2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

I still believe the key here is the wide power-band, you don't necessarily need to have the gearing that precise?

[timbo]

I still believe the key here is the wide power-band, you don't necessarily need to have the gearing that precise?

Dunno, downshifting can be decisive factor. They probably want to get to as close to 15k as possible, making engine a big pump for ERS-H. Wonder what about throttle regs.

[Paul]

Also there is that allowed change of ratios once, so teams can divide the season in two parts and start it with, say, a "Monaco selection" and end it with a "Monza" one.

[timbo]

Also there is that allowed change of ratios once, so teams can divide the season in two parts and start it with, say, a "Monaco selection" and end it with a "Monza" one.

I think this is likely. They would probably make a ratio change after Monaco ahead of Canada.

[xpensive]

I still believe the key here is the wide power-band, you don't necessarily need to have the gearing that precise?

Dunno, downshifting can be decisive factor. They probably want to get to as close to 15k as possible, making engine a big pump for ERS-H. Wonder what about throttle regs.

Why would the ICE produce more xhausts at 15k than 10.5, when the amount of fuel burnt is the same?

Ideally, you would want to shift 10.5 - 13k to minimize friction, but it's no disaster if you go up to 15k.

[timbo]

Why would the ICE produce more xhausts at 15k than 10.5, when the amount of fuel burnt is the same?

I meant during breaking when it would work as pump.

[wuzak]

Also there is that allowed change of ratios once, so teams can divide the season in two parts and start it with, say, a "Monaco selection" and end it with a "Monza" one.

The change is allowed only for 2014. And only because with the new car and engine regs teams may have made some cockups.

After that the ratios will be fixed for the whole season.

[wuzak]

Why would the ICE produce more xhausts at 15k than 10.5, when the amount of fuel burnt is the same?

Ideally, you would want to shift 10.5 - 13k to minimize friction, but it's no disaster if you go up to 15k.

The xhausts would be relatively constant from 10,500-15,000rpms. The compressor work required will fall, however. The ratio between the change of xhausts and compressors could mean that the rise in MGUH power generated outstrips the increase in friction. That is, combined power would be greater at 15,000 than 10,000rpm (and not using power from the ES).

[xpensive]

...
The xhausts would be relatively constant from 10,500-15,000rpms. The compressor work required will fall, however. The ratio between the change of xhausts and compressors could mean that the rise in MGUH power generated outstrips the increase in friction. That is, combined power would be greater at 15,000 than 10,000rpm (and not using power from the ES).

Will it really, when fluid power is volumetric flow times pressure, should this not stay the same coming out of the compressor?

[Reca]

Compressor work is proportional to the temp jump which in turn is proportional to pressures ratio needed, ratio that obviously decreases with rpm as you can exploit more cylinders' fillings in the unit of time to get closer to the air flow rate corresponding to the allowed fuel rate.

As for mechanical losses, if it can help, on the book "Motori ad alta potenza specifica" (High specific power engines) by Pignone, there are various formulae, some calculated some empirical, for FMEP.
In particular there's one that summarizes it rather neatly, empirical based on huge amount of data, to have a first order approximation of FMEP, and is structured like this:

FMEP = K1 + K2 * K3 * u_0^2 * (u / u_0) ^ 1.317

Where K1 and K2 are empirical constants, K3 another constant but calculated based on certain characteristics of the engine (mass of components like piston and con rod, then divided by unitary displacement), u_0 is the average piston velocity at max power and u is the piston velocity at the rpm you are interested in.

Obviously without certain data about the engine we can't do the math, but at least the formula gives an idea of the trend.

Incidentally, the formula is useful also for getting an idea of what changed with the passage from I4 to V6 and you'll easily see that the shorter stroke V6 with smaller/lighter pistons/con rods will have, at any given rpm, lower mechanical losses than the I4 would have had. (which isn't surprising, decades of engine design are based on the fact that having more cylinders allows to rev higher, and that is also due to mechanical losses at given rpm being lower)

Will not the fixed 8 gear ratios + increased recovered energy storage + 10500rpm - 15000rpm flat power curve not make overtaking much more likely next season? The following driver will not have the rev limiter ceiling except at Monza. Both the pursuer & the pursued will have the same options but the initiative lies with the pursuer. Can play out over many laps.

Already raised the same question. It also may change the aero philosophy as well.

Aero philosophy depends more by tracks' design than by rules.
At best we could see a small shift due to possibly less power available at peak speed near end of straight, but it's possible they will manage the energy to have some left for that (past a given point using electric energy in acceleration brings little gain so could be useful to spend it to maintain same peak speed going for more drag, hopefully finding more downforce with it), or that they simply will not care if peak speed ends up being a bit lower.

If you really want a change of aero philosophy in F1 the only thing that will do is to make a full calendar of tracks like Silverstone (better if pre-recent changes...), Suzuka, Spa, Monza, the original Hockenheim... basically all the tracks that currently constitute more the exception than the rule.
That will force teams to optimize the aero philosophy for a different target.

As long as the calendar will be mostly composed by tracks filled with a plethora of 90° turns at less than 150km/h though, the fundamental aero philosophy will be basically the same that makes Red Bull the dominating machine that it is, downforce, downforce, downforce. And then a bit more downforce.

