2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

the 16th race from now will be in 2014
under rules that have no constraint of fuel for cold or hot blowing (EDIT note to self - WB says exhaust rules eliminate blowing)
and no constraint of fuel for fake recovery of KE
apparently it is clear that the rulemakers do not want to constrain fuelling on the overrun
and will continue to have equal fuel availability rates regardless of whether the accelerator is down or up

currently blowing and recovery manipulation are inextricably linked, not only by the rules
also, importantly, by performance (beautifully, each gains from the other and gives to the other)
and seem in combination to be a very racetime-efficient use of fuel
arguably engine running for MGU-K generation (recovery manipulation) is a racetime-efficient use of fuel even without blowing

perhaps the FIA should rename the MGU-K , though ? (lose the K, or prove that it is genuine KE)

it seems impossible to constrain fuel quantity (load) sufficiently to impact the above
without undermining the existing concept of constraint of fuelling rates as the way to preserve the race quality


sincerely, I shall be pleased if and when WB has any information regarding fuel quantity limits
do we have a rule reference number ?

[autogyro]

I believe the teams started to use engine power during overrun (brakeing) because of their inability to control kinetic energy recovery during deceleration.
They needed an energy input finely controlled to balance against the 'loose' rear ends and excess rear tyre wear caused by the generating effect of the M/G on the crank nose.

Diffuser blowing IMO was a side benefit of this requirement and because it is aero motivated the most money has been spent in this area and not on controlling and developing energy recovery.

The FIA allowed power up engine use during deceleration hopeing to continue energy recovery development.
Now the FIA is hamstrung with the concept of diffuser blowing during deceleration.

If the exhaust position is moved by the regulations in 2014 so as not to blow on a useful aerodynamic surface, allowing the teams to continue using engine power up during deceleration will defeat any incentive to work towards fuel efficiency.
The lack of brakeing control and excess tyre wear that kinetic energy recovery produces in cars with such high downforce means there is no obvious way to honestly use this energy recovery technology.
Engine power ups during deceleration will also make a joke out of heat energy rcovery for the same reason.

The only way to make developments in fuel efficiency work and make them more relevent to the real world, is to do what Max Mosley suggested and reduce downforce by 50 percent and increase developments in mechanical handling and powertrains.

[WhiteBlue]

I believe the discussion is a storm in a tea cup. The whole concept of the 2014 engine regulations is written in a way that fuel efficiency is rewarded. As I have pointed out several times already there will be a race fuel limit of 100 kg. This rule was repeatedly published by press releases and referred to by team experts. So why do we ignore this fact?

Additionally we will have new rules forcing a single exhaust by using one turbine that the exhaust gas of both cylinder banks will have to pass. That exhaust exit will be far away from the diffusor as we have been told.

All measures viewed in conjunction will make it very difficult to generate downforce effects from overrun. I simply think we will see an end to the concept with the end of the V8 in F1.

[Tommy Cookers]

overrun push up to zero torque (combined with the current blowing) is a very efficient way of using fuel, in race time terms
if in 2014 overrun push yields the same value in race time:fuel terms as the other modes of engine use then it will still be used
and no fuel quantity limit will stop this

2014 cars (down sizing/speeding cuts mechanical losses to 12% of max torque) need much less fuel for the permitted OP
because of much better BTE even the suggested 100kg limit might not be tight enough to force the abandonment of OP
surely a fuel quantity limit set to an effective level (whatever that is) can undermine the fuel rate limiting concept ?
because the driver can use eg fuel that is 50 laps worth in quantity over 48 laps using the available rate and then have to economise
the point of a fuel rate limit is not limiting the fuel in the tank to the extent of that it interferes with the fuel limiting by rate
because fuel limiting by available rate lets the driver use the available power for every lap of the race
and fuel limiting by quantity will mean that the driver will generally have to back off near the end of the race

in current cars the permitted OP torque is much more than the MGU-K torque in generation mode
in 2014 cars it is less (the MGU-K limit being 120 kW)
so the MGU-K generation could not be fully used just on the OP unless some 'genuine' KE recovery was obtained
this appears to a strong incentive for such recovery, but it would still be disruptive
despite generation demands being more consistent than with KERS (because of the integration of electric drive with the ICE)
some generation extended into the partial power phase would be possible, at no fuel cost ie within the available fuel rate ?
and, even with a restrictive fuel quantity limit, would be considered relative to other modes of fuel use ?
(eg the current practice of (on occasion) lifting off and coasting before the usual braking point)

[aussiegman]

The physical size of the V6 engine will be slightly smaller than the current V8 engines, however as the regulations require and available drawings and pictures so far show, the MGUH (turbo) extends out the back of the crankcase structure above the transaxle.

As the MGUH should be oil lubricated and water cooled extra cooling capacity for engine oil and water may be required. There will also be extra heat loading on the systems from the effects of forced induction.

