2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[1158]

Some thoughts I have on the use of a waste-gate or not.

Maybe I'm off base here, but throwing out a thought.

Do you think the engineers will figure out what boost levels they want at higher RPMs and then calculate exhaust flow in upper RPM ranges and size the turbine based on the flow numbers they come up with and their target boost? This would be a very laggy turbo without the MGUH unit but with the aid of the MGUH unit it basically has no lag. In lower RPMs the turbo can not reach full boost. It would be the opposite of everything you would want to design in a normal turbo system but would not require a WG.

What I don't follow is how putting a load on the turbine would be able to control boost. I see several problems trying to slow the turbine down. Wouldn't this cause an increase in back pressure and thus flow just when you would need it most.

Again I may be missing something here so please keep the info coming!

[wuzak]

and that eliminates the need for a wastegate how?

Never said it did.

It is one part of controlling back pressure in the system.

[pgfpro]

Some thoughts I have on the use of a waste-gate or not.

Maybe I'm off base here, but throwing out a thought.

Do you think the engineers will figure out what boost levels they want at higher RPMs and then calculate exhaust flow in upper RPM ranges and size the turbine based on the flow numbers they come up with and their target boost? This would be a very laggy turbo without the MGUH unit but with the aid of the MGUH unit it basically has no lag. In lower RPMs the turbo can not reach full boost. It would be the opposite of everything you would want to design in a normal turbo system but would not require a WG.

What I don't follow is how putting a load on the turbine would be able to control boost. I see several problems trying to slow the turbine down. Wouldn't this cause an increase in back pressure and thus flow just when you would need it most.

Again I may be missing something here so please keep the info coming!

I think they will design the turbo around the 10500 rpm @ 100kg/hr of fuel rule. I think these engines are going to have a very small rpm range. I also think they will be very laggy without the use of the MGUH unit in power mode. But once there up in boost its all turbo at that point. I also think they will use lean A/F ratios to help with engine delta p. I also think the max VE of the engine will be at 10500 rpm and everything after will drop off drastically to keep boost higher. Sounds crazy I know LOL. So to answer the first part of your question they will be using a very large turbine by conventional standards that would never fit in today's world.

IMHO when the MGUH puts a load on the turbine it will make more back pressure due to the turbine wheel slowing down once past the 10500 rpm(engine starts flowing more air due to higher rpm so boost must decrease for fuel rule). This won't be a problem because of the extra large turbine housing and turbine wheel. If you look at the BG Match Bot link above you will see on the second one the great engine delta p and low manifold back pressure numbers. Plus look at the phi curve on the second link and see how far it is to the left. With an increase of back pressure from the MGUH will help the efficiency of the turbine by moving it to the right.

[1158]

I think they will design the turbo around the 10500 rpm @ 100kg/hr of fuel rule. I think these engines are going to have a very small rpm range. I also think they will be very laggy without the use of the MGUH unit in power mode. But once there up in boost its all turbo at that point. I also think they will use lean A/F ratios to help with engine delta p. I also think the max VE of the engine will be at 10500 rpm and everything after will drop off drastically to keep boost higher. Sounds crazy I know LOL. So to answer the first part of your question they will be using a very large turbine by conventional standards that would never fit in today's world.

As I was reading your previous post the other shoe dropped as they say. Actually it was as I was looking at the compressor maps in the links you provided. It makes prefect sense now, it is way out there, but makes sense. It is just hard to comprehend. I'm trying to get my 1.8 to make as much boost as possible as early as possible and in a sense they are doing the exact opposite!

IMHO when the MGUH puts a load on the turbine it will make more back pressure due to the turbine wheel slowing down once past the 10500 rpm(engine starts flowing more air due to higher rpm so boost must decrease for fuel rule). This won't be a problem because of the extra large turbine housing and turbine wheel. If you look at the BG Match Bot link above you will see on the second one the great engine delta p and low manifold back pressure numbers. Plus look at the phi curve on the second link and see how far it is to the left. With an increase of back pressure from the MGUH will help the efficiency of the turbine by moving it to the right.

I am just wondering if the turbine will start to surge similar to what a compressor wheel will do. If the flow is hammering the turbo while the MGUH is trying to slow down the wheel I can see all sorts of potential problems. Seems to me it would be very hard on the turbine wheels but maybe there is something they can do to limit its impact (if it is a problem at all), like a ported shroud on a compressor housing.

[WhiteBlue]

Much of the turbine strategy is already explained by Rob White in the Racecar Engineering article "the Parisian Power House". You find the over sizing and how they will avoid lagging by driving both MGUs at low rpm. Details on the idle rpm are found in the tech regulations. There you find that idle will be at 4000 rpm. This leads to a rev band of 4.000-12.000 rpm with max power @ 10.500 and falling boost from 10.500-12.000. The rev band above 10.500 is not ideal and will only be used for flexibility with the gearing IMO. By regulations you only have one set of eight gears that you must use for all circuits all year long. No change of gearing between races as it is now. So it is likely that they will give themselves some flexibility there whith the rev band. But due to falling power that upper rev band will not be used much.

