2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[matt21]

I´ve read in an article that the engine customer teams are theoretically allowed to change the exhaust manifold, but there is an paragraph forbidding changes to the engine which affect power, what makes it practically impossible to do this.
http://translate.google.de/translate?hl ... &sandbox=1

Does anybody know where this rule is written? I couldn´t find anything in the regulations.

That even implies that they have to use the same airbox, exhaust tailpipes etc. But IMO this doesn´t work.

[dren]

Are there programs to tell the rpm from the engine pitch that Honda put out?

And 90kw MGUH, that's a lot more than the 7% or so that was estimated earlier. 20% gains would have the normal engine output around 720hp without ERS. Are turbos that much more efficient, requiring far less power now?

[FW17]

Officially from Honda!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=431h20gvm3M

Almost sounds like there is no turbocharger attached to it

[Tommy Cookers]

....... And 90kw MGUH, that's a lot more than the 7% or so that was estimated earlier. 20% gains would have the normal engine output around 720hp without ERS. Are turbos that much more efficient, requiring far less power now?

FWIW I suggested a few months ago that MGUH power would be 100 kW for most of the WOT time
this view was based on the work done by the NACA in the mid 1940s (following Buchi)
showing that about 8-10% 'free' power was recoverable from the exhaust (ie without loss of crankshaft power)
and that much more power was recoverable with a corresponding loss of crankshaft power, importantly giving improved efficiency
(this of course was for sea-level conditions, not of major importance at that time)

in a fuel-limited formula an engine design matched to this higher efficiency would be a winner in combined ICE/EM power
this work was based on axial turbines of 70-85% efficiency but not necessarily higher power than 2014 F1
presumably radial-flow turbines can manage around 70% efficiency today
IIRC turbo supercharging power in 2014 will be about 45 hp

[dren]

....... showing that about 8-10% 'free' power was recoverable from the exhaust (ie without loss of crankshaft power)
and that much more power was recoverable with a corresponding loss of crankshaft power, importantly giving improved efficiency

Ahh yes, I forgot about that... Improvement in the blowdown losses in the exhaust

[SectorOne]

Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn has admitted Formula 1′s works teams will have an engine advantage in the new turbo V6 era.

That is because the rules forbid the engine manufacturers to supply more than a single specification, despite Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari all having customer teams.

However Brawn told Auto Motor und Sport that the single specification will be specifically tailored to the works teams — Mercedes (Mercedes), Red Bull (Renault) and Ferrari (Ferrari).

“We will work together as one team at Brackley and Brixworth to get the best result from the complete car,” he said. “Engine and chassis.”

So that will mean the customer teams will have to make the most of engines that are tailored to the rival cars of the works teams.

“We will help our customers as far as we can, in terms of information,” said Brawn. “But if I’m honest, they won’t have a big say.

“We have developed a solution for us, so the others will have to adapt.”

2014 Mercedes customer Williams’ new technical boss Pat Symonds confirmed that, “In practice, we will have to go with the Mercedes package as it is delivered”.

Meanwhile, Honda on Friday released an audio clip of the sound of its turbo V6 engine, which was recently fired up for the first time.

The engine will not be raced until 2015, when the works collaboration with McLaren begins.

The clip can be heard at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=431h20gvm3M

“It is exciting to hear the cry of our newborn Formula 1 engine for the first time,” said Honda’s European president Manabu Nishimae. (GMM)

http://grandprix247.com/2013/10/18/work ... ays-brawn/

Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn doesn't believe 2014's races will be dominated by fuel saving.

Along with next year's new engine regulations come smaller fuel tanks, with teams restricted to 100kg of fuel per race compared to the current 160kg. While Brawn admits the desire to have greater fuel efficiency will have an impact, he believes drivers will still have to push the cars to their limits during the race.

"From what we've done modelling and simulation I think there will be a difference between qualifying and the race," Brawn said. "Because in qualifying you'll be controlled by the fuel flow rate and in the race you'll be controlled by the overall fuel amount.

