2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

...
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.

He wasn't referring to otto engines but to road cars in general. We do have a huge population of turbo diesels in Europe and the best are certainly doing 35%. I just posted a link above showing that commercial turbo diesels are well above that level and pushing towards 50%.

[krisfx]

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.

From what I've heard and read. The current F1 engines are already more efficient than road cars. The problem comes with aerodynamic drag etc and the rpm they run at, I could be wrong but I heard somewhere that the engine as a unit is more efficient than a prius engine if you took away these factors. Someone will probably prove me wrong, though!

[WhiteBlue]

From what I've heard and read. The current F1 engines are already more efficient than road cars. The problem comes with aerodynamic drag etc and the rpm they run at, I could be wrong but I heard somewhere that the engine as a unit is more efficient than a prius engine if you took away these factors. Someone will probably prove me wrong, though!

Current F1 V8 have 29% brake thermal efficiency (BTE) with petrol that is basically composed from the same ingredients as road car petrol. Historic turbo F1 cars have reached 30.6% BTE with fuel that was specially composed from n-heptane and toluene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_ef ... on_engines for typical efficiency figures
Turbo diesel powered road cars - as Taffin said - reach 35% BTE on high rpm with diesel fuel, outperforming F1 engines in efficiency. Slow running turbo diesels get 40% efficiency as the Wiki above explains.

Trucks with 4-stroke turbo diesels get as high as 45% BTE and reasearch for 50% is on its way. Very large marine and land based 2-stroke turbo diesels with waste heat recovery (WHR) are pushing 51-55% BTE with multiple steam and rankine cycles in the conversion chain.

[dren]

What about adding the extra ES to the top rev range like this:



Then the driver can shift depending on how much ES storage there is. This is based on 35% ICE efficiency and an overall power unit efficiency of 40%. It forces the recovery % to be 15... And of course the ES power curve doesn't have to be linear, I just made it that way.

Actually, this would make sense since it will likely vary from race to race how much ES you can store from the MGUK during braking. You could vary your ES power curve in this 4.5k range to suit the track. Maybe have the last 1k of revs to have a large ES power spike so you only use it on the long straights when you've got the engine tach maxed. I don't know if there is a rev limiter that's driver adjustable on the fly or not, but this would enable a sort of push to use.

[WhiteBlue]

The ES curve theoretically is not variable with engine rpm. But with dual torque control the curve will probably have to run with rpm and you may not be able to feed the energy in at 10.500 as you suggest here.

5.5 Power unit torque control :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator) pedal.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry-weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet-weather tyres.
5.5.4 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.5 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

On second thought it strikes me that the torque demand would still be monotonic although the gradient isn't constant. ES feed in at the point of constant fuel flow could be permitted then, but would it be an advantage?

I see the difficulty for the energy management system to calculate how much energy it feeds in from the ES. What kind of algorithm or program do you suggest to solve that problem?

[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.

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.

OK that makes me feel better about my engine models now.

I know for fact that turbo's today the ones the manufacturers sale are only at 78% max. IMO a lot of this is because today's turbo's have a target of 40% waste gated mass exhaust flow, quote from Borge Warner (When as much as 40% of the flow needs to pass through the wastegate at maximum power, a flow-optimized solution is needed...) So if they could utilize all the exhaust mass flow through the turbine I could see a large increase in efficiency.

[dren]

I see the difficulty for the energy management system to calculate how much energy it feeds in from the ES. What kind of algorithm or program do you suggest to solve that problem?

I will have to go dig through the regulations to see if the computer can vary the rpm limit based on ES storage.

Based on the track, you'd have a rev map the computer would reference so it would have an idea where on track you are. I don't think GPS is allowed for this?

The computer would have to know ahead of time how much ES is to be demanded (this is where track position comes in), and then based on actual ES, it would set the rev limit accordingly based on the preset ES power curve.

This way you are always getting the demanded total power unit torque based on accelerator pedal position and RPM.

There will be some sort of ES storage indication for the driver. He will be able to short shift if he doesn't want to use up the ES.

Based on my previous calculations, I suspect it will be hard to fill the ES the full 2MJ from only the MGUK in one lap.

Or of course you could downsize your ES storage and not worry about any of the above, but then not get the power benefit.