As I have explained before and some other posters also concluded the highest power will be compounded by an engine that uses minimum or zero waste gating. So that has to be the goal every designer will be striving for. Ideally a waste gate if used at all will only be there for safety purposes. This is the inherent logic of the fuel capped formula. When something is necessary to win F1 designers will usually find a way to make it possible. So don't be surprised when they come up with solutions that you are not used to from conventional turbo design.

Personally I have no experience with designing turbos so I enjoy the input from you guys very much. I have quite a bit of experience with AC servo engines in multi axis applications. This tells me that the dynamics of this application will not be a problem. I'm aware that the high back pressure and the thermal loads will be a challenge for the materials and the design. But I trust the companies that are involved to know how to solve those challenges. They can't be greater than the challenge of a 500 bar direct injection system that runs beyond 10.500 rpm in stratified mode.

[Tommy Cookers]

In my experience it is very easy to stall a turbocharger. Controlling the load/output on the H/MG will be very difficult.

These electric servo units are incredibly fast in terms of control. They are much faster than any transient an ICE can produce under normal operating conditions.

A simple and efficient way to achieve fast and accurate current control in inverter-fed PMSMs is to utilize synchronous-frame PI controllers[38]. The mechanical dynamics can be neglected as they are typically much slower than the current dynamics.

I know no other mechatronic application that comes even close in terms of controllability and responsiveness. The finest hydraulic servo valves in the aerospace industry don't come even close to it.

this 2014 unit is a control type application (the design for generation will not be allowed to degrade motor performance in spoolup)
ie one that will essentially reject (overcome) acceleration related and velocity related loads eg in 'spooling up' etc

the best performance will only come from a heirarchy that allows a very high forward path gain
so that the 'fastest response' (highest frequency respones/bandwidth) will be at the top, ie the demand side (easy to achieve)
less high eg by about 1 order of magnitude will be the bandwidth of the power electronics ie the amplifier that drives the MG
similarly less high again will be the bandwidth of the MG as a naked device not connected to the turbo and power recovery turbine
(dominated by the MGs inertia)
and less high than that will be the bandwidth of the MG when connected to the turbo and PRT (which add another lot of inertia)

the system can never be better than this 'bottom end' bandwidth characteristic
so it won't be 'much faster' than the ICE transient
but the occasional transient won't hurt
and, in this 21 st century it will be fast enough for the to MG regulate the turbo/PRT (that's why they are doing it)

the mechanical dynamics of a machining process are (relatively) trivial so the WBs quoted source is inapplicable here

hydraulic servo valves allow hydraulic systems to do the most demanding control tasks that are still beyond electromechanicals
because the energy density of such 'top of the range' systems is huge and the inertia very low relative to this
so aircraft flying controls are this way, the mechanical dynamics are very demanding eg at 1000 mph
with aerodynamic instability, even higher bandwidth is required eg 30+ Hz with literally tons of added mass effect of air load variation
(some of the hydraulic servo-actuators that do this work are called 'all electric', but this just means the hydraulic pump is integral with the actuator, ie the plane having no other hydraulics)
DW said that the Lotus Active system had under load a 200 Hz bandwidth from its hydraulic actuators

BTW
brushless DC 'servo' (ie those good for control) motors and the modern types of AC servo motor are quite similar
maybe these terms are still producing confusion re what we call DC and what we call AC
IIRC some DC brushless was expected to be reclassified as AC

BTW BTW
the Wright T-C has about 6:1 CR and thereby lots of exhaust energy available to recover
the 2014 F1 rules appear to demand 87 Octane fuel
is this 87 max (no min) or 87 min (no max) or 87 min 87 max ???
important for the CR/ER and related recovery

[pgfpro]

I think they will design the turbo around the 10500 rpm @ 100kg/hr of fuel rule. I think these engines are going to have a very small rpm range. I also think they will be very laggy without the use of the MGUH unit in power mode. But once there up in boost its all turbo at that point. I also think they will use lean A/F ratios to help with engine delta p. I also think the max VE of the engine will be at 10500 rpm and everything after will drop off drastically to keep boost higher. Sounds crazy I know LOL. So to answer the first part of your question they will be using a very large turbine by conventional standards that would never fit in today's world.

As I was reading your previous post the other shoe dropped as they say. Actually it was as I was looking at the compressor maps in the links you provided. It makes prefect sense now, it is way out there, but makes sense. It is just hard to comprehend. I'm trying to get my 1.8 to make as much boost as possible as early as possible and in a sense they are doing the exact opposite!

