2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

I don't think so. The power is coming from the wheels not from the engine. I would argue the case and probably win. There is no point in a 2 or 4 MJ ES exchange between the MGU and the ES if you can not harvest the ernergy. The rule makers should know that. The box is clearly labeled "engine" and not "wheels". And in the case of recovery the power to the MGU-H is coming from the wheels. There is probably a directive about this. That or they are silly enough to waste half the energy they could be recovering. Usually when you have such an ambiguity it pays off to approach it boldly. People were getting away with bigger fish. Remember the DD and the blown diffusor, or the DDRS?

The rules very specifically require the MGUK to be linked to the engine's crankshaft by a set of fixed gears that can be clutched. It cannot take or give power to the wheels directly.

It is also quite clear that the maximum power for the MGUK is 120kW, whether it is in motor or generator form.

The diagram does not show a power restriction between the MGUK and the ES, but the 120kW limit is shown between the engine and the MGUK. With the 95% efficiency factor you can take 126kW from the engine into the MGUK, 6kW goes through the MGUK cooling circuit, and 120kW can be shuffled to the ES.

To me there is no ambiguity in the regulations. You cannot extract 250kW in braking energy.

And why would you want to - the MGUK would be very much larger than you would want.

There are no power or energy limits on the MGUH.

[chip engineer]

To me there is no ambiguity in the regulations. You cannot extract 250kW in braking energy.

And why would you want to - the MGUK would be very much larger than you would want.

There are no power or energy limits on the MGUH.

If the rules allowed, you could probably extract a lot more power from a 120kW MGUK for a short time (1 to 2 seconds) just due to thermal inertia. That could be useful during the high speed part of braking when downforce probably allows more than 50% of braking at the rear.

[wuzak]

To me there is no ambiguity in the regulations. You cannot extract 250kW in braking energy.

And why would you want to - the MGUK would be very much larger than you would want.

There are no power or energy limits on the MGUH.

If the rules allowed, you could probably extract a lot more power from a 120kW MGUK for a short time (1 to 2 seconds) just due to thermal inertia. That could be useful during the high speed part of braking when downforce probably allows more than 50% of braking at the rear.

You then also have to have cables rated to that power (or they'll melt) as well as the controller. Everything becomes a bit beefier.

[Tommy Cookers]

IMO for full MGUK recovery the MGUK and its cabling would be ok if rated to about 150 kW continuous
or 140 kW as increased 'copper losses' would be acceptable in this small part of the duty cycle
the cabling and MG windings will be sized for minimal losses for most of the DC, so wouldn't be near to failure even at full recovery
(if MGUK recovery was capped at 120 kW the MGUK and its cabling would be rated to about 110 kW continuous)
so full recovery has a relatively small impact on sizing the above

though IIRC WB says the controller etc would be sized by the peak power, full recovery would have a larger effect here ?

the designer's views on the driving performance aspects of high levels of braking recovery will be dominant ?

[WhiteBlue]

The MGUs I have worked with had inverters that used IGPTs. They are power semiconductors that cannot be overloaded like the MGU itself. There is a small overload capability but we are talking maybe 10% even for very short peaks. The semiconductors do not tolerate overheating well. It is the same as for a computer CPU that you run with high voltage. You shorten the life very rapidly if you do this. If you think of a liquid cooled computer you get the idea.

[Overdriving]

Sorry for a probably stupid question, but I've read somewhere that next year the most powerful engine would be by definition the best when it comes to fuel consumption. Is that true? It sounds odd to me that the more powerful engine is, the less fuel it uses.

[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

The octane level is maximum.

the FIA site appears to me to say Octane (mean of RON and MON) is unlimited (87 minimum, no maximum)
and 5 mg/litre of lead is allowed

we appear to be in an 'Octane race'
there is mention of petrol, but never of road petrol

cyclopropene (pene not pane) has a UCV of 50.7 MJ/kg and a very good LCV
I'm still reading the FIA small print
LCV (strictly speaking if your name is Ricardo LCV - latent heat) is what the engine 'sees' ie the value for engineer's efficiency
scientist's efficiency would relate to UCV
which chemists call the enthalpy of combustion

http://www.clearenergysystems.com/docs/ARC930TA
have a 'new' 30 litre radial engine for driving generators
and point out the much higher mechanical efficiency (than inline or V engines)
radial (and eg 3 bank 'inline' engines) have outstanding ME, as most of the bigends are oscillatory and have low velocity

based on a ME of 89% measured on the Puma 6 inline DR Pye seemed in 1934 to feel IMO 90+% was possible
the best SI BSFCs ever seem are from this time (low boost/higher octane) setups of a 3 bank Napier Lion and P&W Wasp
quoted in Sam Heron's 1947 book (better than the Wright T-C, even after allowing for fuel differences)

maybe a 3 bank V6 (45deg between banks) with radial type master-and-slave rods would be over 90% mechanically efficient ?
having far less total bigend bearing friction and only 3 (or maybe 2) main bearings

[dren]

Yes, the way I read the regs is that there is only a minimum octane limit.