Ok, I guess you don't actually need an RPM limit imposed by the computer based on ES reserves (although it'd be nice on a long straight to hold RPM if it knows going higher will exhaust the reserves before you brake), you just simply run out of ES power at some point. The regs state the demand for torque has to be there, it doesn't state that the power unit has to actually be able to create the torque.

[WhiteBlue]

OK that makes me feel better about my engine models now.

I know for fact that turbo's today the ones the manufacturers sale are only at 78% max. IMO a lot of this is because today's turbo's have a target of 40% waste gated mass exhaust flow, quote from Borge Warner (When as much as 40% of the flow needs to pass through the wastegate at maximum power, a flow-optimized solution is needed...) So if they could utilize all the exhaust mass flow through the turbine I could see a large increase in efficiency.

http://turbo.honeywell.com/our-technolo ... ochargers/
http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/ ... tation.pdf
Honeywell have started to make turbines and compressors in that efficiency class.

[Holm86]

Yes that Honeywell turbo concept is pretty nice. I wonder if we will see something similar on the new F1 engines.

I definitely agree with you WB that turbos should be axial flow.

[WhiteBlue]

Axial turbines have been dismissed in the past due to high cost, but lately they have become much cheaper as a company called Bladon Jets have started to machine very complex geometries for blades and disk combined out of one solid block of material with the EDM erosion process. That was reported for small, affordable range extender and home generation turbines with multiple axial stages. The technology is called BLISK:

http://www.bladonjets.com/technology/blisk/



I bet that F1 turbo makers could even afford the cost of multi stage axial turbines, but unfortunately they are forbidden.

If you check into the Honeywell concept you find that dual sided compressors are a big advantage as well. They show massively improved transient behaviour, create a natural axial load balance which reduces bearing forces and they reduce the diameter needed.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz0qZpxXnLg[/youtube]

[dren]

Yes, that's a good read. Too bad they don't allow the multi stage axial flow turbines. But surely we'll see some greatly improved bearings and inertia reductions in these turbos compared to industry standards.

[Tommy Cookers]

FWIW
the HCV of iso-octane (the stuff that is our 100 Octane reference fuel) is 48 MJ/kg

[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.

He wasn't referring to otto engines but to road cars in general. We do have a huge population of turbo diesels in Europe and the best are certainly doing 35%. I just posted a link above showing that commercial turbo diesels are well above that level and pushing towards 50%.

What in the world does a slow-revving diesel have to do with a 12000 rpm otto-engine? Your 40-45% for next year is sheer speculation and wishful thinking on your part, only thing you have to back it up are loose comments in the "specialized press".

[WhiteBlue]

What in the world does a slow-revving diesel have to do with a 12000 rpm otto-engine? Your 40-45% for next year is sheer speculation and wishful thinking on your part, only thing you have to back it up are loose comments in the "specialized press".

The figures provided are only to show where F1 is positioned in 2014 with 40% and higher brake thermal efficiency compared to other types of engines. And I'm not indulging in wishful thinking, quite the contrary is true. There are many good reasons to believe in significantly higher efficiency of the turbo compounded V6 engine over the NA V8 engine that we currently have. The reasons have previously been discussed in great detail:

• First you have to consider that efficiency rises with down sizing of engines.
• Second you have to consider that efficiency rises with down speeding of engines.
• Third your efficiency rises with combined cycle processes that do exhaust heat recovery.
• Fourth your efficiency rises with combined cycle processes that do exhaust kinetic energy recovery.
• Fifth performance improves if you increase chassis kinetic energy recovery by a factor of five and ten.
• Sixth your ICE efficiency improves if you can run stoichiometric mixture by direct injection.
• Seventh your thermal efficiency improves by increasing engine and exhaust temperatures.
• Eights your efficiency improves by using highly efficinet turbines and compressors compared to road car design
• Ninth your efficiency improves by avoiding throttle losses from active waste gates

All these points do apply and will drive efficiency forward. If I think a bit longer I will probably find even more points.

The quote btw is by a reliable source and not by a reporter as you seem to suggest. Remi Taffin is Head of Track Operations of Renault Sport. I take his opinion or statement at face value with much more confidence than yours. One thing we can say for sure is that Remi's comments can be consumed with a lot less aggravation than some of the things I have to read here.

[xpensive]

Deleted due to misunderstandings of the context.