peripheral signalling path that includes driver controlled sub systems. The fuel sensors would be connected much more directly to the ECU and the ADR. Hence they would probably have a higher refresh rate.

5.6.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the ADR or ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output demand being achieved is 50ms.

Have a look at this!

Gill engineers were .. using proven ultrasonic measurement technology... allowing a much higher temporal resolution and accuracy level to measure high frequency pulsating flows. The ultrasonic technology used within the sensor detects bi-directional fuel flow rate in real time to a very high degree of accuracy. ..The solid-state construction permits the sensor to monitor both rapid and low fuel flow to a consistent degree of accuracy. .. The sensor is potentially capable of measuring fuel flow rate at 2KHz. Digital, CAN and four analogue output channels report flow rate, flow direction, fuel temperature and cumulative fuel used across the calibrated flow range.

Please observe that the sensor features a cumulating function with an analogue output channel. Hence my impression that the device has the required accuracy to be used in cumulative mode to report the averaged flow rates. Such measurements could be communicated in 0.5 ms intervals and evaluated against the timing interval to provide a very accurate average flow rate. But in actual fact that would be over kill for the purpose. If we assume operating revs between 4,000 and 12,000 rpm every injector does between 33 and 100 injection events per second. It would be more than sufficient to task the flow monitoring intervals to 50-100 ms. You would still accumulate the injector fuel flow over several injection intervals without a chance for manipulations.

I think it is intended to apply and be judged over a more practical time window inferrable from the totality of the rules
the window will be typically the time between gearchanges,the teams will play the game and the FIA will be happy (in the races)

I disagree based on above reasoning. What exactly do you mean by the remark that I have bolded? You never indicate a method of manipulating a fuel flow. How will THE GAME being played in your view? I have told you that the control system is homologated and is under tight control of the FiA via the single licensed manufacturer MES. Teams cannot even program any functionality into the system. All they can do is load parameters, maps and profiles to utilize standardized functionality. How would a team PLAY THE GAME?

BTW do the rules require the fuel pressure to be exactly constant ?
do the rules specify the viscosity and density (under pressure etc) of the fuel ?
if you think my estimates (of the margin for constant mixture fuelling with the above time window) are wrong please tell me

As you probably know the FiA require teams to use homologated fuel that matches a sample that is submitted at the begin of the season. Naturally the FiA can establish density and viscosity maps of every fuel depending of temperature and pressure if that is of interest for the verification. Since pressure and temperature are also controlled under § 5.10.4 the values you are asking for can be immediately computed.

[Tommy Cookers]

Actually the injectors are not standardized design any more.

5.10.3 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.
5.10.5 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.

The fuel flow must be measured in the fuel tank (which is obviously non pressurized) and it will be controlled by telemetry. if you use accumulation the competitor must make sure that the legal fuel flow is not exceeded. I assume that the FiA will have a rather close look at the integrated data to see if they match the tank fuel flow. It should be obvious if a competitor cheats with accumulated injector pulsing.

your position seems (to me) that 5.10.3 sensors must catch anyone whose mean fuelling over any 50mSec period is excessive, by definitive measurements of mean fuelling achieved (sampling thousands of times in each 50 mSec ?)
this would require 6 fuel flow sensors (each the same as the flow sensor in the tank)

as before, I think 5.10.3 does not demand this
5.10.5 is a seperate rule (for a seperate purpose, surely ? the flow sensor in the tank is the high level device, the master)
and the 5.10.3 sensors are different and supplementary to the 5.10.5 sensor role

you say above that the fuel flow from the tank will be controlled by telemetry (monitored by telemetry ?)
this to me is workable with one master fuel flow sensor and a longer time window for averaging the fuel rate
(but not with 6 flow sensors sampling fast enough to give a definitive average fuel rate every 50 mSec)

a 1.5 sec time window would allow the engine to use a constant mixture strength over its normal rpm
IMO the rules have been now written to allow this (it's nothing to do with throttle mapping)

agreed this longer time window weakens the FIA's position over qualifying (which is surely the only case for the short time window)
but a car can do a qualifying lap using in part electrical energy that it did not recover during that lap ?

[WhiteBlue]

I think you still do not understand the proposed system. There is a fuel check in the fuel tank for flow, temperature and pressure which is logged by the FiA.

There is also a secondary check done at each injector individually again with flow, temperature and pressure. The sampling rate of this second check is rather immaterial because the sensor measures the flow as a continuous analogue signal and cumulative by integrating the signal over a certain period. The FiA is at liberty how often they poll this value. It can be in 0.5 ms or 50 ms or 500 ms. Whatever suits their purpose best can be done. They will always get an accurate flow value that is the proper average of the injection pulses and the zero flow intervals between them. As I have said there will be 33-100 injection intervals per second. So if they poll the value 20 times per second they will get only one or two complete cycles. If they poll 5 times they will get 12-20 cycles which should be ideal. I'm pretty sure with an accurate measurement of the fuel flow from the fuel tank and the delivery flow to the injectors there is no scope for manipulation.

I think that the regulation is very clear in § 5.10.3 that there are multiple fuel sensors required to monitor the injectors. I cannot imagine why you come to the conclusion that there will be less than six sensors (one for each injector). In my view that is the only logical design unless you create a switching network that would allow the six potentially different flows to be monitored sequentially by two or more sensors. That would clearly be nonsensical. I wish the FiA were a bit less ambiguous in their wording. Unfortunately their language is not as precise as one wishes. But the ambiguity will probably be eliminated in later versions of the document. I reckon that the teams also will ask Charlie for clarification. As the regulation are worded at the moment I don't think teams would have a chance to cheat if the FiA runs a tight scrutineering job and demands redundant flow monitoring on the low pressure and the high pressure side.

[dren]

Teams will certainly explore the sensor calibration curves and any given margin of error.

As for qualification, they will likely run a charge lap before a full power lap. that is assuming teams will run with batteries able to store the full allowed discharge power in a lap, 2kJ right?

[Tommy Cookers]

There is a fuel check in the fuel tank for flow, temperature and pressure which is logged by the FiA.
There is also a secondary check done at each injector individually again with flow, temperature and pressure. The sampling rate of this second check is rather immaterial because the sensor measures the flow as a continuous analogue signal and cumulative by integrating the signal over a certain period. The FiA is at liberty how often they poll this value. It can be in 0.5 ms or 50 ms or 500 ms. Whatever suits their purpose best can be done. They will always get an accurate flow value that is the proper average of the injection pulses and the zero flow intervals between them. As I have said there will be 33-100 injection intervals per second. So if they poll the value 20 times per second they will get only one or two complete cycles. If they poll 5 times they will get 12-20 cycles which should be ideal. I'm pretty sure with an accurate measurement of the fuel flow from the fuel tank and the delivery flow to the injectors there is no scope for manipulation.

I have never suggested manipulation and you know that
the question is and always was the length of the time interval over which the continuous measurements of mean fuelling rate are to be judged
you seem above to agree that the length of this time interval or 'window' has not been determined
so neither of us knows the intent of the rulemakers in this regard
manipulation is action against the intent of the rules

a short time window will act against performance enhancement in qualifying (eg 'stealing fuel from the next lap')
a longer time window for the race avoids leaning the mixture as rpm exceeds 10500 (surely such leaning is not intended ?)
because it allows eg 1.5cc of fuel saved at around 10500 rpm to be used 1 second later around 11500 rpm
while always being compliant with the fuel rate rules

both windows are possible and desirable