2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[rjsa]

Now the million dollar question: We are talking double of what? How much is the expected loss at 10500?

[xpensive]

Now the million dollar question: We are talking double of what? How much is the expected loss at 10500?

Indeed, I don't have a living clue. But two-digit kW, that much is for certain.

[FW17]

And 5.3 liters of petrol for 100 km, imagine what 120 liters would do

[Tommy Cookers]

Now the million dollar question: We are talking double of what? How much is the expected loss at 10500?

frictional losses would be about 9% (of ICE power) at 10500 with traditional materials
maybe 7% with modern race low-friction coatings as already used for over a decade

[ringo]

Ringo these guys are using a stock block with no radiators not some new material. RTU has a patent for the intake manifold,

Fresh cooled air is manipulated so as to allow the engine to run in a lean burn condition further cooling the engine. These superior properties allow for extreme power and efficiency.

Ok that's interesting. Sounds fishy, but i guess we have to see how they do this. The air sounds like its acting as a thermal barrier.

[xpensive]

Now the million dollar question: We are talking double of what? How much is the expected loss at 10500?

frictional losses would be about 9% (of ICE power) at 10500 with traditional materials
maybe 7% with modern race low-friction coatings as already used for over a decade

Interesting TC, 7% at 10 500 would mean some 30 kW and theoretically 60 kW at 15 000 rpm for the 1.6 V6.

[ringo]

Now the million dollar question: We are talking double of what? How much is the expected loss at 10500?

frictional losses would be about 9% (of ICE power) at 10500 with traditional materials
maybe 7% with modern race low-friction coatings as already used for over a decade

I don't think that can be inferred. It would have to be determined empirically.
The frictional loss is based on a lot of components of the engine and their quantities.

Anyhow i'm glad the 2013 season is soon over with. Hope to see some more information on the newer engines before the year is through. Ferrari is yet to reveal anything.

[xpensive]

...
I don't think that can be inferred. It would have to be determined empirically.
The frictional loss is based on a lot of components of the engine and their quantities.
...

The great thing with this forum is that you can learn a lot, given a positive attitude, just like in the above case.

The 9 or 7% value is hopefully established both theroretically as well as empirically, which would be the scientific approach.

In any case, it sounds most reasonable to me, do you have any background or sources for this TC?

[Abarth]

Here a paper with soem relation to the subject:
http://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... umE4wklehg

[Tommy Cookers]

even at 15000 rpm these engines will be over 85% mechanically efficient and 90% at 10500
being of small displacement and without the extreme b:s ratio and consequent frictional area of the current engines
(aircraft piston engines were at least 91% mechanically (friction) efficient at normal quite high power settings, as their
supercharging power is counted seperately and pumping 'losses' are similarly zero or favourable, this is a valid comparison)

so the increase in friction with rpm is balanced by the reduction in supercharging work (boost) with rpm
the real issue is the fall of in-cylinder thermodynamic conditions with falling boost as rpm exceeds 10500
this suggests minimal rpm range over 10500 (you don't design to need continuous knock sensor retard at 10500)
loss of in-cylinder efficiency over 10500 can be reduced by controlling turbine recovery/load for significant -delta P,even dilution
more importantly this will reduce pressure loss in blowdown and so increase efficiency outside the cylinder
so under these fixed-fuelling rules recovery can apparently be increased more than any corresponding decrease in crankshaft power
ie combined power will not fall over 10500, it might well rise
but I still think they won't run any greater rpm over 10500 than is forced by the gear rules
the gearbox is there to be used

btw I suggested these engines would have one exhaust manifold slightly longer than the other to give evenly-spaced delivery of the exhaust 'pulses' to the turbine, the recent photos seem to confirm this ??

