2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

Well, i'm very quiet on this, reason being i'm very cautious about apply those figures to an automotive engine and expect similar results. The aircraft operates in a very low pressure environment, with very low temperatures, maybe below zero at altitude and possibly steady speed. I wouldn't be so keen to apply the figures to a car that runs in a 1 atmosphere environment at normal temperatures.

my view is based on using the performance in a 1 atmosphere environment (aka sea level) Fig 7
it shows the value of - delta P of 20" Hg in maximising efficiency in this case
that's a difference in mean pressure across the turbine of 1 bar
in F1 this would be close to 2 bar, that alone should generate decent power
that's why the max efficiency delta P is greater (more negative) at greater ambient pressures
that's how power migrates from crankshaft to turbine

[xpensive]

You guys rock in this thread. I try to follow with my limited knowledge in ICE theory and English terminology and abbreviations. I think it would be fun to see who was closer to reality when the new power units hit the track.

As long as fuel-energy is limited to 46 MJ/kg and efficiency of the engine will not magically rise above 35%, 447 kW or 608 Hp
is the most you can get from the ICE at a 100 kg/h flow. Add 120 kW from the MGU and you have 567 kW or 771 Hp total.

That's all there is to it really, regardless of qualification or race.

[WhiteBlue]

As long as fuel-energy is limited to 46 MJ/kg and efficiency of the engine will not magically rise above 35%, 447 kW or 608 Hp is the most you can get from the ICE at a 100 kg/h flow. Add 120 kW from the MGU and you have 567 kW or 771 Hp total. That's all there is to it, regardless of qualification or race.

It is not quiet that simple. The 120 kW has to come from somewhere. I think the task is to figure out if it is feasible at all to reach this kind of MGU-K output in dual torque mode. I have some serious doubt that we will see this happen in Spa in the near future. It will be likely in Monaco if we get a reasonable amount of recovery or recovered kinetic energy from another lap is used. Ferrari have already indicated that it will not be possible to run with full power everywhere. So it will be important how high this power level is compared to today. It is already clear now that the restriction to 2MJ ES loading will produce different top end power for different circuits, with circuits of long laps to get the lowest power levels.

Next year it will be impossible to meter out the electric power by push of a button. You will have a dual torque electronic control which forces you to stretch your electric energy over the whole lap. I can imagine that they will have a wheel or lever which can be used to tweak the bias between ICE torque and electric torque, but there are limits to what you can do with such a device as a driver. There is no way around the fact that there is only a maximum of 2 MJ per race lap of electric energy which will provide on average one third of the power (40 kW) that the MGU-K can contribute to the wheels. So it becomes an item of interest how much surplus the turbine has after it has supplied the compressor. The compounded break thermal efficiency will be north of 35% so much is clear to me or we will not have a chance to see 771 bhp in a race, at least not over 65% of a full lap at full throttle.

[xpensive]

Yes it really is that simple.

The recovery or storage doesn't matter whatsoever, it's all about the output limitations, but you know this, don't you WB?

Again, max output power will always be the massflow times fuel's energy-content times efficiency, plus 120 kW from the MGU.

[WhiteBlue]

I have posted what I know and what I think will happen. I have also read what you think. It is not useful for this thread in my view to look at an unspecific power output figure without context of storage and recovery. You can tweak any electric output up to 120 kW if you simply drain the storage at a rate that is not sustainable over a lap. What is relevant in my view are the sustained compounded output rates in race trim and qualifying trim.

So I don't agree on that point. We had a difference of opinion about the fuel flow figure, didn't we? That was also resolves some day. It will be the same with this disagreement. One day we can go back to this page and find out.

[wuzak]

Look at it this way.

The current engines have a specific rpm at which they have maximum power. They are only ever at maximum power for a fraction of a second in each gear, except for top, where they achieve maximum speed.

Don't confuse WOT with maximum power. They could have WOT and be 2,000rpm below peak power, and be 100hp or more down from the peak.

Next year's ICE will have a flatter power curve from 10,500rpm. So it will not be necessary to have the MGUK at maximum power with WOT all the time. But they will get maximum MGUK power on straights.

Somewhere like Spa they will save the ES power for the straights, and use any excess for acceleration from corners.

[ringo]

You cannot really control back pressure.

I think the point is that with the MGUH you really can.

Well i was going to elaborate but didn't bother to. Back pressure is a side effect. Can't really consider it a control, that's like saying you use tyres to control brake temperatures.

We'll see anyway. I need these engines to be revealed in full detail now. I can't wait.

I'll play devil's advocate and stay out on the limb. Working with my cycle numbers i'd say MGUH @ 120kW to the flywheel is only 7% improvement with BSFC.
If it were unlimited it would be at best 10%
I'm not seeing how 22% will come about on this engine. The numbers don't add up with the power levels we have, the exhaust energy doesn't have that amount available at 10,500rpm.

[ringo]

Brake thermal efficiency
BTE0 = P0/E = 38 %
BTE1 = P1/E = 41%

what kind of heating values are you using?
Is this the value for the current V8?

[WhiteBlue]

Brake thermal efficiency
BTE0 = P0/E = 38 %
BTE1 = P1/E = 41%

what kind of heating values are you using?
Is this the value for the current V8?

1278 kW = E = e*f
46 MJ/kg = e
27.78 g/s = m/t = f
I have proposed that we use these values consistently in the absence of better information. I have mentioned that set of base figures also in the post where you found the efficiencies. When I see some evidence that the F1 fuel will have higher caloric content I will replace those figures, but at the time I try to be consistent with the data most of us used for the last two years.