[Tommy Cookers]

one last try here !

broadly speaking at 10500 rpm the engine has a designed boost and a (maximal) CR matched to this boost
the efficiency (of our lightly-compounded engine) is dominated by the CR
at 15000 rpm the cylinder contents will be 43% less so this CR is now much too low and will now cost engine efficiency ie power
(a lot more power than is available within the friction/rpm vs. supercharging work/rpm tradeoff)
at 15000 the engine is halfway to being N/A but the CR is not matched to this

whatever is done to somewhat alleviate this fundamental problem (I have made my suggestions)
the problem will surely be minimised (by minimising the speed range eg 10500-12300 is all we need)

[chip engineer]

one last try here !

broadly speaking at 10500 rpm the engine has a designed boost and a (maximal) CR matched to this boost
the efficiency (of our lightly-compounded engine) is dominated by the CR
at 15000 rpm the cylinder contents will be 43% less so this CR is now much too low and will now cost engine efficiency ie power
(a lot more power than is available within the friction/rpm vs. supercharging work/rpm tradeoff)
at 15000 the engine is halfway to being N/A but the CR is not matched to this

whatever is done to somewhat alleviate this fundamental problem (I have made my suggestions)
the problem will surely be minimised (by minimising the speed range eg 10500-12300 is all we need)

That makes sense to me. Many pages back, someone suggested de-activiating some of the cylinders at high rpm. If withholding both fuel and air from some cylinders is allowed, it could extend the rpm range where the CR is optimum.

Under those conditions, the unused cylinders would also not be absorbing any combustion heat, further increasing efficiency.

[Holm86]

one last try here !

broadly speaking at 10500 rpm the engine has a designed boost and a (maximal) CR matched to this boost
the efficiency (of our lightly-compounded engine) is dominated by the CR
at 15000 rpm the cylinder contents will be 43% less so this CR is now much too low and will now cost engine efficiency ie power
(a lot more power than is available within the friction/rpm vs. supercharging work/rpm tradeoff)
at 15000 the engine is halfway to being N/A but the CR is not matched to this

whatever is done to somewhat alleviate this fundamental problem (I have made my suggestions)
the problem will surely be minimised (by minimising the speed range eg 10500-12300 is all we need)

This could be a stupid idea. But I want to hear peoples thoughts on this.

The way the regulations work now you have max performance at 10500 rpm. And as TC says this rpm spot is likely where the CR is designed top be optimal. Revving the engine beyond 10500 rpm would need the boost to decrease to maintain A/F ratio. This means that from 10500 rpm to 15000 the powercurve should dip slightly because of increased inner friction and moving away from the CR sweet spot.

And here is the idea that might sound silly. But what if you bypassed the intercooler after 10500 rpm?? This would mean that the density of the air decreases which means that you can run more or the same boost maintaining the amount of air that you compress in the cylinder. This means that the total CR is maintained as the volume stays the same as at 10500 rpm. But the air holds less oxygen which makes it possible to keep the A/F ratio without decreasing the boost.

Hope you guys understand what I mean

[langwadt]

one last try here !

broadly speaking at 10500 rpm the engine has a designed boost and a (maximal) CR matched to this boost
the efficiency (of our lightly-compounded engine) is dominated by the CR
at 15000 rpm the cylinder contents will be 43% less so this CR is now much too low and will now cost engine efficiency ie power
(a lot more power than is available within the friction/rpm vs. supercharging work/rpm tradeoff)
at 15000 the engine is halfway to being N/A but the CR is not matched to this

whatever is done to somewhat alleviate this fundamental problem (I have made my suggestions)
the problem will surely be minimised (by minimising the speed range eg 10500-12300 is all we need)

This could be a stupid idea. But I want to hear peoples thoughts on this.

The way the regulations work now you have max performance at 10500 rpm. And as TC says this rpm spot is likely where the CR is designed top be optimal. Revving the engine beyond 10500 rpm would need the boost to decrease to maintain A/F ratio. This means that from 10500 rpm to 15000 the powercurve should dip slightly because of increased inner friction and moving away from the CR sweet spot.

And here is the idea that might sound silly. But what if you bypassed the intercooler after 10500 rpm?? This would mean that the density of the air decreases which means that you can run more or the same boost maintaining the amount of air that you compress in the cylinder. This means that the total CR is maintained as the volume stays the same as at 10500 rpm. But the air holds less oxygen which makes it possible to keep the A/F ratio without decreasing the boost.

Hope you guys understand what I mean

air density is proportional to absolute temperature, is the air before the intercooler hot enough?

the rules allow exhaust gas recirculation

[wuzak]

one last try here !

broadly speaking at 10500 rpm the engine has a designed boost and a (maximal) CR matched to this boost
the efficiency (of our lightly-compounded engine) is dominated by the CR
at 15000 rpm the cylinder contents will be 43% less so this CR is now much too low and will now cost engine efficiency ie power
(a lot more power than is available within the friction/rpm vs. supercharging work/rpm tradeoff)
at 15000 the engine is halfway to being N/A but the CR is not matched to this

whatever is done to somewhat alleviate this fundamental problem (I have made my suggestions)
the problem will surely be minimised (by minimising the speed range eg 10500-12300 is all we need)

That makes sense to me. Many pages back, someone suggested de-activiating some of the cylinders at high rpm. If withholding both fuel and air from some cylinders is allowed, it could extend the rpm range where the CR is optimum.

Under those conditions, the unused cylinders would also not be absorbing any combustion heat, further increasing efficiency.

Problem with de-activating cylinders is that they keep the friction without adding power.