2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

haven't we been lied to for 5 years about KERS, which we now find has never recovered even 1 Joule of genuine waste energy ?

there has been a continuous stream of propaganda about engine miracles which will change the world, starting with the Wankel rotary
I will believe 40% bte when I believe someone has discovered a new continent

ww won't find the truth about these engines until this F1 is superceded by the next
as happened with the 1987-8 Hondas or the more recent BMWs

[wuzak]

40% "Target", why be so shy, go for 50% while you're at it?

Disinformation seems to be the name of the game at the moment.

Coventry Climax were disuaded from using their new V8 F1 engine in the 1950s because of the reports of the power outputs for Ferrari's V6. Of course it was found later that the Ferrari power was somewhat less than publically stated....

[WhiteBlue]

40% "Target", why be so shy, go for 50% while you're at it?

Disinformation seems to be the name of the game at the moment.

Coventry Climax were disuaded from using their new V8 F1 engine in the 1950s because of the reports of the power outputs for Ferrari's V6. Of course it was found later that the Ferrari power was somewhat less than publically stated....

Mercedes was pioneering direct injection in racing engines in the 50ties. They have been doing research into the digital version of the technology for the last 20 years and have introduced many road car engines with cutting edge DI technology since 2006. So they are well into the game that is being played by the 2014 engines. They have also done considerable research into turbo charged DI SI engines. In my opinion from the brands currently represented in LMP1 and F1 they are the most experienced with gasoline DI engines at all. That even includes Audi who have dropped research to some degree when they finished the R8 design and went to diesels. Mercedes are also set to profit big time from any break through in technology that their F1 development can generate. Hence they are likely to make the funds to the high performance factory independent of racing considerations. I expect Merc to lead the power stakes next year as they do now with their V8. I also expect a mighty battle with Honda in 2015 when they come back. Honda have a similar philosophy when it comes to do cutting edge research in racing. I think they will be instantly very strong. Ferrari was behind the ball in the eighties and I do not expect that to change this time.

[wuzak]

40% "Target", why be so shy, go for 50% while you're at it?

Disinformation seems to be the name of the game at the moment.

Coventry Climax were disuaded from using their new V8 F1 engine in the 1950s because of the reports of the power outputs for Ferrari's V6. Of course it was found later that the Ferrari power was somewhat less than publically stated....

Mercedes was pioneering direct injection in racing engines in the 50ties. They have been doing research into the digital version of the technology for the last 20 years and have introduced many road car engines with cutting edge DI technology since 2006. So they are well into the game that is being played by the 2014 engines. They have also done considerable research into turbo charged DI SI engines. In my opinion from the brands currently represented in LMP1 and F1 they are the most experienced with gasoline DI engines at all. That even includes Audi who have dropped research to some degree when they finished the R8 design and went to diesels. Mercedes are also set to profit big time from any break through in technology that their F1 development can generate. Hence they are likely to make the funds to the high performance factory independent of racing considerations. I expect Merc to lead the power stakes next year as they do now with their V8. I also expect a mighty battle with Honda in 2015 when they come back. Honda have a similar philosophy when it comes to do cutting edge research in racing. I think they will be instantly very strong. Ferrari was behind the ball in the eighties and I do not expect that to change this time.

Based on what?

Back in the '80s Ferrari won two constructor's championships with turbo cars before anybody else did. They were quite competitive for most of the period, if not dominating like Honda did in '88.

But that was 30 years ago.

[xpensive]

You know X , I'm such a pedantic German character that I always want it written down and documented. And is it is not too much hassle for you to read all this disinformation I will keep documenting it.

But xcuse me, if it's written and documented as a target, by Andrew Benson at BBC at that, it's obviously true to happen.

[Tommy Cookers]

Mercedes was pioneering direct injection in racing engines in the 50ties.

this was the Bosch system
IIRC the system made no attempt to inject late in the compression stroke and in the earlier widespread aircraft use injection started before any compression, even before the inlet valve closure
the charge was effectively homogeneous, or at least had no intentional stratification, and conventional rich mixture was used
in racing the usual waste of fuel in blowback to the atmosphere and overrichness with extreme valve timing was prevented
this helped M-B in their substantial use of nitrobenzene (nitromethane-like) in the fuel, the Italians never had such
the Bosch system continued its success in the Vanwall car, later the Lucas PI became dominant

some M-B road cars (not just sports cars) had this Bosch system ???

in those days M-B race cars were designed and built by the same people who designed and built M-B road cars
not (as up to the present time) in the UK by people like Ilmor and those others

[WhiteBlue]

TCW, you are right about the old days. I mentioned it to show that the company was an early user of the concept. Probably also as a result of their aero engine history. Naturally in the pre digital days and before invention of piezo actuators injection in the compression phase did not exist.

