2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

What is the worst thing that can happen with an over-boost as long as the fuel-flow is limited, won't the throttles govern this?

Please xplain pg.

As a real example on my Talon I was tuning and working on the timing and fuel maps a couple weeks ago. My waste-gate boost controler line blew off and the wastegate went completely closed. Boost spike instantly!!! The duty cycle that I'm at is at 90% under normal boost conditions. In my fuel map anything over my max boost conditions or 92% I pull all of the fuel out as in 0% duty cycle. Also in my timing maps the same deal but instead of all fuel remove it goes into timing retard at -8*.

If I were to just let it keep increasing in boost and not pull all the fuel and timing it would have enough fuel and timing to detonate and kill the engine.

In my example its a lot like what F1 will see with their fuel flow limit.

But you figure it reasonable that the enginebuilders in F1 can see this already , or do you fear problems ahead?

[bhall]

5.2.4 The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the exhaust turbine of a pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.

The rotational speed of the MGU-H may not exceed 125,000rpm.

Does that mean the turbo can spin freely if necessary?

[Holm86]

5.2.4 The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the exhaust turbine of a pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.

The rotational speed of the MGU-H may not exceed 125,000rpm.

Does that mean the turbo can spin freely if necessary?

That's how I see it yes.

[pgfpro]

What is the worst thing that can happen with an over-boost as long as the fuel-flow is limited, won't the throttles govern this?

Please xplain pg.

As a real example on my Talon I was tuning and working on the timing and fuel maps a couple weeks ago. My waste-gate boost controler line blew off and the wastegate went completely closed. Boost spike instantly!!! The duty cycle that I'm at is at 90% under normal boost conditions. In my fuel map anything over my max boost conditions or 92% I pull all of the fuel out as in 0% duty cycle. Also in my timing maps the same deal but instead of all fuel remove it goes into timing retard at -8*.

If I were to just let it keep increasing in boost and not pull all the fuel and timing it would have enough fuel and timing to detonate and kill the engine.

In my example its a lot like what F1 will see with their fuel flow limit.

But you figure it reasonable that the enginebuilders in F1 can see this already , or do you fear problems ahead?

I'm sure the F1 engineers already see this and by all means are light years ahead of my back yard building and killing parts as I go type of person.lol

But I do see this method I use and many others as a easy and very will used way of avoiding over boost problems.

[WhiteBlue]

It looks to me as if we have several alternatives to the use of a waste gate in failure modes. If I would have to make choices my vote would go to pgf's method. No hardware, no weight involved and just a software tweak with some proven track record in back yard engineering. Those are the coolest solutions you can possibly come across, unless obviously we find some more substantial facts to consider. Kudos to all the good input providers from me.

[1158]

What is the worst thing that can happen with an over-boost as long as the fuel-flow is limited, won't the throttles govern this?

Please xplain pg.

As a real example on my Talon I was tuning and working on the timing and fuel maps a couple weeks ago. My waste-gate boost controler line blew off and the wastegate went completely closed. Boost spike instantly!!! The duty cycle that I'm at is at 90% under normal boost conditions. In my fuel map anything over my max boost conditions or 92% I pull all of the fuel out as in 0% duty cycle. Also in my timing maps the same deal but instead of all fuel remove it goes into timing retard at -8*.

If I were to just let it keep increasing in boost and not pull all the fuel and timing it would have enough fuel and timing to detonate and kill the engine.

In my example its a lot like what F1 will see with their fuel flow limit.

Your post got me thinking about something. I was messing around with my EMS setting boost by gear tables...basically a calculated way of traction control. I know there is the wording for power demand/delivery being linked but would limiting boost in lower gears and thus power be legal?

As an example: in second gear I have boost limited to 10psi or so (increases from 8psi at 4.5k to 10psi at 8k). I don't get a lot of wheel spin and don't have to worry about modulating the throttle much. In 3rd gear boost increases to 20-21psi late in the rev range and in 4th gear I have 20-21psi from 4.5k on. I'm guessing this would be illegal but was wondering if it falls in a grey area.

[WhiteBlue]

Interesting thought! I cannot think of a specific paragraph in the tech regs that would stop you explicitly. But there is the thing that torque demand must be strictly dependent of the throttle pedal position. There could be tech directives in the future that would ban different mappings on a gear specific basis. You know that all such programming is subject to FiA authorization. MES will not do it for you unless you get the green light. You cannot implement such a thing by parametric setting unless it is programmed at some time.

[1158]

Interesting thought! I cannot think of a specific paragraph in the tech regs that would stop you explicitly. But there is the thing that torque demand must be strictly dependent of the throttle pedal position. There could be tech directives in the future that would ban different mappings on a gear specific basis. You know that all such programming is subject to FiA authorization. MES will not do it for you unless you get the green light. You cannot implement such a thing by parametric setting unless it is programmed at some time.

I would love to get a look at the program used to interface with ECU to see if there is any way of doing this. I know that will never happen, but one can dream. I'm sure that if a team figured out a way to do it as soon as another team caught wind of it they would ask FIA for clarification and a TD would be issued banning it. Assuming that it hasn't already been banned and just not posted.

