2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[matt21]

I had another look in the regulations.

Do you think it is possible that any manufacturer is about to abandon an alternator and battery and supply all electric driven ancilleries by the ES system, as this is allowed with an unlimited amount.

I would use an small alternator with controlled excitation or clutch and only use it if the ERS is failing to further enhance efficency.

Regarding efficency:
Rémi Taffin is stating in an interview that they will achieve 40 to 45 percent efficency with the complete power unit.

[WhiteBlue]

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.

Wright used axial turbines with 85% efficiency. The supercharger was on the same level. That is the efficiency level I also expect from F1, or better.

[WhiteBlue]

Regarding efficency:
Rémi Taffin is stating in an interview that they will achieve 40 to 45 percent efficency with the complete power unit.

I have googled it and I can confirm that he said 40-45%. So my 41% is not so outlandish as some people here feel.
http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 80901.html
Dieter Rencken is reporting and he is probably he best source you can find in the business.

[WhiteBlue]

Do you think it is possible that any manufacturer is about to abandon an alternator and battery and supply all electric driven ancilleries by the ES system, as this is allowed with an unlimited amount.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

[WhiteBlue]

...
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?

No, I try to reconcile all the data I keep hearing. Merc are going for 40% BTE we have heard before. Now we get 40-45% from Renault's Remi Taffin and Dieter Rencken today. Brake thermal efficiency in the end is not influenced by storage. It also includes in my book the sustainable part of the mechanical power that comes via electric compounding. If we believe Mr. Taffin we can expect:
BTE = 40% => P1 = 511.2 kW = 686 bhp sustained power at the flywheel before any contribution from ES
BTE = 45% => P1 = 575.1 kW = 771 bhp sustained power at the flywheel before any contribution from ES

Depending of the circuit characteristics we could see another 40 kW from reclaimed and stored kinetic energy in race mode. If the BTE reaches 45% we can expect to have MGU-K saturation from both the MGU-H and the ES at 811 bhp or 605 kW.

[wuzak]

...
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?

No, I try to reconcile all the data I keep hearing. Merc are going for 40% BTE we have heard before. Now we get 40-45% from Renault's Remi Taffin and Dieter Rencken today. Brake thermal efficiency in the end is not influenced by storage. It also includes in my book the sustainable part of the mechanical power that comes via electric compounding. If we believe Mr. Taffin we can expect:
BTE = 40% => P1 = 511.2 kW = 686 bhp sustained power at the flywheel before any contribution from ES
BTE = 45% => P1 = 575.1 kW = 771 bhp sustained power at the flywheel before any contribution from ES

Depending of the circuit characteristics we could see another 40 kW from reclaimed and stored kinetic energy in race mode. If the BTE reaches 45% we can expect to have MGU-K saturation from both the MGU-H and the ES at 811 bhp or 605 kW.

From Google translating the previous linked article Taffin says "maybe 45%", from which I infer it is a long off distant target.

40%, including MGUH power, I can believe. Total power on the main straight a Monza will still be around 800hp.

And if they do get to 45%, expect there to be major gains in the ICE efficiency, as it would be doubtful that all that extra power would come from energy recovery by itself.

[WhiteBlue]

From Google translating the previous linked article Taffin says "maybe 45%", from which I infer it is a long off distant target.

40%, including MGUH power, I can believe. Total power on the main straight a Monza will still be around 800hp.

And if they do get to 45%, expect there to be major gains in the ICE efficiency, as it would be doubtful that all that extra power would come from energy recovery by itself.

Yes, the German wording translated is: "40% perhaps 45".
So I'm pretty well positioned with 41% just above his lower estimate and with a bit of upside in it.
I agree that at 45% Marmorini's upper limit of 650 bhp for the ICE only could be exceeded.

[xpensive]

"2014, we are with the engine an overall efficiency of 40, maybe achieve 45 percent something like And that sounds like a magic number to, as soon as the engine of a normal road cars we are a maximum of 30, 35 percent..."