IMHO when the MGUH puts a load on the turbine it will make more back pressure due to the turbine wheel slowing down once past the 10500 rpm(engine starts flowing more air due to higher rpm so boost must decrease for fuel rule). This won't be a problem because of the extra large turbine housing and turbine wheel. If you look at the BG Match Bot link above you will see on the second one the great engine delta p and low manifold back pressure numbers. Plus look at the phi curve on the second link and see how far it is to the left. With an increase of back pressure from the MGUH will help the efficiency of the turbine by moving it to the right.

I am just wondering if the turbine will start to surge similar to what a compressor wheel will do. If the flow is hammering the turbo while the MGUH is trying to slow down the wheel I can see all sorts of potential problems. Seems to me it would be very hard on the turbine wheels but maybe there is something they can do to limit its impact (if it is a problem at all), like a ported shroud on a compressor housing.

It is a whole different way of thinking on the new 2014 engine. I'm in the same boat with you trying to make as much boost at lower rpm as possible out of a 2.0L. I will eventually be doing a compound stage system to fix the issue;)

The turbine won't surge like a compressor for the fact that it is the opposite of the the compressor when it comes to flow across its wheel. The compressor wheel takes a low pressure atm and compresses it to a higher pressure on exit. The turbine takes high pressure and reduces it to low pressure on its exit. The higher the pressure differential the more efficient the turbine is to a point of extreme back pressure.

The back pressure and the loads on the turbine IMO will be lower then most turbo charge engines today. Back to Match Bot... compare some of today's turbos Turbine expansion Ratios to what the example on my second pre-set plot. The large turbine will have great EMP and EDP in the beginning and then when load is applied the will equal around what your average turbo of today.

Theirs one more part of the equation that has me in brain overload and that's the part when the MGUK kicks in and drops engine load. Kind like running a turbo car and approaching a downward hill the engine unloads and boost drops until the gate catches up. Still trying to wrap my head around this one???? LOL

[WhiteBlue]

the mechanical dynamics of a machining process are (relatively) trivial so the WBs quoted source is inapplicable here..

If you had a look at the quoted thesis you would have been aware that the application was automotive hybrid and not machine tool.

hydraulic servo valves allow hydraulic systems to do the most demanding control tasks that are still beyond electromechanicals
because the energy density of such 'top of the range' systems is huge ..

I'm well aware that electromagnetic actuators are less powerful than hydraulic actuators. But that wasn't the issue here. Nobody questioned that the AC MG is capable to balance the turbo instead of a waste gate in terms of excess torque. The issue was controllability in terms of responsiveness.

[autogyro]

It is not just a matter of speed in response.
There are a lot of things that have to be continualy balanced in this new powertrain.
If the main issues addressed are things like turbine control, it is possible the driver will no longer have full control of the car.

[xpensive]

I wouldn't take xactly everything Rob White says in an interview to the bank, specialist-press or not, just as little as I believe in those animated images that Renault have published. Not that xhaust and definetely not that intercooler.

[1158]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKhu42yW ... 4qS56ggOVf[/youtube]

The Racer's Edge this week dedicated to 2014 engines.

Only 16 Min in at this point but it is already quite interesting.

[1158]

Forgive my ignorance if this has already been covered. I have read much of this thread of the years it has been ongoing and can't remember a mention of this.

Will there be a blowoff valve/dump valve on these cars? Would one even be needed?

Instead of the blowoff valve/dump valve would teams just choose to pump the compressed air through the engine without adding fuel for the brief amount of time the throttle plates will be closed?

[pgfpro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKhu42yW ... 4qS56ggOVf

The Racer's Edge this week dedicated to 2014 engines.

Only 16 Min in at this point but it is already quite interesting.

Nice find!!! Do they have this every week?

[WhiteBlue]

Very good stuff from Scarbs. He has the same opinion on inter cooler design as me. That we will probably see one unit in one side pot with all the other stuff going in the other side. They mentioned that it will be an air-to-air cooler which necessitates bigger surfaces than an engine radiator.

A good point is that the crank shaft height has been lifted considerably. I think that nobody on this board has even realized that point in the regulations.

They also talked about the gear boxes and drive shafts becoming sturdier and that fewer teams will design their own gearboxes. Also they share the reliability concerns with all the six modules that can go wrong.

The mobile1 man confirmed that temperatures will be higher and that they are developing high knock resistant fuels for the DI. Those guys will have much on their plate as teams will also want fuels with high energy content per mass.

Also interesting was the speculation about the steering wheels and some of the info they had. They confirmed that drivers will be able to change the energy management mode during a lap to get certain characteristics for fast or slow corners. It will be fascinating to see that play out.

[xpensive]

Very good stuff from Scarbs. He has the same opinion on inter cooler design as me. That we will probably see one unit in one side pot with all the other stuff going in the other side. They mentioned that it will be an air-to-air cooler which necessitates bigger surfaces than an engine radiator.
...

That is definitely not what you predicted a few pages back WB, you mentioned a chargecooler, correct?