2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[dan.k]

Looks like the Intercooler cells goes in wrong direction, the inlet and outlet are on the wrong sides off the cell package.

[ringo]

I have just realized something, Renault is using 3.5 bar to produce 500 bHp well below 10,000 rpm.
i'm trying to find the sweet spot for the fuel consumption, in terms of parameters like air to fuel, intake temps, engine speed, rpm etc, but at 3.5 bar absolute, they can't be running the engine at 15000 rpm with that boost pressure. It will be in the high 900hp range if that was the case.
This 3.5bar boost pressure is intended for low engine speeds; like 7000rpm!
I expect a lot of trickery coming ahead. I don't think a team can study another teams engine; too many variables.

There's just too much things a team can do, they can even run the power at 500hp like I've stated above to stay within 100kg/hr. Or run it at 15000rpm with lower boost for 640hp... very interesting months ahead for these new engines in terms of getting to know strong points and weaknesses between them too.

[xpensive]

...
This 3.5bar boost pressure is intended for low engine speeds; like 7000rpm!
...

There's no way you have use for 3.5 Bar at 7000 Rpm either, when fuel-flow is reduced to 18.9 g/second,
I think that boost-number is just a smokescreen or decoy, just like the exhausts and giant intercooler.

[WhiteBlue]

... very interesting months ahead for these new engines in terms of getting to know strong points and weaknesses between them too.

I'm convinced of quite the contrary. I think this highly specified engines will all be very similar. At least that is what the constructor dominated F1 commission intended for them. After a short period of small differences in performance and reliability will will see a rapid exhaustion of the development potential and the gradual freeze. F1 is screwed with an aerodynamic superiority as long as the constructors will control the technical rules. It will be very boring compared to the coming development race in LMP1.

[timbo]

There's no way you have use for 3.5 Bar at 7000 Rpm either, when fuel-flow is reduced to 18.9 g/second

It's just an average value. Maybe they use much higher flow rate for acceleration above traction limit at certain spots.

[xpensive]

There's no way you have use for 3.5 Bar at 7000 Rpm either, when fuel-flow is reduced to 18.9 g/second

It's just an average value. Maybe they use much higher flow rate for acceleration above traction limit at certain spots.

No it's not, I suggest you read FIA's 2014 Technical regulations, in particular Article 5.1.

[pgfpro]

I still think that we will see higher then normal boost levels then non-conventional turbo PI systems.

With DI and piston guided injection and the crazy new injector pressures F1's new engines will be using they will be running much leaner A/F ratios at full power/high load.

Also with higher boost levels they can use the extra air density charge (3.5bar) to cool combustion durning valve over-lap. Some of the air will be dump and used for cooling purposes only. This will then bring them back to a air density level of around 1 bar to support the new fuel rule. This is why I thought they would be using a fairly large intercooler all along.

[WhiteBlue]

I have been trying to convince a minority of users that it will be impossible to cheat the fuel flow control. But to no avail. Some seem to think there are loop holes, which I frankly don't understand considering the rules and the publications we had on control technology.

[pgfpro]

I have been trying to convince a minority of users that it will be impossible to cheat the fuel flow control. But to no avail. Some seem to think there are loop holes, which I frankly don't understand considering the rules and the publications we had on control technology.

I'm with you on this on WB. The fuel rule is set and pretty much un-cheat able with today's technology.

[timbo]

There's no way you have use for 3.5 Bar at 7000 Rpm either, when fuel-flow is reduced to 18.9 g/second

It's just an average value. Maybe they use much higher flow rate for acceleration above traction limit at certain spots.

No it's not, I suggest you read FIA's 2014 Technical regulations, in particular Article 5.1.

It says 100kg/h only. What's the problem if you use 50kg in 10 minutes and 50kg left in the 50 minutes?

I don't see this as cheating.

[piast9]

What's the problem if you use 50kg in 10 minutes(...)

The problem is that this would be 300 kg/h fuel flow for 10 minutes.

[WhiteBlue]

It's just an average value. Maybe they use much higher flow rate for acceleration above traction limit at certain spots.

No it's not, I suggest you read FIA's 2014 Technical regulations, in particular Article 5.1.

It says 100kg/h only. What's the problem if you use 50kg in 10 minutes and 50kg left in the 50 minutes?
I don't see this as cheating.

The regulation does not say that 100 kg may be consumed in an arbitrary way over one hour. It says that the flow rate resulting to 100 kg/h must not be exceeded. That is a completely different thing. The flow rate will be monitored by sensors that work on the analogue principle and work cumulatively. That means the flow rate cannot be manipulated without detection.

[rjsa]

Where is the fuel/rpm ramp in the rules? That piece is pretty bullet proof.

[Tommy Cookers]

The regulation does not say that 100 kg may be consumed in an arbitrary way over one hour. It says that the flow rate resulting to 100 kg/h must not be exceeded. That is a completely different thing. The flow rate will be monitored by sensors that work on the analogue principle and work cumulatively. That means the flow rate cannot be manipulated without detection.

what you call a flow rate of 100 kg/h must be exceeded intermittently
100 kg/h is eg 27.8 gm/sec, 27.8 mg/msec, and 27.8 microgram/microsec
eg if the engine must not ever in any microsecond draw more than 27.8 microgram it cannot run
unless it has carburettors or continuous fuel injection

so there needs to be a hard definition of fuel rate
eg max 27.8 gm in any period of 1 second
or max 2.78 gm in any period of 100 msec
etc
and a hard definition of the place of this activity

the degree of engine fuel accumulation (as you have called it) is maybe something the FIA has already considered
given the availability of fuelling for electrical accumulation whenever driver torque demand is rather less than max
you may be worrying unnecessarily
maybe what you have described as cheating is not regarded as such by the FIA ?

[wuzak]

As regards the 3.5 bar (abs) manifold pressure Renault have put forward, didn't the Honda RA168E run at 3.5 bar (abs) - 2.5 bar boost - for the 1988 season achieving 680hp @ 12,000rpm?