2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[rscsr]

... I would think the firing order would be at 120° even 1-2-3-4-5-6 with 1,3,5 on the left bank and 2,4,6 on the right bank...

They can't fire even, if they are not using a crankpin offset of 30°. Maybe they will use a lower offset, to make the firing more even, and don't reduce the stiffness of the crankshaft to much.
I drew a lot of different firing orders and would say the best would be 1-2-5-6-3-4. (Of course we have to assume a 120°crankshaft.)
With that firing order, you would also be able to fire each bank alternately and have an interval of 240° between 2 exhaust pressure peaks.

(sorry for these big pictures, I haven't found a way to change the shown size)
This picture shows the crankshaft (in brackets with crankpin offset)

These pictures show the firing diagrams of the different firing orders. (hatched=with a crankpin offset, blue=without a crankpin offset)

...I'm quite confident that such a design would optimize combustion efficiency and over all power generation. It is also the best packaging solution.

I wouldn't assume that this would increase the combustion efficiency, maybe it influences the weight of the crankshaft. But then I would use a 1-3-4-6-2-5 (or maybe 1-3-5-6-2-4) to reduce the strain on the crankshaft.

[WhiteBlue]

Nice work rscsr! I don't insist on the firing order. They may have more solutions as you have shown. But for best combustion efficiency the 120° phasing on each bank will probably be unavoidable. I would find it more elegant to shift one bank by 60° to create an even distribution but your reasoning is also convincing. I guess we will hear from the different exhaust notes what the designers will ultimately choose.

[Tommy Cookers]

to have naturally equispaced exhaust pulses to present to the turbine the V angle would need to be 120 deg
or nearly so with a very narrow angle (eg VW/old Lancia) but with near-simultaneous 'big bang' firing of opposite cylinders

firing order as such is of interest to the crankshaft designer, but immaterial to the turbine

these above of course assume 3 throws
I will eat my hat if anyone uses the road car 6 'split' throw type crankshaft, no purpose-designed race V6 has ever used it

I think the rulemakers were clear all along that 90 deg was good, if given 2 feeds to the turbine
differences in pipe lengths from one bank relative to the other's allow the 90 deg to feed equispaced pulses to the turbine if required
(this would have some effect on the 'tuned headers/manifolding', unimportant with this amount of supercharging)
but what's not to like ?

[WhiteBlue]

No race engine designer had to maximize the thermodynamic efficiency before to build optimum power. Now for the first time the air is free and the fuel is limited. It will be a paradigm shift in race engine design of unheard proportion. So we can only speculate what kind of solutions we will see. Typically you will have to ask yourself what is the lesser evil. If they loose much power by going away from the 120° arrangement there will be a strong preference for that solution. I cannot gage the consequences but I guess it is increased weigh, in which case we have to consider that there is a minimum weight anyway. If you can save the weight in other places and gain more power with a 120° design people will do it.

[matt21]

According to a german source, the PURE engine project has been sold to Hyten SA.
They work together with Millenium Engine Concept which list GEO Technology as their partner.
Geo Technology is led by Osamu Goto and is preparing the Moto2 engines.

Also all companies are based in Roche, Switzerland.
MEC is led by Bruno Englerich, who has been a former R&D mangaer for the engine and KERS at Ferrari.

Both Hyten and MEC have a picture of an LMP V6 on their page but this thing looks similar to a F1 turbo.

Anybody heard of these companies before?

http://millenium-engine-concept.com/PROJECTS.htm
http://www.hyten-sa.com/POWERTRAIN.htm

[rscsr]

...I think the rulemakers were clear all along that 90 deg was good, if given 2 feeds to the turbine
differences in pipe lengths from one bank relative to the other's allow the 90 deg to feed equispaced pulses to the turbine if required...

That's a rather good idea, but with one caveat. The difference in the pipe lenght is rpm dependent. I estimated with a speed of sound of 700m/s a difference in pipe length of 0,292m (at 12000rpm) and 0,343m (at 10000rpm).
But after thinking about it, I don't think they would care much about the not equidistant pressure pulses, as a pressure pulse is at 10000rpm about 2m long (if we assume exhaust valve opening time of 180° crankshaft angle). So you wouldn't need to worry about that the overlap of pressure spikes (or they would make 2m long exhaust pipes to the turbo, which I don't think is very likely).

Therefore I would assume that they will go with 1-2-5-6-3-4 without a crankpin offset and basically the same pipe length for each bank and 2 inlets.
(Maybe they will split the scroll casing for each bank with the inlets 90° apart (similar to the casing from some posts above), which seems pretty elegant, if they are happy with a lower sectionarea compared to a usual scroll casing with 2 inlets)

[Tommy Cookers]

the exhaust 'blowdown' pulse at the approach to the turbine has a duration of around 25 deg of crankshaft rotation
this is where the most useful pressure energy is
we want to keep the pulses seperate to access this energy (and for other reasons as in an NA race engine)
if the pulses merge we start to raise the mean exhaust pressure, which is not ideal
(some of this is inevitable at the expected pressure of around 1.8 bar absolute)

yes, the ideal pipe length varies with rpm (but the important rpm range is only about 17% ie 10500-12300 rpm)
it's all compromises (eg the 90 deg engine rule), but they know what they're doing IMO
turbo inlet schemes can deal with far worse than this design configuration

[Forza]

Another pic of turbine flow at the wheel.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r312 ... 1aa256.png

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r312 ... 41503c.png

Thanks for reminding me about it. I rememberer that case study Numerical computations of pulsatile Fow in a turbo-charger

Here is image of single inlet turbo


Two years ago Imperial Turbocharger Group run some tests with dual entry turbo design

3d map of dual entry turbine


The Imperial Turbocharger Group also did a study for ABB Turbo Systems in which they presented the challenges of pulse operation for a double volute turbocharger.