The rumored 850hp Mercedes has may not be too far off if the fuel has an LCV in that range. The turbo ICE will have to be around 36% efficient if so.

[WhiteBlue]

Sorry for a probably stupid question, but I've read somewhere that next year the most powerful engine would be by definition the best when it comes to fuel consumption. Is that true? It sounds odd to me that the more powerful engine is, the less fuel it uses.

No stupid question here. Actually next year the engine formula is changed by method. The last hundred years race cars were limited in their ability to suck in air to burn fuel. You were allowed to burn as much fuel as you wanted. But the cubic capacity, the rpm and the compressor boost were all limited. That way power could be restricted and safety upheld.

From next year the air is essentially free and the fuel supply gets restricted in order to control the power level. The engines will have a regulated fuel mass flow that is capped at 27.8 g/s. There is also a fixed fuel budget for the moment when the lights go out on the starting grid until the chequered flag is passed. That limit is exactly 100 kg. Today's cars use 50-60 kg more fuel in the air restricted formula. Hence we can expect that every team and engine manufacturer will go to the maximum fuel flow and exhaust the fuel budget. This is similar to the rev limit we are having now. Every engine now revs to the 18.000 rpm until the driver selects the next gear.

But all engines are not equal in the way they burn the fuel and convert the chemical energy of the fuel to mechanical energy. Some engines today need less fuel per horse power produced. We expect that to happen next year as well. Because all teams will try to fully use the fuel budget those engines that make more horse power per gram of fuel will obviously produce more total power than the others. That's it in a nutshell.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm wondering at the moment what kind of advanced technology tricks would be possible with the new SECU in 2014. I can imagine a number of things that would make the energy management more effective.

• you can add location info to the controller that determines the electric vs friction brake bias
• same for the controller that computes the compounded torque from the ICE and the ERS
• and how about different maping for the MGU-K for each circuit stretching the ERS energy over different lap length?

I reckon there are more things you can do if you get MES to play ball.

In the meantime here are my Hungary braking figures. Fornt/rear bias is again 35% to the rear. Electric brake bias is 70% to the electric brake.



I get an even higher peak power value at 280 kW. I wonder what will happen if I give every corner an individual power coefficient to adapt the electric braking to a maximum of 120 kW and up to 100% of rear power. Do you think it would be feasible?

[dren]

If location can be known in the computer, I think it will certainly be a benefit not only with braking but also with the ES power curve. We already know the drivers are told at which corners and when to use their KERS, so I can see the ES power curve changing corner to corner for maximum benefit.

[wuzak]

Yes, the way I read the regs is that there is only a minimum octane limit.

Yeah, sorry. Just checked again, and the limit is a minimum.

The rumored 850hp Mercedes has may not be too far off if the fuel has an LCV in that range. The turbo ICE will have to be around 36% efficient if so.

If the package is 850hp, then the ICE is 690hp (515kW).

Assuming a LCV of 50MJ/kg (more likely to be closer to HCV) the ICE would be 37% efficient.

If the LCV is 46MJ/kg, the efficiency would be over 40% for that power.

[Spirits of Senna]

I would like to ask the question as to why Formula One chose to use the 1.6 L cylinder volume for the new engines. I presume the decision was influenced by the Globe Engine initiative of mandating race engines set to the specific 1.6 L. What made the Formula One regulators and those started the Globe Engine not choosing the 1.7 L or 1.4 L or 3.4 L, but specifically had chosen the 1.6 L cylinder volume?

[WhiteBlue]

The global racing engine initiative was at the heart of the 2013 F1 engine project. In 2009 and 2010 the FiA engine working group was very intended to use this format. Commercial interest and traditionalism drove the 1.6 L size and a cyinder diameter that is 1 mm bigger than the standardized GRE size. The intended engine format at that time was still the I4 format of the GRE. You probably know that Ecclestone campaigned against the new turbo engine plan from day one because he disliked the lower noise levels that they would bring. All manufacturers supported the new engine plan. In December 2010 Ecclestone got Ferrari on his side because Ferrari were specifically against the I4 format for marketing reasons. They were ok for turbo and direct injection but were asking for a minimum of 6 cylinders. The FiA had to compromise on the intended engine format in order to save the whole plan of going to a fuel flow regulated formula fro going down the drain. The result was the postponement to 2014 and the V6 engine format, which is basically the whole story of GRE in F1 in a nutshell.

[timbo]

I wonder what's the point of rev limit when the fuel flow is limited and there's minimum mileage too?