I find the torque demand dependent on throttle position wording quite interesting. To me that implies that it would be legal. The driver is getting all of the torque he or she is demanding, the overall torque is just limited in the lower gears by the boost levels. When I'm in second I have the pedal all the way to the floor. I am getting full power for that boost level it's just I'm not realizing all the power the engine is capable of. In that sense it would be no different from the lower power fuel settings teams use. They are still getting 100% torque demand at full throttle but the fuel settings are limiting the total power.

[pgfpro]

Interesting thought! I cannot think of a specific paragraph in the tech regs that would stop you explicitly. But there is the thing that torque demand must be strictly dependent of the throttle pedal position. There could be tech directives in the future that would ban different mappings on a gear specific basis. You know that all such programming is subject to FiA authorization. MES will not do it for you unless you get the green light. You cannot implement such a thing by parametric setting unless it is programmed at some time.

I would love to get a look at the program used to interface with ECU to see if there is any way of doing this. I know that will never happen, but one can dream. I'm sure that if a team figured out a way to do it as soon as another team caught wind of it they would ask FIA for clarification and a TD would be issued banning it. Assuming that it hasn't already been banned and just not posted.

I find the torque demand dependent on throttle position wording quite interesting. To me that implies that it would be legal. The driver is getting all of the torque he or she is demanding, the overall torque is just limited in the lower gears by the boost levels. When I'm in second I have the pedal all the way to the floor. I am getting full power for that boost level it's just I'm not realizing all the power the engine is capable of. In that sense it would be no different from the lower power fuel settings teams use. They are still getting 100% torque demand at full throttle but the fuel settings are limiting the total power.

Good stuff!!!

Both of your posts have my own thoughts also? Then you throw the MGUK kicking in and it gets really crazy.

[ringo]

I find the torque demand dependent on throttle position wording quite interesting. To me that implies that it would be legal. The driver is getting all of the torque he or she is demanding, the overall torque is just limited in the lower gears by the boost levels. When I'm in second I have the pedal all the way to the floor. I am getting full power for that boost level it's just I'm not realizing all the power the engine is capable of. In that sense it would be no different from the lower power fuel settings teams use. They are still getting 100% torque demand at full throttle but the fuel settings are limiting the total power.

Fuel settings and also your boost control, aka your waste gate.
Gotta maintain your A:F ratios when you reduce that fuel after all.

Hard to exclude the wastegate from the situation.

[Richard]

The torque/energy dimension game is over.

Can we get back on topic please?

[Holm86]

Interesting thought! I cannot think of a specific paragraph in the tech regs that would stop you explicitly. But there is the thing that torque demand must be strictly dependent of the throttle pedal position. There could be tech directives in the future that would ban different mappings on a gear specific basis. You know that all such programming is subject to FiA authorization. MES will not do it for you unless you get the green light. You cannot implement such a thing by parametric setting unless it is programmed at some time.

I would love to get a look at the program used to interface with ECU to see if there is any way of doing this. I know that will never happen, but one can dream. I'm sure that if a team figured out a way to do it as soon as another team caught wind of it they would ask FIA for clarification and a TD would be issued banning it. Assuming that it hasn't already been banned and just not posted.

I find the torque demand dependent on throttle position wording quite interesting. To me that implies that it would be legal. The driver is getting all of the torque he or she is demanding, the overall torque is just limited in the lower gears by the boost levels. When I'm in second I have the pedal all the way to the floor. I am getting full power for that boost level it's just I'm not realizing all the power the engine is capable of. In that sense it would be no different from the lower power fuel settings teams use. They are still getting 100% torque demand at full throttle but the fuel settings are limiting the total power.

I think you're right. Otherwise the MGU's would have to give you full boost every time you floor the throttle. It would not be legal for the MGU's to deliver different amounts of energy. It would have to be the same all the time.

So I do think you would be allowed to have different boost maps in different gears.

Great thought you came up with!!

[WhiteBlue]

5.5.3 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry-weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet-weather tyres.
5.5.4 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

§ 5.5.3 is relevant and in my view it excludes the gear specific maps. There may be a small ambiguity because gears are not explicitly mentioned, but I think the intention is clear. One dry map and one wet map and that is it.

[xpensive]

...
Hard to exclude the wastegate from the situation.

I agree, to control boost only with the MGU-H, while sending the harvest directly to the MGU-K, will be a regulating nightmare.

Or so I believe

[1158]

5.5.3 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry-weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet-weather tyres.
5.5.4 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

§ 5.5.3 is relevant and in my view it excludes the gear specific maps. There may be a small ambiguity because gears are not explicitly mentioned, but I think the intention is clear. One dry map and one wet map and that is it.

I'm not sure it does exclude it. I don't know maybe I am not comprehending something properly. You guys are much better with deciphering the F1 wording than I am. The way I see it the throttle map remains unchanged. I can try and post a datalog from my car if it would help. There is no change in my TPS calibration from 1st gear to 5th gear (to me this corresponds to the throttle torque demand map). The only change comes with the amount of boost the solenoid/wastegate allow the turbo to produce.