2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Richard]

I'm not sure about the relevance of coveting your neighbour's ox in this thread.

[xpensive]

Deleted.

[WhiteBlue]

Ten is marketing bullshit according to Gorge Carlin. So you try to avoid it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KiCEJoX9kE[/youtube]

Edit: xpensive made a comment that got deleted about commandments, Richard then made a comment about commandments. I posted the above to inject a bit of humour. Have a good day, all!

[Blanchimont]

My thoughts on thermal efficiency...

Have a look at this PDF file from 2001 in German: http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/MWJ/MWJ2001/tschoeke.pdf

The lower heating values on page 2, picture 3, are 41 MJ/kg for Otto and 42,5 MJ/kg for Diesel engines.
Page 3, picture 6, mentions a fuel consumption per kWh of ~ 240g/kWh for Otto and ~200g/kWh for Diesel car engines at their most efficient position.

This results in efficiencies of 1kWh / ( 0,24kg*41MJ/kg ) = 0,366 for Otto
and 1 kWh / ( 0,2kg*42,5MJ/kg ) = 0,424 for Diesel engines.

As you like to calculate with heating values of 46 MJ/kg or even higher, the numbers could differ a bit from this.

[xpensive]

Don't y'all forget the final argument for an 800 Hp engine in 2014;

Hearsay, statements, opinions and wishful thinking are all xciting and underrated, sheer facts are boring and equally overrated.

[dren]

FWIW
the HCV of iso-octane (the stuff that is our 100 Octane reference fuel) is 48 MJ/kg
propane (which is in gasoline until they remove it because it's valuable) has an HCV of 50.3 MJ/kg

Interesting.

48 MJ/kg raises max ICE power to 626hp at 35% ICE efficiency and a power unit total of 787hp.
50.3 MJ/kg raises max ICE power to 656hp at 35% ICE efficiency and a power unit total of 817hp.

Just read Article 19 in the regulations and it lost me. I'm not too hot on the chemical side of things.

[Tommy Cookers]

WB makes efficiency predictions for new engines without knowing the UCV or LCV of the fuel they are using
in insisting that 46 MJ/kg is the only game in town he is exaggerating their efficiency (if their fuel has higher CV)

48 MJ/kg UCV has been available for about 80 years, it's the reference fuel that's compulsory for Octane rating of motor fuel
current F1 fuel is formulated for combustion speed as the highest priority, not heat content/kg
the 46 MJ/kg UCV seems entirely credible for such a fuel

I don't know whether UCV or LCV is the convention in heat engine efficiency determinations (not in heating system work)
if HCV is conventionally used Blanchimont's engine efficiency calculations are also optimistic

current road petrol/gasoline has around 5% bioethanol, this lowers the CV by about 2%
presumably F1 fuel will have little reduction in CV from its compulsory biofuel content
oil not alcohol ?

[dren]

48 MJ/kg has been available for about 80 years, it's the reference fuel that's compulsory for Octane rating of motor fuel
current F1 fuel is formulated for combustion speed as the highest priority, not heat content/kg
the 46 MJ/kg seems entirely credible for such a fuel

I think UCV is used by convention in efficiency determinations (not LCV)

Is combustion speed less of an issue now that the engine speed is down or is it more of a reason to combat detonation? Since it's now also DI, perhaps different fuel will be used?

[Tommy Cookers]

IMO quite different, for high UCV/kg and high detonation resistance (Octane number)
the rules seem to call for 87 Octane, but I can't understand whether this is max or min
this is the mean RON+MON, these are very low rpm lean mixture tests
the traditional trick is to use fuel which passes these tests but has higher detonation resistance at rich mixture (Toluene etc)
but for the first time ever they won't be using rich mixture

Shell have said that current fuel can be blended (presumably after combustion speed?) for max CV/litre, or differently for max CV/kg
(and that Octane number eg is unimportant at current rpm. Honda in an SAE paper 50 years ago said their 18000 rpm 125 cc motorcycles worked just as well with 73 Octane fuel)

[matt21]

They have valves for brake balance, power steering which are activated by electricity.

[pgfpro]

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.

Where are they claiming a turbine efficiency of more then 78% ??? I couldn't find it???

[WhiteBlue]

WB makes efficiency predictions for new engines without knowing the UCV of the fuel they are using
in insisting that 46 MJ/kg is the only game in town he is exaggerating their efficiency (if their fuel has higher UCV)

48 MJ/kg has been available for about 80 years, it's the reference fuel that's compulsory for Octane rating of motor fuel
current F1 fuel is formulated for combustion speed as the highest priority, not heat content/kg
the 46 MJ/kg seems entirely credible for such a fuel

I think UCV is used by convention in efficiency determinations (not LCV)
if so IMO Blanchimont's efficiency calculations are also optimistic

current road petrol/gasoline has around 5% bioethanol, this lowers the CV by about 2%
presumably F1 fuel will have little reduction in CV from its compulsory biofuel content
oil not alcohol ?

TC, the fuel content in the end will make very little difference. If you have confirmation of the fuel content I'll adjust all figures accordingly. The 46 MJ/kg is just a number which happened to be used when this thread started. I'm happy enough to change it for good reasons. Is there a figure you have evidence for? If not I think it is simply my estimate and I have to make he pick.

[Tommy Cookers]

Cyclopropane 49.65 MJ/kg

perhaps you would like to check this ?

[WhiteBlue]

Where are they claiming a turbine efficiency of more then 78% ??? I couldn't find it???

They do not do that explicitly because the turbos are for a different purpose. The design is for reduced inertia, not for extreme efficiency. But the type of rotors is known to reach 85% efficiency.

[WhiteBlue]

Cyclopropane 49.65 MJ/kg

perhaps you would like to check this ?

Are you sure it will be used in F1 next year, or is this just a private theory of yours?

I mean like the head of Shell development or Mobil1 saying they will use Cyclopropane next year. For the efficiency and power figures there is testimony from Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari published. And some of us believe those sources are not trustworthy.

I remember from the fuel article here on F1technical that f1 fuel must have all five main ingredients of road cars just in slightly different proportions of the components and the main component is having a size of 50% in both road car and F1 fuel. So how will that be possible if only Cyclopropane is used?