2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[rjsa]

You know no one involvedin F1 gives a nickel to road relevance, right?

[WhiteBlue]

You know no one involvedin F1 gives a nickel to road relevance, right?

Not true at all. Ferrari does, Mercedes does, the FiA does and a bunch of other people with some out of the box thinking do. You have to be pretty insular and ignorant of the great history of GP racing to not value road relevance.

[rjsa]

Or too much naive to believe so, the jury is still out on that one

Relavance to the marketing department on the other hand...

[stefan_]

A little background of the subject (for the ones interested).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbB1qwhKaaE[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqfVAGOaGEc[/youtube]

[Cold Fussion]

Funny that every road car engine has some form of variable valve timing mechanism, but for the road relevant 2014 f1 engine it is banned by the FIA.

Is VCT really that beneficial when you're only operating over the narrow range of 10k rpm to 12.5k rpm?

If it did not have any benefit then why ban them?

I'm not saying it doesn't have a benefit, I'm asking would VCT would be beneficial across that rev range (a genuine question).

[Tommy Cookers]

Is VCT really that beneficial when you're only operating over the narrow range of 10k rpm to 12.5k rpm?

I'm not saying it doesn't have a benefit, I'm asking would VCT would be beneficial across that rev range (a genuine question).

variable valve motion could allow modulated displacement
alternatively it would allow retention in the cylinders of controlled amounts of exhaust gas at the higher rpm
this would lessen the loss of power (efficiency) with rpm above 10500 that is inherent with the 2014 flat rate fuelling
(because at rpm above 10500 there must be correspondingly reductions in cylinder filling or mixture weakening etc)

none of this matters if the fuel rate smoothing 'window' is set reasonably
100 kg/hr means what ?
100 kg used over 1 hr ?
166.67 gm over 1 min ?
277.8 gm over 10 sec
27.78 gm over 1 sec ?
2.778 gm over 100 msec ?
0.2778 gm over 10 msec ?
this makes a big difference to performance

[WhiteBlue]

100 kg/hr means what ?
100 kg used over 1 hr ?
166.67 gm over 1 min ?
277.8 gm over 10 sec
27.78 gm over 1 sec ?
2.778 gm over 100 msec ?
0.2778 gm over 10 msec ?
this makes a big difference to performance

The flow rate is all the same as you probably know very well. Anybody who speculates to profit from inaccurate measurement will be disappointed. The FiA is likely to require a fuel flow monitoring system that uses analogue and cumulative technology. This means it also measures and monitors between the digitised sampling points of the digital data logging system. The Gill sensor which was mentioned in the Renault V6 story and was advertised in RacecarEngineering is a good example for that technology.

[pgfpro]

I'm still somewhat new to F1 racing so bear with me, does the FiA have access to the cars data from the ecu in real time?

If so they could see and/or tag a preset fuel flag per engine cycle the injector pulse width or "widths if fired multi times per cycle" and double check against the other systems that are checking fuel flow.

IMO they will also have to be checking fuel flow by engine cycle, and not fuel flow and time. Plus all the engine cycle fuel flow information is being data logged anyways.

[WhiteBlue]

Yes, real time data collection is exercised several times per second, typically every 50 ms. Fuel data are required both centrally from the low pressure reservoir and at injection pressure level. As I have said cumulative measuring technology is available which will enable the FiA to monitor fuel flow on individual injector level if required. At this time we do not know the exact requirements in the regulations and technical instructions. But one has to assume they will be very tight.

[pgfpro]

Thanks WB!!!

This is what I love about F1. The advancements that are being made push a lot of todays tech. into the future.

[Forza]

You know no one involved in F1 gives a nickel to road relevance, right?

Not true at all. Ferrari does, Mercedes does, the FiA does and a bunch of other people with some out of the box thinking do. You have to be pretty insular and ignorant of the great history of GP racing to not value road relevance.

Speaking of road relevance. I remember that Gilles Simone in his "loud thinking" mentioned the small size of batteries (buffers as he calls them), 80mm maximum bore size and the potential of pneumatic valves for passengers cars.

There were one interesting question about the losses associated with running the high pressure injection pump that would overcome the gains of using the full 500 bar limit. Back in 2012 he was not so confident about it although in his belief they were planning to use the full limit. I reckon that the efficiently of high pressure fuel pumps could also be another important aspect of the design.

