2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[chip engineer]

With the relatively low boost, one bar is more like a street-car, and the way F1 is aero-run these days, I think they will be very small and efficient, possibly water to air or something like that. Nothing like that Renault image anyway.

I assume you are saying 1 bar above regular atmosphere, or 2 bar absolute.

Maybe my calculation is incorrect, but I calculate at least 2.7 bar absolute is needed at 10500 rpm:
27.78 g/s fuel (with CH2 ratio) requires 456 g/s = 380 l/s air to burn completely.
1.6 l displaces 140 l/s at 10500 rpm, so 380/140 = 2.71 bar
If the fuel was pure octane, then I get 2.78 bar.

Am I making an error?

[xpensive]

O'boy, those calculations are way too advanced for me, I trust my old Lazy-dog; 17.5 Hp per liter, bar absolute and 1000 Rpm.

With 27.8 g/s, 46.6 kJ/g and a 35% efficiency, 2014 engines should give some 620 Hp.

At 10.5 kRpm, that means 2.1 Bar absolute in my Lazy-dog.

Not terribly scientific, but if you compare with the 1988 Honda at 2.5 bar absolute, I think you find it works out pretty well.

[chip engineer]

O'boy, those calculations are way too advanced for me, I trust my old Lazy-dog; 17.5 Hp per liter, bar absolute and 1000 Rpm.

With 27.8 g/s, 46.6 kJ/g and a 35% efficiency, 2014 engines should give some 620 Hp.

At 10.5 kRpm, that means 2.1 Bar absolute in my Lazy-dog.

Not terribly scientific, but if you compare with the 1988 Honda at 2.5 bar absolute, I think you find it works out pretty well.

But the 1988 Honda at 2.5 bar absolute was probably not fuel flow limited, so only burned much of the carbon to carbon monoxide. With limited fuel flow, the most energy is extracted by burning it to CO2, so takes more air.

[WhiteBlue]

I get 2.46 bar absolute if I use the same numbers we used in the LMP1 Porsche thread. That was an AFR of 14.7, 1.184 g/l for air at 25C°. I also use the 140 L displacement. I would say that Chip is closer to what we will probably see. I seem to remember that ringo also used higher boost in his thermodynamic model.

The older engines with 30% efficiency were using a lot less air. Hence you would be using much lower AFRs. I believe that the new engines will use close to stoichiometric and not over stoichiometric as Chip seems to think.

This is a difficult issue because we know very little about the new DI driven combustion process. But educated guesses we made in the Porsche thread are a fair bet I think.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 95#p438395

[xpensive]

...
But the 1988 Honda at 2.5 bar absolute was probably not fuel flow limited, so only burned much of the carbon to carbon monoxide. With limited fuel flow, the most energy is extracted by burning it to CO2, so takes more air.

Be careful not over-engineer things, my Lazy-dog might undershoot, but I think 2.8 is way more than you need for 600+ Hp.

[chip engineer]

I get 2.46 bar absolute if I use the same numbers we used in the LMP1 Porsche thread. That was an AFR of 14.7, 1.184 g/l for air at 25C°. I also use the 140 L displacement. I would say that Chip is closer to what we will probably see. I seem to remember that ringo also used higher boost in his thermodynamic model.

The older engines with 30% efficiency were using a lot less air. Hence you would be using much lower AFRs. I believe that the new engines will use close to stoichiometric and not over stoichiometric as Chip seems to think.

I was assuming stoichiometric, but I found one error: I should have used oxygen % of air by weight, not volume.
Changing that and roughly allowing for 50% humidity at 25C, I now get 2.56 bar for pure octane.

[pgfpro]

Running my turbo engine simulator I come up with 2.50 bar absolute.

Inputs:
Engine 1.6L
RPM 10500
VE 1.0
Elevation 200'
IAT 77* F or 25C*
A/F ratio 14.7
BSFC 0.35 or 212.9 g/kWh

Outputs:
HP 631
Torque 315.7 ft/lbs
Fuel (220 lbs/hr) or (100 kg/hr)

[WhiteBlue]

I wish we knew more about the combustion process. But I'm quite happy that the horse power figures confirm substantially higher brake thermal efficiency than the V8s for the naked ICE. It shows that the improved combustion from direct injection indeed must be providing several percent improvement in fuel efficiency. Part of the improvement of fuel economy is the reduced friction but my estimate at an early stage was at least 5% less fuel for the DI if I remember right. Two or three years ago nobody believed that an F1 engine would run in stratified mode. By now there is almost agreement that this will indeed happen.

My biggest disappointment from the technical side is the valve train. I think it is silly not to use the additional power and efficiency options that can be found there. All the modern road car engines now come with variable valves. F1 again is missing an opportunity to do cutting edge development.

[pgfpro]

My biggest disappointment from the technical side is the valve train. I think it is silly not to use the additional power and efficiency options that can be found there. All the modern road car engines now come with variable valves. F1 again is missing an opportunity to do cutting edge development.

My hopes that they will bring in variable valves in the future?

[langwadt]

My biggest disappointment from the technical side is the valve train. I think it is silly not to use the additional power and efficiency options that can be found there. All the modern road car engines now come with variable valves. F1 again is missing an opportunity to do cutting edge development.

