2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

Since the 2014 engine has such small displacement, on corners where the drivers are dropping to first or even low rev second gear, will the battery driven motor be the main source of torque to get out of the low speed rev range and into the power band? I assume low rev band torque and turbo lag are going to kill the bottom end of this design spec...?

I ask because if that is the case, as we all know the torque delivery on a motor is drastically different than an engine, as all avail torque is almost instantly, if not instantly, avail with electric motors thus having a HUGE effect on drivability/excessive wheel spin.

Off topic, but very curious which drivers have the most experience with turbo's and driving cars with these odd characteristics inherent to the new 2014 engine specs?

I would think so.

Brake into the low speed corner, gather some energy and store it, then use it to help accelerate out of the corner.

[l4mbch0ps]

Since the 2014 engine has such small displacement, on corners where the drivers are dropping to first or even low rev second gear, will the battery driven motor be the main source of torque to get out of the low speed rev range and into the power band? I assume low rev band torque and turbo lag are going to kill the bottom end of this design spec...?

I ask because if that is the case, as we all know the torque delivery on a motor is drastically different than an engine, as all avail torque is almost instantly, if not instantly, avail with electric motors thus having a HUGE effect on drivability/excessive wheel spin.

You have to remember that the HERS system acts both as a charger and a motor - so the lag will probably not be anything like what one would expect from a turbo engine. You can apply electric motor power to the wheels aswell as to the turbine shaft, simultaneously.

Combine the lack of lag with the low rpm torque of the KERS system, and these cars are likely to have no problems with low rpm corners. I imagine these might be some of the most traction limited cars we've seen in a while - starts will be incredible, im sure!

[Chuckjr]

I hope starts are like the old days--lots of wheel spin and smoke. =D> That would be fantastic--though not for the guy spinning his wheels! Cheers-

[WhiteBlue]

You have to remember that the HERS system acts both as a charger and a motor - so the lag will probably not be anything like what one would expect from a turbo engine. You can apply electric motor power to the wheels aswell as to the turbine shaft, simultaneously.

Combine the lack of lag with the low rpm torque of the KERS system, and these cars are likely to have no problems with low rpm corners. I imagine these might be some of the most traction limited cars we've seen in a while - starts will be incredible, im sure!

Turbo lag will not be a problem. Both MGUs will be able to push as a motor. So you can effectively use both of them to accelerate.

Electric torque for starts will not be legal AFAIK. Cars have to accelerate to 100 km/h until electric torque is allowed from the grid. Later they may use electric toque at any speed.

[wuzak]

I hope starts are like the old days--lots of wheel spin and smoke. =D> That would be fantastic--though not for the guy spinning his wheels! Cheers-

MGUK cannot be engaged below 100km/h at the start.

[l4mbch0ps]

Turbo lag will not be a problem. Both MGUs will be able to push as a motor. So you can effectively use both of them to accelerate.

Sorry, Whiteblue, are you saying that the HERS MGU will be linked to the drive train? I was under the impression that it was linked to the turbo shaft and that while the energy harvested from the HERS goes to a unified power storage, the MGU itself would not be linked to the drive train.

*edit* After further reading, I'm fairly sure I was right - HERS linked to turbo shaft, KERS to drive shaft - both can charge to the batteries, or send power directly to the other, (excess turbo energy can be sent directly to the wheels, and vice versa, which does not factor into the 4MJ/lap max) but KERS can't spin the turbo, and HERS can't spin the driveshaft.

[Blanchimont]

HERS and KERS are know as MGU-H and MGU-K in 2014, better stick to these terms.

And i think WhiteBlue is correct when stating that both can push as a motor, MGU-K directly and MGU-H indirectly via the MGU-K!

[l4mbch0ps]

But is the output of the MGU-K not capped? So regardless of whether it is running off of battery power or directly from the MGU-H, it will always have the same max horsepower.

[Blanchimont]

Yes, the MGU-K output and input is limited at 120kW.

For a complete picture look at page 85 of the 2014 technical regulations at

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 7.2013.pdf

[aussiegman]

I think that is what WB was trying to say.

Lag will not be an issue as the MGU-K can provide torque to the driveline and the MGU-H will be able to spool/spin the turbo using energy from the batteries supplied by either system.

At low RPM, the MGU-H will draw power to maintain whatever speed is determined as optimal.

[WhiteBlue]

Turbo lag is the reluctance of a turbo engine to build revs. And as I have said you can use both MGUs to overcome that. Hence the problem will not really exist. In a lag situation you do not want the MGU-H to work as a generator and supply electricity to the kinetic machine as Blanchimont seemed to suggest. You want it to spool the turbo up. So both electric machines in that mode work as motors.

[timbo]

I wonder, with a 15k rev limit, and possibly even less used because of limited fuel-flow, wouldn't it make sense to try conventional springs instead of pneumatics?
The cons are obvious -- resonances in springs were limiting the rev band up to 11k-12k, the pros are elimination of nitrogen supply bottle and possible simplification of valvetrain.

[FW17]

Gasoline, Steam Engine Hybrid?
Not only does this increase the amount of power produced by the engine by about 40%, it cools the engine as it operates, completely eliminating the need for a cooling system. No radiator, no coolant, no water pump... it could shave as much as 1000 lbs off the weight of semi-truck engines.

I guess this is a theory or a prototype, but has this been trialed by engine manufacturer? Also what will be the possible power from the steam stroke?

[trinidefender]

http://node1.ecogeek-cdn.net/ecogeek/im ... engine.gif

Gasoline, Steam Engine Hybrid?
Not only does this increase the amount of power produced by the engine by about 40%, it cools the engine as it operates, completely eliminating the need for a cooling system. No radiator, no coolant, no water pump... it could shave as much as 1000 lbs off the weight of semi-truck engines.

I guess this is a theory or a prototype, but has this been trialed by engine manufacturer? Also what will be the possible power from the steam stroke?

Problem with this is the engine will go from a 4 cycle to a 6 cycle engine between each fuel/air combustion. Therefore it will automatically loose 50% of the power from combustion because of the fewer number of times it fires per minute. To have the same power it will mean it will then have to be 50% larger while still having to maintain the combustion pressure as before. Therefore the block will be much larger without even being able to make it thinner. Then you have the problem of the valves having to be a lot smaller to fit the water injector and the steam valve. This in turn hurts power and efficiency by the reduction in volumetric efficiency.

On the whole I would probably bet a lot of money that this system would be much less efficient and less powerful then a normal 4 stroke Otto cycle engine

[xpensive]

I wonder, with a 15k rev limit, and possibly even less used because of limited fuel-flow, wouldn't it make sense to try conventional springs instead of pneumatics?
The cons are obvious -- resonances in springs were limiting the rev band up to 11k-12k, the pros are elimination of nitrogen supply bottle and possible simplification of valvetrain.

Interesting thought, even if the hysteresis of conventional springs would mean a power-loss in itself, constant-pressure pneumatics don't have that problem. But how much, I have no idea, anyone?