2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[hollus]

WB, it is going to be very difficult to make the same total fuel and fuel flow rate limits strike that balance both in Monaco and in Spa, in Barcelona and Australia, or in a cold dry race and in a hot wet race. There's gotta be a good 10-20Kg of fuel to spare in some of those conditions.
But I personally have no problem with some teams choosing to carry 20 Kg less fuel in that case, while others put them in the car and trade them for electricity. To me that's also racing and interesting to watch.

[WhiteBlue]

There's gotta be a good 10-20Kg of fuel to spare in some of those conditions.

Could you please show us how you arrive at that figure?
I reckon that they are on full throttle 75% of the time. In that case they would be 7.5 kg under fuelled instead of over fuelled. To have something like 17 kg fuel in excess they would have to be only 55% of the time on full throttle. Do we have any regular races where that would be feasible? Are we talking about something that is even relevant here?
If we are talking wet races or races with 25% safety car I'm not concerned. They are freak races and what the teams do there is irregular anyway.

[1158]

There's gotta be a good 10-20Kg of fuel to spare in some of those conditions.

Could you please show us how you arrive at that figure?
I reckon that they are on full throttle 75% of the time. In that case they would be 7.5 kg under fuelled instead of over fuelled. To have something like 17 kg fuel in excess they would have to be only 55% of the time on full throttle. Do we have any regular races where that would be feasible? Are we talking about something that is even relevant here?
If we are talking wet races or races with 25% safety car I'm not concerned. They are freak races and what the teams do there is irregular anyway.

I don't know how accurate this is but the linked article claims only 42% full throttle at Monaco in 2012.

http://biser3a.com/formula-1/fun-facts- ... o-special/

- Drivers must change gear a staggering 54 times per lap at Monaco, meaning more than 4,200 changes over the course of the race. Just 42 percent of the lap is spent at full throttle, with the longest period of full-throttle running a mere eight seconds.

Could be argued that with max of 8 seconds of full throttle it won't matter if you burn extra fuel to make e power because there are limited places to use it.

This claims 80% for Spa. So I guess those are probably the extremes (Monza has to be close to 80% as well)

http://www.redbull.com/cs/Satellite/en_ ... 3252234579

SPA-FRANCORCHAMPS: TRACK STATISTICS

Laps: 44
Lap length: 7.004km
Race distance: 308.052km
Start time: 1400 (local)
Full throttle: 80%
DRS: 31%
Downforce level: Medium
Gearchanges per lap: 48
Top speed: 315km/h
Tyre compounds: medium / hard
Overtaking places: Turns 1, 5, 8, 18

[1158]

FWIW a quick look on the RedBull link I posted above from 2012 yields:

Percent of lap at full throttle:
Belgian GP - 80%
Brazilian GP - 70%
British GP - 67%
European GP - 63%
Indian GP - 64%
Italian GP - 83%
Japanese GP - 71%
Korean GP - 60%
Monaco GP* - 65%
United States GP - 60%

*Is it me or does 65% for Monaco seem a little high considering only 60% for Korean/US GPs. Though maybe it is because Monaco is so short. I thought the 42% in the article I posted above seemed low.

[WhiteBlue]

According to those figures we never reach 55% WOT. It means that you do not get this kind of excess fuel Hollus was talking about. I would also think that the new engines could have higher WOT percentages than the V8s.

[1158]

According to those figures we never reach 55% WOT. It means that you do not get this kind of excess fuel Hollus was talking about. I would also think that the new engines could have higher WOT percentages than the V8s.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I was just using these numbers to try and get some idea of what different tracks are like. I'm not sure how the aero losses will affect the numbers. For instance will the loss of the beam wing and the limited exhaust effect on the diffuser this year result in a lower full throttle % at Spa? I'm looking forward to next season just to see how it shakes out and how the teams solve all the issues. I'm not thrilled with the posted Renault sound clip though. Hopefully as previously posted they sound better when under strain and used in anger.

[ringo]

Wow, a lot to digest here.
The engine sounds like a vacuum cleaner on steroids.
Otherwise it's very compact. Very good job by Renault. I'm wondering if it's putting any of the other engine makers in panic mode.
The broad pipe bundle is interesting, you can see they made it that sprawled out for flow reasons, but i guess we'll see the impact on aerodynamic compromise with the teams.

[xpensive]

I admit to be a little suspicious about these images of the Renault, animated as they seem, in particular the xhausts and intercooler, which both looks vastly oversized for such a small engine with low boost and like a packaging nightmare.

Wouldn't be surprised if part of it is a smokescreen or decoy at this rather early stage?

[Tommy Cookers]

they also gave tabulated data (here on P190) including a 'boost' of 3.5 Bar absolute manifold pressure
this seems too high ?
(and of course in technical English 3.5 Bar abs is about 2.5 Bar boost)

[xpensive]

they also gave tabulated data (here on P190) including a 'boost' of 3.5 Bar absolute manifold pressure
this seems too high ?
(and of course in technical English 3.5 Bar abs is about 2.5 Bar boost)

There you go, a 2.5 Bar boost is way too much I think, if you only have 28 g/s of fuel to burn, 1 Bar is perhaps more realistic?

28 g/sec equals a power input of 1300 kW, 35% efficiency means 450 kW or 620 Hp.

3.5 absolute is more like the old turbo-days with 800+ Hp.

[Blackout]

I admit to be a little suspicious about these images of the Renault, animated as they seem, in particular the xhausts and intercooler, which both looks vastly oversized for such a small engine with low boost and like a packaging nightmare.

Wouldn't be surprised if part of it is a smokescreen or decoy at this rather early stage?

Those covered exhausts look close to these anyways

the second manifold is different though. In the Le Bourget V6, it passes abve the other collectors while in this dyno pic it passes between them etc...

The battery pack looks huge too. it seems to have an almost bigger footprint then the V6. I wonder how the 2014 fuel tanks will look like (I mean the dimensions) compared to the 2013 fuel tank...

[xpensive]

I believe that Newey will have the final word on how to route those, but I agree, they look fairly similar.

100 kg of fuel is roughly 130 liters, W x L x H of 600 x 600 x 400 mm perhaps?

[techF1LES]

W x L x H of 600 x 600 x 400 mm perhaps?

According to my very rough calculations, sole engine dimensions without exhaust manifolds, turbocharger, airbox and oil tank are 710 × 500 × 440 mm (W × L × H). Width and height is estimated by positions of power unit mountings defined in Article 5.3.5 of the 2014 Technical Regulations.

[lio007]

any idea why the new renault engine has only one exhaust exit while two are permitted (Article 5.8.2 of the 2014 regs)

so can the teams decide to use 2 instead of 1 or is that not possible because renault developed the engine only with one exit?

[WhiteBlue]

There is little point of a second exit if you have only one turbo. So if a team wants to split the turbine exit pipe that is still something they can do, but it will be bloody difficult to get the exhaust gases to seal the diffuser from the wheel vortices as they do now. The new exhaust position makes it so much more difficult.

Having a waste gate for second exit would also be pointless IMO. The MGU-H will do that job.