Naturally E would be different for the V8 because the fuel flow would be approximately 35% higher. If I wanted to make a comparison I would start with the BTE that was agreed for the V8 some time ago in a dedicated thread. At the time all participants in the discussion in the end agreed to a BTE of 29% AFAIK. From there I would work out the fuel flow based on the same energy content.

When I use turbine compounded power to the crank I consider an efficiency of 90% for losses in the MGUs and the DC link.

[WhiteBlue]

You cannot really control back pressure.

I think the point is that with the MGUH you really can.

Well i was going to elaborate but didn't bother to. Back pressure is a side effect. Can't really consider it a control, that's like saying you use tyres to control brake temperatures.

We'll see anyway. I need these engines to be revealed in full detail now. I can't wait.

I'll play devil's advocate and stay out on the limb. Working with my cycle numbers i'd say MGUH @ 120kW to the flywheel is only 7% improvement with BSFC.
If it were unlimited it would be at best 10%
I'm not seeing how 22% will come about on this engine. The numbers don't add up with the power levels we have, the exhaust energy doesn't have that amount available at 10,500rpm.

I'm using a 7.7% BSFC improvement between ICE brake power and compounded brake power. That corresponds to 9.2 % MGU-H load of the base power because the compounding efficiency is only 90%.

[xpensive]

...
I have also read what you think. It is not useful for this thread in my view to look at an unspecific power output figure without context of storage and recovery. You can tweak any electric output up to 120 kW if you simply drain the storage at a rate that is not sustainable over a lap. What is relevant in my view are the sustained compounded output rates in race trim and qualifying trim.
...

In ll honesty, I don't have the faintest idea of what you are on about, how could the total output possibly be any more than the sum of max engine-power and the 120 kW from the MGU-K,is it just you deep faith in Marmorini's statement of 650 engine Hp?

[WhiteBlue]

Look at it this way.

The current engines have a specific rpm at which they have maximum power. They are only ever at maximum power for a fraction of a second in each gear, except for top, where they achieve maximum speed.

Don't confuse WOT with maximum power. They could have WOT and be 2,000rpm below peak power, and be 100hp or more down from the peak.

Next year's ICE will have a flatter power curve from 10,500rpm. So it will not be necessary to have the MGUK at maximum power with WOT all the time. But they will get maximum MGUK power on straights.

Somewhere like Spa they will save the ES power for the straights, and use any excess for acceleration from corners.

Next year there is a specific rule about the the throttle pedal position and the combined torque the control system must deliver. Unless the driver changes the bias between electric and ICE torque manually - which I assume is possible - WOT must correlate to the same electric torque demand. It should be possible to change maps between session but I understand that in a session the correlation map is fixed. So there is an inherent link between throttle position and electric power. For my calculation I have used the simplified assumption that the whole lap will be driven with constant torque bias. In reality this may not happen but for the purpose of energy and power balancing the assumption is useful I believe.

[pgfpro]

You guys kinda lost me also??? I see what your doing by trying to compare the Wright engine to today's engine but some of the things I would like to know is what were the turbine's efficiency back then???

Trying to match TC and WB outputs I come up with a compressor and turbine efficiency of 85% or better. Where today's best radial turbos are only at 78 % max.

[wuzak]

Look at it this way.

The current engines have a specific rpm at which they have maximum power. They are only ever at maximum power for a fraction of a second in each gear, except for top, where they achieve maximum speed.

Don't confuse WOT with maximum power. They could have WOT and be 2,000rpm below peak power, and be 100hp or more down from the peak.

Next year's ICE will have a flatter power curve from 10,500rpm. So it will not be necessary to have the MGUK at maximum power with WOT all the time. But they will get maximum MGUK power on straights.

Somewhere like Spa they will save the ES power for the straights, and use any excess for acceleration from corners.

Next year there is a specific rule about the the throttle pedal position and the combined torque the control system must deliver. Unless the driver changes the bias between electric and ICE torque manually - which I assume is possible - WOT must correlate to the same electric torque demand. It should be possible to change maps between session but I understand that in a session the correlation map is fixed. So there is an inherent link between throttle position and electric power. For my calculation I have used the simplified assumption that the whole lap will be driven with constant torque bias. In reality this may not happen but for the purpose of energy and power balancing the assumption is useful I believe.

What are you saying WB?

That when the driver has his foot to teh floor teh MGUK must deliver 100% of its power?

Or that when the ICE is delivering 85% of its maximum the MGUK must deliver 85% of its maximum?

[WhiteBlue]

Next year there is a specific rule about the the throttle pedal position and the combined torque the control system must deliver. Unless the driver changes the bias between electric and ICE torque manually - which I assume is possible - WOT must correlate to the same electric torque demand. It should be possible to change maps between session but I understand that in a session the correlation map is fixed. So there is an inherent link between throttle position and electric power. For my calculation I have used the simplified assumption that the whole lap will be driven with constant torque bias. In reality this may not happen but for the purpose of energy and power balancing the assumption is useful I believe.

What are you saying WB?

That when the driver has his foot to teh floor teh MGUK must deliver 100% of its power?

Or that when the ICE is delivering 85% of its maximum the MGUK must deliver 85% of its maximum?

Probably not the absolute maximum, but the maximum the computer finds it can give you in the constrains of his programming. The SECU must deliver a rising torque that is composed from both sources when the driver puts the foot down. I reckon that there will be clever programming which will allow the controller to adapt the temporary electric power output to the loading state of the battery, but essentially the controller must make a match between ICE torque and electric torque all the time.

As I have said I expect some sort of override control from the driver like a temporary higher electric output command. But I'm not sure that it will be legal. The wording is as usual ambiguous. You cannot sustain an excessive electric torque, for sure. So either the ES will run out on you or the controller will automatically re set his limits and start giving you lower electric torque from the next corner. I suspect it will be something like that.