Fig. 11. Contour of normalised entropy generation rate at 50% span, the numbers correspond to the same features seen in Fig. 12

Fig. 12. Contours of vorticity magnitude in the blade to blade plane at 20%, 50% and 80% of blade span with the flowing and non-flowing entries marked. The figure has been annotated to show several features of the flow, also shown in Fig. 11.

A cross-sectional plot in both volutes is produced to identify the differences in velocity magnitude between volute 2 and volute 1 as seen in figure 11. The flow velocity magnitude is found higher in volute 2 because the maximum radial velocity is located at the lower section of the impeller exit which is closest to that of volute 2. Some interesting observations were also made between a single and a dual volute compressor in terms of efficiency. The results are shown in figure 12. From the graph, it is clearly visible that the single entry vaneless volute turbocharger exhibits a smaller operating range (0.24 – 0.34 Kg/s) when compared to the dual vaneless volute (0.22 – 0.35 Kg/s). This indicates that the overall efficiency of the dual volute design would be better than the single-entry type.

Fig. 11. The velocity magnitudes in volute 1 and volute 2, showing that an increased tangential flow in volute 1 will produce a strong air flow interruption

Fig. 12. Efficiency comparisons of the vaneless and vaned single and dual volute designs

There is the potential to provide rapid turbocharger response in transient conditions by extracting the advantage of pulse energy. Exhaust manifold has to be designed with small volumes of the passages from the valve ports to the turbocharger which is sited as close as possible to the exhaust ports. In our case the position is defined by technical regulations.

According to a german source, the PURE engine project has been sold to Hyten SA.
They work together with Millenium Engine Concept which list GEO Technology as their partner.
Geo Technology is led by Osamu Goto and is preparing the Moto2 engines.
Also all companies are based in Roche, Switzerland.
MEC is led by Bruno Englerich, who has been a former R&D mangaer for the engine and KERS at Ferrari.
Both Hyten and MEC have a picture of an LMP V6 on their page but this thing looks similar to a F1 turbo.
Anybody heard of these companies before?
http://millenium-engine-concept.com/PROJECTS.htm
http://www.hyten-sa.com/POWERTRAIN.htm

Nice found Matt21. These are the companies behind the FondTech E-11 project.
We've seen rendering of P.U.R.E v6t but it's likely to be in an earlier development stage as Gillies Simon hinted .
They could use the P.U.R.E. know-how to evolve their LMP V6 design (If we compare the pictures from sites quoted in your post).

[Miles]

the stroke or displacement can not be calculated as the compression ratio is not known. Any calculations done is pure guessing.

[rscsr]

the stroke or displacement can not be calculated as the compression ratio is not known. Any calculations done is pure guessing.

Well the stroke and the displacement is part of the technical regulations (which can be found here: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 111212.pdf).
And of course our calculations are guesses. But without basic calculations you are just eyeballing, which is even more inaccurate.

the exhaust 'blowdown' pulse at the approach to the turbine has a duration of around 25 deg of crankshaft rotation
this is where the most useful pressure energy is
we want to keep the pulses seperate to access this energy (and for other reasons as in an NA race engine)
if the pulses merge we start to raise the mean exhaust pressure, which is not ideal
(some of this is inevitable at the expected pressure of around 1.8 bar absolute)...

That's true, but as that's the case, I don't think that they would even care about the pulse overlap. Because the pulses are very very short.
p.s.: somehow I thought that the rev limit will be 12000rpm not 15000rpm, so my calculated lengthes would be about 20% shorter.

[autogyro]

Thanks Furza, thats more like it.

[pgfpro]

Thanks Forza!!!

Good Info =D>

[hollus]

I don't think this has been posted here yet. Actual consumption numbers, by track, for the RS27, from the mouth of the horse. It should help to put the new fuel limits (whatever they turn out to be in the end) in perspective.

Renault show the data of their engines, the fuel consumption for each races. Sorry, it's in french, i'm on my phone right now on my way to the work, when i will arrive i will traduce.

http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/renault,57537.html



The first column is the name of the country, the second one is the length of the track, then it's the average speed, then max speed, then it's the % of the lap at full throttle, then the fuel consumption on one lap then the average consumption (L per 100KM ).

At Melbourne, RS27 engines consume 2.5 litres of fuel on one lap and 67 after 100 KM.

[Forza]

English engineering company Zytek has hinted that it may build a 2014 Formula 1 power unit. The company stated on its twitter microblog that its “development focus is now on Hybrid Systems for 2014 Regulations (F1 & WEC) but cant say too much about that at this stage. Maybe we will do a whole power unit ourselves. Certainly we have all the elements needed for it in our skills/experience plus the regs reset gives newcomers a chance. It is certainly a big job and needs serious money to turn the basic engineering concept into a competitve package.”



Zytek was instrumental in the development of the KERS used by Mercedes HPE in 2009, it also supplies engines to Auto GP, LMP1, LMP2 and World Series by Renault.

Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari have all committed to running new power units in 2014 whilst Honda has run a prototype engine on the test bench and Cosworth has designed a power unit. Zytek is one of only a few firms in the world with all of the expertise in house required for the development of a 2014 power unit.

[Ted68]

A brief article on the new engine.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/renault-de ... -1-season/