My hopes that they will bring in variable valves in the future?

nah, they will agree that that would be to expensive to develop and go back to spending millions upon millions in
the wind-tunnels doing minute tweaks to various bits of carbon fiber

[Holm86]

I don't agree that it would be too expensive with variable valve technology. I know this a repost but also a great interview with Baretzky. He also mentions that the variable valve technology is in almost every single roadcar today and is an off the shelf technology that's not too expensive.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TAhWdVU3M4[/youtube]

[WhiteBlue]

My biggest disappointment from the technical side is the valve train. I think it is silly not to use the additional power and efficiency options that can be found there. All the modern road car engines now come with variable valves. F1 again is missing an opportunity to do cutting edge development.

My hopes that they will bring in variable valves in the future?

nah, they will agree that that would be to expensive to develop and go back to spending millions upon millions in
the wind-tunnels doing minute tweaks to various bits of carbon fiber

Of course you are right. We pretty much know the development path for the next five years now because it was published with the freeze plan. There is absolutely zero development on restricted items. Only existing technology may be improved. It completely contradicts the plans the FiA had five years ago when the whole thing was invented. The plan was to gradually refine the engines and reduce the race fuel from 150 kg to 75 kg which was doable. But then the aero guys from Red Bull kicked off the cost debate and asked for narrower and narrower specs. Eventually the engine development was sacrificed on the altar of cost control because the small teams cannot afford engines that keep developing. The natural alternative was to restrict the aero development so that more money can be spent on mechanical developments. But the politicking in F1 went against that vision.

I don't agree that it would be too expensive with variable valve technology. I know this a repost but also a great interview with Baretzky. He also mentions that the variable valve technology is in almost every single roadcar today and is an off the shelf technology that's not too expensive.

Naturally you are right and Baretzky as well. Every engineer with some passion and understanding of the world we live in will agree that it makes much more sense to develop cutting edge technology that can be used in the automotive industry instead of doing arcane aero games that have no impact on the real world. Sadly enough this is not the way F1 is run. I blame Bernie to a huge extend for most of the things that are wrong. He constantly tries to make life more difficult for the lesser teams by not providing a suitable base remuneration for all teams. Hence the minions can always be institutionalized by the Red Bull brigade to stomp on the motor manufacturers. Unfortunately the FiA is too remote from F1 to do much about it. I had some hopes that a budget cap would come with the new Concord, but it seems to be held up by internal conflict between the FiA and FOM. My only hope now is that Peter Noll will put Bernie in jail or out of business and F1 will fundamentally change direction sometime soon.

[xpensive]

It suddenly struck me is that next years gearboxes has to be very different than today's as input torque will be coming up radically.

This is how I figure; Say that the Power through the clutch will be same, some 750 Hp (550 kW), but while the V8 will scream at 18 000 Rpm, next years turbos will be able to give the same power at 10 500 Rpm and 500 Nm. That's 300 vs 500 Nm, 66% up, no more Fisher-Price stuff!

As a gearbox is all about gears and bearings, those units simply have to be wider and heavier the way I can see things?

----

So, if we continue this theoretical xample on Torque, Speed and Bearing Life, bear with me a bit more gentlemen;

A) We have today's high pitched screamer sending 750 Hp (550 kW) into the gearbox at 18 000 Rpm, that's 300 Nm.

B) We have tomorrow's morose V6 also sending 750 Hp (550 kW) into the same gearbox but at 10 500 Rpm at 500 Nm.

500/300 Nm is 1.66 and 18000/10500 Rpm is also 1.66, while the Bearing load is proportional to the input torque.

This means that the gearbox' input shaft in B) will generate 1.66 more Bearing-load at 1.66 less speed, all proportional.

Bearing life is cubical to the load, but is proportional to speed; Why Life will be (1.66)^3/1.66 = a factor 2.75 less.

Willams can forget their Fisher-Price transmission, perhaps that is why Coughlan is gone.

[Chuckjr]

I have a few questions constellated around the new energy recovery systems for the turbo engines in 2014. I do not know if this question is appropriate in this forum, so if it is not, please tell me where to pose this question, and I will take it there.

For now, here are my questions.

The new energy recovery systems for the 2014 engine regs from what I understand are two fold. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, which is very likely since I am just now wrapping my head around the huge changes just around the corner in 2014.

One is a system for recovering braking energy (just like 2013 KERS but a hell-of-a-lot more powerful), and the other recovering turbo energy (the turbo has no waste gate so excess must go somewhere, and I know it can't be just punted out the tailpipe).

Ok, so I am unclear how exactly will the driver will control the deployment of these energies and what are the stipulations (rules) for the governing of said deployment? Simply put…

~ How much horse power will be avail to the driver to engage from these recovery systems?

~ Is there any computer automated delivery of the recovery systems--delivery not in the hands of the driver?

~ How many seconds per lap will this excess power be avail to the driver?

~ Are there race time stipulations for energy recovery in 2014 like DRS which has a requirement to be within a second of the car ahead in order to be used--are there any similar stipulations for the new recovery systems?

~ Finally, how are the energy recovery systems power delivered--a motor on the crankshaft(?), increased turbo spooling assistance(?), increased overall turbo speed at full throttle…?

Thank you for your time.

C

[xpensive]

The power, max 120 kW (163 Hp), is delivered through the same unit as the MGU-K, which is a motor/generator, to the crank.

Max delivery per lap will be 2 MJ (2000 kWs) which means you can enjoy 120 kW for 16.7 seconds.