2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[lio007]

according to speedweek http://www.speedweek.com/formel1/news/4 ... chenk.html
"In Monza it came out that neither Renault's and Mercedes' layout nor the sound of their test engines are near the real ones that gonna be raced and first tested in January 2014. Ferrari therefore prefers to show the "real" engine before christmas. The Italian believe at this time it is too late for the competitors (Renault and Mercedes) to copy some smart things."

So it seems Renault and Mercedes were/are sandbagging with their soundclips and published pictures.

[wuzak]

I'm with wuzak, I don't expect the teams to use the max battery package during the race. They are stuck with at least 20kg of ES though.

I think I have said this before, but I think it wouldn't be such a bad deal to use flywheels.

• Flywheels will last the season without degrading.
• Flywheels are best used for temporary energy storage - ie using energy right after it has been generated
• Flywheels' downfall is their energy density - not such a problem if you are not running the full storage amount.
• Flywheels will not require as much cooling as batteries

[dren]

So it seems Renault and Mercedes were/are sandbagging with their soundclips and published pictures.

No way!?!?!?!

[wuzak]

So it seems Renault and Mercedes were/are sandbagging with their soundclips and published pictures.

No way!?!?!?!

Suprised me!

[dren]

I'm with wuzak, I don't expect the teams to use the max battery package during the race. They are stuck with at least 20kg of ES though.

I think I have said this before, but I think it wouldn't be such a bad deal to use flywheels.

• Flywheels will last the season without degrading.
• Flywheels are best used for temporary energy storage - ie using energy right after it has been generated
• Flywheels' downfall is their energy density - not such a problem if you are not running the full storage amount.
• Flywheels will not require as much cooling as batteries

Given the placement and size restrictions mandated by the regulations, they pretty much all but write off a flywheel. But yes, it does sound like a viable option.

[dren]

So what's the design thought process here?

Back figure what you expect to recover over one lap and subtract that from your alloted 160hp to figure what you need from the MGUH?

Or design max output from the ICE/turbo compounding, and then fill in with ERS?

There will be all sorts of target numbers for teams to meet, but what will be priorities?

max power unit efficiency
operating power unit rev range
ERS weight - 20~25kg (guessing teams will aim for the minimum 20kg)
ERS size - contained in survival cell
MGUH size/weight/rpm/hp
MGUK size/weight/rpm/160hp? or will it be rated lower due to size/weight goals?
total power unit weight - 145kg min

[dren]

As I said it would surprise me if we can get 89 kW on top of the compressor demand. It would certainly be more than my current estimate.

Not sure why WB uses a 0.9 factor? Regs state a factor of 0.95 will be used, and MGU to MGU transfers will be that, at least.

Yes, the FiA assumes 95% efficiency for one DC to mechanical conversion. So if you have to do it twice
1. mechanical to DC
2. DC to mechanical
the combined efficiency should be 90% if you loose 5% each way. At least that appears logical to me.

It should be possible to get the 120hp from the MGUH, but at what cost to the crank power? Like TC stated, it might be backpressure running for improved efficiency. So it isn't as simple as adding 120 to 650.

The regs state: Measurements will be taken at the input to and the output from the ES.
A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.
The power from the MGUH to the MGUK is unlimited, so there is no need to monitor that. It reads like a max power of 167hp can be extracted from ES since the FiA is assuming a fixed correction of 0.95.

[WhiteBlue]

It should be possible to get the 120hp from the MGUH, but at what cost to the crank power? Like TC stated, it might be backpressure running for improved efficiency. So it isn't as simple as adding 120 to 650.

That is just a theory. How do you know the details of the Marmorini reference? The power quotation could have been made with the knowledge of the level of MGU-H loading. Nobody can know that. So it is equally valid to assume each way. In my view there is good reason to believe there will be 600-650 bhp from the engine alone plus whatever the MGU-H produces. It obviously isn't likely to saturate the MGU-K. Losses for the direct link will be of the order of 10%. That is pretty much all I know with some certainty apart from the Ferrari power quotation.

[dren]

It should be possible to get the 120hp from the MGUH, but at what cost to the crank power? Like TC stated, it might be backpressure running for improved efficiency. So it isn't as simple as adding 120 to 650.

That is just a theory. How do you know the details of the Marmorini reference? The power quotation could have been made with the knowledge of the level of MGU-H loading. Nobody can know that. So it is equally valid to assume each way. In my view there is good reason to believe there will be 600-650 bhp from the engine alone plus whatever the MGU-H produces. It obviously isn't likely to saturate the MGU-K. Losses for the direct link will be of the order of 10%. That is pretty much all I know with some certainty apart from the Ferrari power quotation.

I don't know the details, but reading the papers posted on here a few months back show compounding is "free" up until about 7% or something in that range.

[miguelalvesreis]

the combined efficiency should be 90% if you loose 5% each way. At least that appears logical to me.

Shouldn't it be 90,25%? 95% of 95%

[Hail22]

Just read this article:

http://au.eurosport.com/formula-1/engin ... tory.shtml

What do you guys think about it? Would the FIA seriously consider changes in the sporting regulations...possibly for a period of time before they mandate another engine freeze?

REGULATION CHANGE POSSIBLE

With the FIA set to announce a provisional schedule at its next World Motor Sport Council meeting in Croatia at the end of this month, the governing body is aware that agreeing to a longer calendar could lead to unintended consequences of having to change sporting regulations to accommodate the need for more engines.

[WhiteBlue]

..the combined efficiency should be 90% if you loose 5% each way. At least that appears logical to me.

Shouldn't it be 90,25%? 95% of 95%

Of course you are kidding, aren't you? At the accuracy of the basic data a quarter of a % is irrelevant.

[Hovepeter]

is it right, that you can use these motors in Le Mans and be competitive?

isn't the engine in a Lmp1 car bigger and in lower revs due to regulations, or can you those the engine rev by yourself?

if it is possible to use the 1.6L turbo engine, would they then need to modified it a little bit anyway? i dont know that much about any of the Le mans regulations, but it most be pretty strict though.

[WhiteBlue]

LMP1 regulations are more restrictive in terms of fuel flow than F1. On the other side the regulations allow more diversity in terms of engine size and layout. An F1 engine would have to reduce the fuel flow from 27.8 g/s to 23 g/s, but the basic engine is eligible for LMP1. The LMP1 regulations do not allow turbo compounding. You can have 8 MJ KERS instead. There are manufacturer comments, which say that it is not sensible to use an F1 engine for LMP1.

[Richard]

With the FIA set to announce a provisional schedule at its next World Motor Sport Council meeting in Croatia at the end of this month, the governing body is aware that agreeing to a longer calendar could lead to unintended consequences of having to change sporting regulations to accommodate the need for more engines.

I wonder how a reduced mileage per engine would impact on the design? It'll be too late to change the design, but they could work the engine closer to the limits. Hypothetically what would be the difference if the engines had a reduced mileage?