My interpretation of that statement is that the output is crank-power plus MGU-H, which would mean the following;

a) 40% of 27.8 g/s at 46 kJ/g means a total of 511 kW (695 Hp).

b) 35% efficiency of the engine itself means 448 kW (610 Hp).

c) 511 - 448 = 63 kW (85 Hp) from the MGU-H.

Makes sense?

[matt21]

Do you think it is possible that any manufacturer is about to abandon an alternator and battery and supply all electric driven ancilleries by the ES system, as this is allowed with an unlimited amount.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

I didn´t refer to engine ancilleries, but other electric powered things like ECU´s, valves etc.

[wuzak]

"2014, we are with the engine an overall efficiency of 40, maybe achieve 45 percent something like And that sounds like a magic number to, as soon as the engine of a normal road cars we are a maximum of 30, 35 percent..."

My interpretation of that statement is that the output is crank-power plus MGU-H, which would mean the following;

a) 40% of 27.8 g/s at 46 kJ/g means a total of 511 kW (695 Hp).

b) 35% efficiency of the engine itself means 448 kW (610 Hp).

c) 511 - 448 = 63 kW (85 Hp) from the MGU-H.

Makes sense?

I think he was saying that the new F1 engines will be 5-10% more efficient than normal road cars.

[wuzak]

Do you think it is possible that any manufacturer is about to abandon an alternator and battery and supply all electric driven ancilleries by the ES system, as this is allowed with an unlimited amount.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

I didn´t refer to engine ancilleries, but other electric powered things like ECU´s, valves etc.

Valves?

[WhiteBlue]

Do you think it is possible that any manufacturer is about to abandon an alternator and battery and supply all electric driven ancilleries by the ES system, as this is allowed with an unlimited amount.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

I didn´t refer to engine ancilleries, but other electric powered things like ECU´s, valves etc.

Valves cannot be electrically driven. That would enable variable valve timing which is prohibited.

5.9.2 Variable valve timing and variable valve lift profile systems are not permitted.

It follows that valves must be mechanically driven.
The 2014 cars must continue to have a low voltage supply network which is normally supplied from an alternator. I think nothing will change with regard to that. They would have to install a particular inverter to supply the network from the high power ES. That would also mean that the electric and electronic system would fail if there is an ES failure. It would be a problem for all fail safe installations. So I think the normal alternator and board electricity network will remain untouched.

[WhiteBlue]

My interpretation of that statement is that the output is crank-power plus MGU-H, which would mean the following;

a) 40% of 27.8 g/s at 46 kJ/g means a total of 511 kW (695 Hp).

b) 35% efficiency of the engine itself means 448 kW (610 Hp).

c) 511 - 448 = 63 kW (85 Hp) from the MGU-H.

Makes sense?

a) is the same that I have quoted as the minimum BTE and brake power according to Taffin. So, yes that is ok.
b) 35% clearly was a reference to road car engines and has nothing to do with the ICE engine in an F1 car
C) is speculation as b) is erroneous in my view. But if we assume for a moment that ICE brake power was 448 then the MGU-H power at the turbine shaft would be approximately 10% higher than your number. It would have to be to cover the losses of several power conversions.
1. turbine shaft mechanical -> electrical AC in the MGU-H
2. AC -> DC
3. DC -> AC
4. AC -> mechanical in the MGU-K

[WhiteBlue]

Renault also claim that the 2014 F1 engine will be the most efficient vehicle ever put on wheels, which I doubt very much.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10 ... rgeti.html
There are already turbodiesels reaching 45% efficiency and Cummins are targeting 50% with a Rankine cycle steamer, which by chance is also the system BMW have researched in 2006.

[xpensive]

...
b) 35% clearly was a reference to road car engines and has nothing to do with the ICE engine in an F1 car
...

I believe that you're taking statements like the one in question way to literally WB, even if they are published in the specialized press, I think 35% would be xtremely good coming from any kind of otto-engine.