2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

I hate to admit this, but now think that 120 kW is possible

I still am a bit dubious on the MGUH getting the full 120kW.

If it did, would you think it would make it at the 10,500rpm max fuel flow point start, or at max revs, 15,000rpm, or somewhere in between?

What would that mean for the MGUK also? It would mean that the MGUK will be running at capacity for a greater amount of time than we originally thought. It will give upwards of 50% of th elap at 100%, plus whatever can be brought in from the ES due to brake recovery.

[WhiteBlue]

...If it did, would you think it would make it at the 10,500rpm max fuel flow point start, or at max revs, 15,000rpm, or somewhere in between?

Increasing the revs means different things:

• the amount of air going through the engine would be constant in order to maintain optimum AFR
• the dynamics of the exhaust pressure pulses and the compressor pulses would change to higher frequency and smaller mass flow per intake/exhaust event
• probably very little consequence for the turbine and the compressor
• increased mechanical friction in the ICE

My guess is that you would find the MGU will be harvesting less energy the higher you go beyond 10.500 rpm. That includes the assumption that the turbine and the compressor will deal with the different pulse mode without much impact on efficiency.
All that based on the assumption of constant stoichiometric AFR. You would have to add the caveat that AFR will not be constant across the whole rev range and we do not know where the stoichiometric range sets in. I take it as logical that we will see spray guided combustion which would enable lean mixture at idle speed and somewhat above. It is difficult to know where lean would change to stoichiometric, but I think we can assume it will be well under 10.500 rpm. Due to the nature of the formula I don't think the mixture will actually change beyond stoichiometric into rich. That would make no sense. Hence my assumption that all of the 10.500 - 15.000 rev band will be run with AFR=14.7, or whatever the stoichiometric ratio will be on that fuel.

[Tommy Cookers]

I think we're agreed the engines will never get anywhere near 15000
although the supercharger power required for 'engine A' 13000-15000 rpm is about half that for 'engine B' 10500-12000 rom
and we might think the piston HUCR would be higher in A
the DI has more scope for thermodynamic cleverness at B rpm ?, and the friction is less

the future may include lowering of fuel quantity and rate
as backpressure seems to boost combined efficiency without affecting combined power
IMO in 2014 etc we will see MGUH power maybe 10-12% of combined power
but this would rise if fuel was reduced (and min weight again increased ?)
this increased recovery by increasing backpressure seems to work with needing high CR
backpressure operation mainly affects the electrical side, so would not be impeded by engine freezes ?

IMO the MGUK was always likely to be working pretty hard, much of the time on MGUH-generated current used as generated

[WhiteBlue]

I think we're agreed the engines will never get anywhere near 15000..

No objections from me. It was Wuzak who was having doubts. 10.500 - 12.000 would make sense if you simply make use of the upper rev band to prevent running into the limiter as they do now. If your gearing is border line for one extreme circuit you accept the power loss to be more optimized for other average circuits.

[Holm86]

I believe they will hit just under 15.000 RPM's. But only on downshifts as I mentioned earlier

[ringo]

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

If it's a boost controller, it's a load. It would be using turbine energy would it not?

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

There is a very huge difference with a turbo characteristic and a dc motor characteristic, assuming they are using dc motors. have a look at a dc motor torque vs speed graph. trust me it's not going to be something very easy to do with a gasoline turbo engine.

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 turbo doesn't have a demand, it's the MGUH that does. the only demand you will see on the turbo is when it's off boost.
The turbo is the power source.

and the MGUHs essential job is to be the mechanism performing this match (and generate electricity only when appropriate)

It's job is to be a load. And that's all it will do. It's either a load on the turbo, or a load on the battery or energy store when it's spooling the turbo.

seamless and progressively proportionate transition from motoring to generation is what makes a servo-type control system

let's see, but you are only looking on it from a servo side of things. you are not looking on the other half, the half with the power.

(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
in electrical engineering terms this is (continuous) 4 quadrant operation
there's no significant discontinuities, delays, or deadbands

Explain this in plain english

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

All of that resource and investment in research when you only need to put a waste gate on the turbo. In fact that would make the MGUH even more easy to control and give it smoother operation.
What goes through the waste gate, you get it back under braking, simple as that. haha.We're talking a far more responsive engine, to get higher top speeds and better more predictable drivability, for a few drops of fuel. Get it back under braking, the ES will be full most of the time anyway.