"But I think the way that the systems are a lot more sophisticated now than they were 15 or 20 years ago when we had this situation, and therefore the drivers will be driving strongly and using all the performance.

"I don't think it will be the situation we had 20 years ago where you push for a while and then just cruise for the rest of the race; it won't be that type of racing. That's not our expectation, but there will be different demands between qualifying and the race, for sure."

http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorspor ... MP=OTC-RSS

[Blackout]

Axel Plasse from Renault doesnt say the same thing

WHAT CAN BE CHANGED BETWEEN TEAMS?
The external parameters of the Power Unit can be changed and the choice will remain with the team. The exhausts and installation can be changed, so the hoses, hydraulics, air intakes and so on can be adapted to allow optimal integration.

http://www.renaultsport.com/IMG/pdf/rsf ... final2.pdf

[ringo]

Officially from Honda!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=431h20gvm3M

Almost sounds like there is no turbocharger attached to it

I can hear the turbo.

[ringo]

I think that the motor can be twice as big. This motor is quite small. There's no reason why they can't double the length or something else. It has no reason to be that small, there's more than enough room around the engine to have it bigger.
I guess the only explanation here is that it's sized so as to not overload the turbine.
But if this is 90kW, i guess it can be increased further with a bigger motor, maybe 170kW or something of that order.

[aleks_ader]

http://i.imgur.com/1RBnQKA.jpg

I think that the motor can be twice as big. This motor is quite small. There's no reason why they can't double the length or something else. It has no reason to be that small, there's more than enough room around the engine to have it bigger.
I guess the only explanation here is that it's sized so as to not overload the turbine.
But if this is 90kW, i guess it can be increased further with a bigger motor, maybe 170kW or something of that order.

Maybe adding cluch element could increase respond od engine torque curve. Ofcourse when needed in bought ways (regen&accel).

[Tommy Cookers]

I think that the motor can be twice as big. This motor is quite small. There's no reason why they can't double the length or something else. It has no reason to be that small, there's more than enough room around the engine to have it bigger.
I guess the only explanation here is that it's sized so as to not overload the turbine.
But if this is 90kW, i guess it can be increased further with a bigger motor, maybe 170kW or something of that order.

if it was a 90 kW continuous rating this would allow about 110 kW throughout the typical duty cycle
how would eg a 170 kW machine be used? given that the peak electrical power driving the car is limited by rule to nominally 120 kW
120 kW seems to correspond with recovery levels suggested in the NACA work, I think the 2014 rules are no accident

[ringo]

Well, 120kW is limited, but IIRC any power in excess of 120kW can be sent to storage.
Anyhow i feel that more than 90kW can be extracted by using a bigger motor than what we see there in that picture.
It may be very likely we will see a 120kW MGUH motor.

[dren]

But after a certain percentage, the energy taken from the MGUH isn't "free" as TC was stating above. You'd be draining crank power to charge the batteries at that point.

[kkpatil]

Hello forum members , I have a query regarding 2014 f1 power unit, especially about working of ERS and it's stored energy utilization.

According to new regulations. Available energy from v6 1.6 turbo engine is around 600 hp, and ERS is about 160 hp, now questions is whether this ERS 160 hp will be used similar to present car by pressing button by drivers in strategic places on track, or will it be controled by electronic control unit by intelligent programs or maps at critical places, say exit out of corners or long straights.

[autogyro]

A very interesting and important question.

The fact remains that the FIA regulations applying to 2014 energy recovery totally conflict with the regulations in place for the conventional internal combustion engine driven power train.

This has been the case ever since Kers was brought in but up until this year the FIA have managed to maintain a barrier of technical jargon and private regulation enforcement (or not as the issues demanded) sufficient to prevent any proper investigation.

I believe that next year will prove just how badly F1 has shot itself in the foot.