It would be interesting to see a decent analysis of the differences in heat loadings of the current 2.4Lt V8's with 18,000rpm versus the new, smaller 1.6Lt turbo with lower RPM's (12,000 to 15,000) to see if there is generally much increase in the need for heat management which could be accommodated in the sidepods without huge compromises.

Boost is unlimited, however with fuel flow controlled, boost pressure will likely decrease with RPM. Evaporative cooling from rich mixtures at low speeds may also be used but again, restricted fuel flow may hamper its usefulness as RPM increases and boost rises.

Heatsoak from the actual MGUH unit can be managed through airflow thanks to its placement and the current V8’s already have heat management strategies for exhaust headers in close proximity to the blocks. Heat soak on the grid with zero or near zero air flow through the engine cowling may be a slight issue that they will have contend with.

Cooling of batteries and the MGUK will also require some further though as the capacity of these increases for 2014, but again it is not something hugely outside current aero designs IMHO.

The biggest issue will be aero compromise for charge air cooling. Air to air is lighter and less complicated. however requires a consent air flow to achieve results and has a longer intake path.

Air to liquid is heavier and more complex but has generally better packaging from the view point of short intake path. Another downside is air to liquid systems can become heat saturated limiting their effectiveness the longer they are used.

Renault seems to be favoring air to air, though rumours are others are looking at air to water and Laminova type solutions that sit between the upper intake and the compressor which gives a much shorter and more compact package.

Liquid pumps and reservoirs can be placed low in the chassis behind the engine. The biggest problem is where to fit another radiator and sizing/density of the cooler core(s).

[Huntresa]

Honda confirms F1 return

Woho

[WhiteBlue]

overrun push up to zero torque (combined with the current blowing) is a very efficient way of using fuel, in race time terms
if in 2014 overrun push yields the same value in race time:fuel terms as the other modes of engine use then it will still be used
and no fuel quantity limit will stop this...

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here. The following source explains why the exhausts will have very little if any influence in the 2014 design.
http://somersf1.blogspot.se/2013/01/201 ... anges.html

The 2014 exhaust positioning options are shown in the very small yellow box and are so restricted that designers will not have a chance to exploit them any more. Even the current practise of using exhaust gases to seal the diffusor against the wheel induced vortices will not be possible. Hence my feeling that the use of exhaust blowing in the overrun will end with the current season.

To be honest I don't understand much of your posting, Tommy Cookers. Your ways with grammar are too unconventional for a non native speaker and greatly obstruct the ideas that you are putting forward. It would help if you could form simple sentences without excessive use of brackets and with coherent paragraphs. It would be much appreciated and would help acceptance of your valuable technical contributions.

[mikeerfol]

Is it true that engine development won't be the same in 2015 compared to 2014?

[Huntresa]

Is it true that engine development won't be the same in 2015 compared to 2014?

How do you mean? As in development there wont be any since we will still have a freeze on the engines like we have with the current V8s.

[mikeerfol]

Is it true that engine development won't be the same in 2015 compared to 2014?

How do you mean? As in development there wont be any since we will still have a freeze on the engines like we have with the current V8s.

I think there won't be any freeze with the V6s, are you sure?

[Huntresa]

Is it true that engine development won't be the same in 2015 compared to 2014?

How do you mean? As in development there wont be any since we will still have a freeze on the engines like we have with the current V8s.

I think there won't be any freeze with the V6s, are you sure?

Why wouldnt it be any freeze ? Its a cost cutting measure that works good If we use these engines a few years, ofc there will be development during next year cause they are new and need to be tested properly, but there won't be any development race beyond that.

[Neno]

I thought the prevailing rumor was that an engine freeze will start before the first race next year.

V8 were freeze after one year. but honda will get in f1 2015. so it would mean that if Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari's engine would be freeze it after one year, and honda then enter in F1, they would have advantage of one year devolopment on others engine because honda would surely sought from FIA same treatment!

so i personally dont see freezing engines after one year, maybe two or three.

[WhiteBlue]

There was a publication that the 2014 engines will be homologated for one season. So any development work that will be done after the first race starts will all be done for 2015. I believe that the 2015 technical regulations will be published in time to make clear what will be legal development targets. So we cannot say it will be a freeze as we knew from the V8s. Freezing is not within the guidelines of the FiA. The federation wants continued efficiency development of the drive train within the limits that cost control allow the manufacturers to do. One fundamental problem in the way is the hang up with the concord and the budget caps. Once those two things got sorted out the engine development will become easier to organize.

[FW17]

Wish the 2015 regulations would rid the 1.6 V6 mandatory rule if engine is shared with LMP, while keeping only the fuel flow parameters.

[WhiteBlue]

Bernie wants to keep F1 special so that the engines cannot be shared with LMP1. But we do not know how long Bernie is going to keep his job.