For those interested here is the Review.

It's a shame that I don't have bigger picture of this calculation to add to Ringo's calculations on previous sites. Although it's from TEOS (the company behind the first P.U.R.E design) back when the rules were set to 4cyl. format.

[Tommy Cookers]

10-15 % is much more than the recent corrected figure from Ringo

these calculations don't appear to me to address the loss of crankshaft power that becomes significant with higher recovery

in F1 it won't be worth chasing all possible recovery
(adding 20 hp to recovery but losing 10 hp crankshaft power is no good, although in a stationary engine it might be ok)

the free-piston engine has already been invented

[Forza]

Yes, I acknowledged the absence of data about the loss on the crankshaft or appropriate efficiently correction. I also remember that similar simulation for L4 format (I don't want to led this discussion in wrong direction so I apologize) was done by Ralph Koyess (Cranfield UNI) and sponsored by Cosworth. Click here to read full document.

The turbocharger and power turbine are labelled TC1 and T1 respectively. Mechanical turbocompounding was used as opposed to an electrical system. The orange line labelled MC1 represents the mechanical link with a fixed gear ratio between the power turbine and the crankshaft. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure 5. The turbocompound engine performance is plotted along with the turbocharged engine performance for comparison purposes. From 6,500 rpm the turbocompound engine produces more torque and power. However, it is only from 8,000 rpm that here is a significant increase in output. The output increases by 26.7 kW and 27.7 Nm on average which represents a 7% power increase and 6% torque increase in the range where the engine spends over 85% of its life. There is a peak increase of 31.5 kW and 31.7 Nm at 9,500 rpm. At the most useful speed, 8,500 rpm, there is an increase of 26.5 kW and 29.8 Nm which translates into a 6.5% increase to both power and torque. Since here is an increase in power for the same fuel consumption, the BSFC is lower for the turbocompound engine. It is important to note that the gear ratio of the mechanical linkage was optimised to get the highest value possible for the power at 8,500 rpm.

Note that this for L4 format but the figures are close to the ones I have from TEOS. Also there have been several changes in 2014 FiA F1 technical regulations since this was done to accomondate the new V6 format so the results can't be fully transferable. Also among those mentioned in the text ->

While turbocompounding adds power at no extra fuel cost, it adds weight to the vehicle. The mass of the added components to the turbocharged engine is estimated at 16.5 kg. It is commonly known that there is a time penalty of
around 0.3 seconds per lap for every 10 kg added to the car. Adding 16.5 kg to the car would theoretically slow it down by about half a second a lap. However, Formula One cars carry 30-50 kg of ballast in order to reach the minimum weight. The
weight of the turbocompound system is subtracted from the ballast and the result is a higher centre of gravity. Increasing the centre of gravity by 10 mm will result in a time penalty of 0.1 second. However, the 2010 F1 technical regulations state that the centre of gravity of the engine must not liebelow 165 mm and the we

5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference
plane.
5.4.3 The total weight of the part of the ES that stores energy, i.e. the cells (including any clamping plates) and electrical connections between cells, must be no less than 20kg and must not exceed 25kg.
5.4.4 When establishing conformity with Articles 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and Appendix 4 of the F1 Sporting Regulations, the homologated power unit perimeter will be defined in accordance with the table shown in Appendix 2 of these regulations.

[WhiteBlue]

Forza, there are some discrepancies in the documents that you posted. The schematic for the hybrid electric compounding shows a two stage turbine layout which is not true for the 2014 F1 design. The F1 design uses one over sized turbine for turbo charging and compounding. And the power curve shows a maximum at 8,000 rpm which is inconsistent with the fuel flow rules. The maximum power should occur at 10,500 rpm where the fuel flow is also maximized. They show a difference of 30 kW for the compounded engine over the turbo charged. I think that is also incorrect. We have established in this thread that the compounded power is higher.

[Forza]

WhiteBlue yes I mentioned that this can't be useful for the F1 2014 design comparison as for several reasons listed. In fact this was more related to previous graph I posted from TEOS. The stats above is the same the you've posted back on page 96. You can't really compare-transfer the power output figures of those two different layout designs but it made me interested since I've seen numbers on previous pages.