But in the late nineties when Bosch developed their system the road car research branch of MB picked it up and they were the first users to bring out commercial engines with spray guided injection in 2005 or 2006. It is fair to assume that Bosch was not developing things in a vacuum. It is known that they reacted to requirements of automotive customers among them Mercedes. Other brands who were into DI were using wall and air guided combustion concepts, which leads to far heavier pistons and is less fuel efficient.

I do not know when exactly MB started with research activities into DI in England. But after their complete take over of Ilmor in 2005 it is known that they had a complete shake up of their structures with the effect that some resources and installations which had been in Germany and the states in the DaimlerChrysler times were transferred to England. They even build some new buildings to accommodate additional testing equipment and offices for more people. It was the time when the English company was known as MBHPE Ltd and much earlier than the take over of Brawn.

It was still under Mosley's time at the FiA in 2006 or 2007 when there was talk between the FiA and the GPMA about road relevance and a new energy saving formula. I'm pretty sure that Brixworth at that time was already doing research into DI racing engines based on the prior experience of the road car guys. We do not know which suppliers are into 500 bar DI technology for F1 now but it would be reasonable to assume that Merc and Bosch are still working very closely together. They share some 112 years of joint corporate history in motor racing.

My apologies to those who are here for the 2014 formula engines only for this little off topic excursion. But it may be interesting to those who follow the evolution of the DI concept into racing.

[ringo]

You know after looking at the calculation with the correct flow figures, 40% isn't really all that bad. They say they will achieve this, but let's wait and see.

at 40% efficiency Power in kilo Watts = 40% * 46000 kJ/kg * 0.0278 kg/s = 511.52kW = 685hp.

Now the power value doesn't look all that impressive, but for a 1.6lt with that little amount of fuel compared to the V8 engine, that is extremely impressive.
Now when mercedes said they will achieve 40% effiiciency, how will the overall efficiency look if 160hp is applied to the MGUK and goes back through the flywheel?

631.52kW / 0.0278 *46000 = 49%

very interesting claims. I don't have a position on it, as i really don't know what is going on at this stage with these numbers being bandied about. But if you follow the Mercedes figures, the horsepower output would be 845hp with the MGUH.

However, something tells me that 40% efficiency is at a certain load condition and engine speed, i don't think it would be seen much of the time. It seems almost diesel like.

[timbo]

Hmm, could it be that 40% is with ERS contribution?
If so, 685hp figure would be an average over lap, which makes sense for a peak power of ~750hp for 30 secs or so and the rest at ~630hp.

[ringo]

Some interesting reading:

maybe a wastegate wont be need, not sure, though this is for a generator/truck application.

steps to improve thermal efficiency:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... easley.pdf

electric turbo compounding:
intro:
[urlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2002/session8/2002_deer_hopmann.pdf][/url]
development:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... opmann.pdf

the improvement in fuel economy of 3 to 5% isn't what i expected. I guess this is based on their setup and intention.

[WhiteBlue]

Nice find Ringo!!! Did you notice that they claimed AFR control for petrol engines as one of the benefits. Also as you mentioned in the previous post no waste gate needed!! And a significant reduction of fuel use which would be very application specific and dependent on the size of the turbine and other things like exhaust header insulation.

[ringo]

I have a feeling a waste gate may be included. If you notice these are diesel engines for trucks or generators that basically operate at steady state. Also the turbines are built for one sweet spot.

I'm open to it not needing one, but the transients is the issue with the MGUH on the turbine.
That's the advantage with the mechanical compound, the load is isolated from the turbo.

Usually turbines operate at steady speed to give their best efficiency. If there is a change in load, the speed will change, the mass flow must be altered to maintain speed. They call this droop control.
Now i'm in favour of a computer controlled waste gate doing this. An F1 engine sees rapid changes in load conditions and engine speeds.The MGUH as stated before is a load and it still doesn't address the problem with back pressure and exhaust mass flow.
What i have learnt from these articles though, is that there are physical limitations to the generator, which caps its output, hence the small gains in fuel efficiency from it. So i am no reassessing whether it can provide a steady 120kW or more flow of power.
The MGUH must operate in a way that it doesn't shock the turbine and send the compressor into the surge margin.
Also the life of the turbine is a concern, there will be a lot of thermal fatigue on the blades with the MGUH behaving as boost control. So you may expect to have a much shorter life span on a turbine that will be braked to control boost.