[ringo]

[quote="WhiteBlue"
Increasing the revs means different things:

• the amount of air going through the engine would be constant in order to maintain optimum AFR
• the dynamics of the exhaust pressure pulses and the compressor pulses would change to higher frequency and smaller mass flow per intake/exhaust event
• probably very little consequence for the turbine and the compressor
• increased mechanical friction in the ICE

My guess is that you would find the MGU will be harvesting less energy the higher you go beyond 10.500 rpm. That includes the assumption that the turbine and the compressor will deal with the different pulse mode without much impact on efficiency.
All that based on the assumption of constant stoichiometric AFR. You would have to add the caveat that AFR will not be constant across the whole rev range and we do not know where the stoichiometric range sets in. I take it as logical that we will see spray guided combustion which would enable lean mixture at idle speed and somewhat above. It is difficult to know where lean would change to stoichiometric, but I think we can assume it will be well under 10.500 rpm. Due to the nature of the formula I don't think the mixture will actually change beyond stoichiometric into rich. That would make no sense. Hence my assumption that all of the 10.500 - 15.000 rev band will be run with AFR=14.7, or whatever the stoichiometric ratio will be on that fuel.[/quote]

I'm of the opinion the best harvest time is between 10,500 and 15,000. the steady power output is a good basis to harvest energy.
The pulses are faster at the higher engine speed. The turbo will love this. It will provide steadier power to the mgu, with less dependency on the inertia of the turbine when there is a lack of power pulse.
yes it will harvest at a slower rate, but if you are on a long straight, you have all the time in the world to fill the es.
as for lean mixtures, im not sure sure. an F1 engine is a binary switch, most of the time it's full demand from the right foot. there may be a few milliseconds on corner entry where the driver is on part throtle, or when he's coasting or brake off throttle.

[ringo]

I think we're agreed the engines will never get anywhere near 15000..

No objections from me. It was Wuzak who was having doubts. 10.500 - 12.000 would make sense if you simply make use of the upper rev band to prevent running into the limiter as they do now. If your gearing is border line for one extreme circuit you accept the power loss to be more optimized for other average circuits.

They will use it i feel. something tells me the friction power may have to be compared to the lower demand of the compressor before we assume they wont use those engine speeds. engine friction behaves very weirdly, we're not sure what the big difference is with 10,500 and 15000 rpm. it may depend on what the engine makers are seing on the dyno.

[matt21]

Mercedes engine in Monza

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/vide ... 20251.html

[gandharva]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebpkJXJ7CFo[/youtube]

[CBeck113]

With the car in the simulation they wouldn't have gotten busted for the Pirelli test

[Kiril Varbanov]

Someone has spent quite a lot of time getting this sound ready for the public. Good effort anyway, shows how far each manufacturer is. Ferrari have already refused to say anything until the end of the season.

[WhiteBlue]

They will use it i feel. something tells me the friction power may have to be compared to the lower demand of the compressor before we assume they wont use those engine speeds. engine friction behaves very weirdly, we're not sure what the big difference is with 10,500 and 15000 rpm. it may depend on what the engine makers are seing on the dyno.

But there is no certain lower demand of the compressor! At least I don't see it. There is no reason to go away from stoichiometric combustion IMO. And that means we will see the same air demand for the compressor. The only things that change are the frequency and the mass of the compressor pulses when the cylinders get filled.

[wuzak]

They will use it i feel. something tells me the friction power may have to be compared to the lower demand of the compressor before we assume they wont use those engine speeds. engine friction behaves very weirdly, we're not sure what the big difference is with 10,500 and 15000 rpm. it may depend on what the engine makers are seing on the dyno.

But there is no certain lower demand of the compressor! At least I don't see it. There is no reason to go away from stoichiometric combustion IMO. And that means we will see the same air demand for the compressor. The only things that change are the frequency and the mass of the compressor pulses when the cylinders get filled.

The boost required will be reduced from 10,500rpm to 15,000rpm.

[WhiteBlue]

They will use it i feel. something tells me the friction power may have to be compared to the lower demand of the compressor before we assume they wont use those engine speeds. engine friction behaves very weirdly, we're not sure what the big difference is with 10,500 and 15000 rpm. it may depend on what the engine makers are seing on the dyno.

But there is no certain lower demand of the compressor! At least I don't see it. There is no reason to go away from stoichiometric combustion IMO. And that means we will see the same air demand for the compressor. The only things that change are the frequency and the mass of the compressor pulses when the cylinders get filled.

The boost required will be reduced from 10,500rpm to 15,000rpm.

But not the air mass. As I have said the frequency of the pulses will increase and the pressure go down. The compressor still needs to feed the same mass flow. How would that look in the power balance? I reckon for lower pressure and the same mass flow the turbine has to go faster as well?