Another thing to note, the smaller the MGUH capacity, the lower it's capability to control the boost.

[WhiteBlue]

Usually turbines operate at steady speed to give their best efficiency. If there is a change in load, the speed will change, the mass flow must be altered to maintain speed. They call this droop control.
Now i'm in favour of a computer controlled waste gate doing this. An F1 engine sees rapid changes in load conditions and engine speeds.The MGUH as stated before is a load and it still doesn't address the problem with back pressure and exhaust mass flow.
What i have learnt from these articles though, is that there are physical limitations to the generator, which caps its output, hence the small gains in fuel efficiency from it. So i am no reassessing whether it can provide a steady 120kW or more flow of power.
The MGUH must operate in a way that it doesn't shock the turbine and send the compressor into the surge margin.
Also the life of the turbine is a concern, there will be a lot of thermal fatigue on the blades with the MGUH behaving as boost control. So you may expect to have a much shorter life span on a turbine that will be braked to control boost.
Another thing to note, the smaller the MGUH capacity, the lower it's capability to control the boost.

Most of this sounds logical to me. The obvious strategy for an over sized turbine would be to control the load by the MGU and only step in if there is a run away situation that cannot be avoided by good design and control. I can't say if such an interdictionary element is needed. But we can be very sure that activating it will be avoided as much as possible.

[Tommy Cookers]

IThe MGUH as stated before is a load and it still doesn't address the problem with back pressure and exhaust mass flow.
What i have learnt from these articles though, is that there are physical limitations to the generator, which caps its output, hence the small gains in fuel efficiency from it.

I don't know why you keep categorizing the MGUH as a load
the existence or non-existence of this conceptual load will be determined by actual MGUH behaviour in use

the MGUH will be the sharp end of a velocity-controlled 'servo' system
that will continuously (ie progressively and powerfully) control the ''turbo' rpm to be always matched to the engine's needs
this matching is crucial and must be dominant by design
the rpm being ideal for the engine, the only MGUH loading of the engine is exactly what the engine 'wants' to do its designed job

the 'turbo rpm' demand will be continuously generated ie appropriately time-varied by part-intelligent control
this appropriate time-variation of rpm constitutes the matching of 'turbo rpm' to the engines time-varying needs and capabilities
the MGUHs essential job is to implement this match (generating/consuming electricity always determined by this match))

seamless and progressively proportionate transition from motoring to generation is what makes a servo-type control system
(a servo drive will always have onboard (capacitive) energy storage for this, it's essential for good control performance)
all servo motors and their drives are MGUs
this means 4 quadrant drive design features (specific to allowing continuous bidirectional drive and bidirectional regeneration)
although we have only unidirectional rotation
there's no significant discontinuities, delays, or deadbands

of course the rpm control could fail to match rpm eg if there is insufficient or excess stored electrical energy
that sort of thing is an issue in what must be a subordinate area of design, it does not invalidate the concept
there's nothing that's 'not to like' about the MGUH control concept, under these rules
these rules were designed by people who knew what they were doing, and knew what they wanted

[Tommy Cookers]

I have a feeling a waste gate may be included. If you notice these are diesel engines ........

reassessing whether it can provide a steady 120kW or more flow of power.

diesel engines must always have large excess of air (because the fuel is reluctant to burn)
so turbocharging must increase the air massflow to allow more fuel flow and more power
ie diesels are crying out to be turbocharged, but there is relatively less surplus for recovery (than our case)

the Wright T-C brochures (early 50s) stress that recovery was without back pressure ie no loss of piston-to-crankshaft power
earlier NACA work on this engine showed that recovery increased with back pressure (up to -0.7 bar deltaP was used)
this reduced the piston-to-crankshaft power in line with the increased recovery, but greatly improved the efficiency
the recovery rose to become about 25% of the combined power (axial flow turbine of 85% efficiency)
backpressure running did not increase combined power, but greatly improved the bsfc

this eficiency gain was due to the reduced pressure drop at the exhaust ports during blowdown
WW2 was not run under efficiency rules, unlike new F1
I hate to admit this, but now think that 120 kW is possible