the above old post bumped in response to ex's question (there's some good posts around P286)

the friction loss of 9% is drawn from 91% mech efficiency stated for the (UK) Puma engine in 1932, and more usefully
from (otherwise unpublished) data in C Fayette Taylor (of Allison tests basically of friction vs mean piston speed)
these aircraft engines have (minimal) piston contact areas and bearing areas not dissimilar to 2014
the 7% for 2014 was my guess based on anti-friction coatings and fluids

the 2014 engine running at 11500 rpm has a mean piston speed of about 3600 fpm (rather low for a modern race engine)
Allison showed frictional mep of 20 psi at 2800 fpm (extrapolatable to 26 psi at 3600 fpm) in valves-off motoring tests
at an imep of 450 psi there would be 11 psi added for mep-dependent friction at 3600 fpm
so total frictional mep is predicted to be 37 psi in our 2014 engine at 11500 rpm, about 9% (using traditional materials)
based on valves-on unthrottled motoring (fmep 37 psi at 3600 fpm) we get 48 psi, about 11% (using traditional materials)

and clearly the predicted increase in frictional mep between 10500 and 15000 rpm is roughly proportionate to rpm
conventionally engine power increases with rpm, the above is consistent with the concept of 'friction varying with the square of rpm'
but 2014 will have mep falling with rpm over 10500, so predicted friction rises more slowly with rpm
the above is consistent with a Coulomb term, an rpm-dependent (inertia) term, and mep-dependent term of frictional loss

the post reminds me IMO that running 10500-15000 means much running at a sub-optimal CR (or sub-optimally in other ways)
designing for 10500-12300 running or 13000-15000 doesn't
(ok we might design for 10800-12600 running vs a design for 12600-14500 running, to allow some margin for non-ideal gear ratios)

agreed, other inferences could be drawn from the 2014 rules
eg as previously posted, sub-optimal CR would leave more exhaust pressure energy for recovery (at high exhaust pressure)

[xpensive]

I posted this on the yin yang thread, but I find it serious enough to take it up here as well;

I hear that batteries will be conidered as part of the engine in 2014 and that there will be a penalty for changing it.

I find that a bit hard to believe as batteries are kind of a consumable, say if you charge/discharge 6 times per lap,
150 laps per race weekend for 5 races, that's 4500 cycles?

In all honesty, I find it difficult to believe that those batteries will last that long, but does anyone have info on how the batteries' capacity will taper-off with charging and discharge, some 1000 next-to-emptying cycles per race-weekend is a lot, isn't it?

[wuzak]

If it were the case, I would be tempted to use flywheels.

Bosch developed a modular system suitable for the original KERS rules. A few more of them, and you should get enough capacity (you won't get 4MJ, probably not even 2MJ).

[timbo]

I posted this on the yin yang thread, but I find it serious enough to take it up here as well;

I hear that batteries will be conidered as part of the engine in 2014 and that there will be a penalty for changing it.

I find that a bit hard to believe as batteries are kind of a consumable, say if you charge/discharge 6 times per lap,
150 laps per race weekend for 5 races, that's 4500 cycles?

In all honesty, I find it difficult to believe that those batteries will last that long, but does anyone have info on how the batteries' capacity will taper-off with charging and discharge, some 1000 next-to-emptying cycles per race-weekend is a lot, isn't it?

Aren't they current limited? I.e. the batteries are not at their peak energy dencity, so they are not near full discharge? If so, the performance seems to hold well (when there's no full discarge).
But surely it is another serious consideration for engineers.

[Holm86]

Just a completely different question here.

Does anybody have a clue what is in the contracts between an engine supplier and the customer??
Im thinking do they have to give the engines back after they are used?? Or are they allowed to keep them?? Im thinking the first but im not sure.

I was wondering what is keeping Honda engineers from studying the Mercedes engine at McLarens factory during the whole 2014 season??

[Tommy Cookers]

........ batteries' capacity will taper-off with charging and discharge, some 1000 next-to-emptying cycles per race-weekend is a lot, isn't it?

Aren't they current limited? I.e. the batteries are not at their peak energy dencity, so they are not near full discharge? If so, the performance seems to hold well (when there's no full discarge).

even in normal full-cycle conditions battery life is only 1000 cycles
granted the mode of use in a race is relatively undemanding and will mask battery deficiencies
but surely they are being charged and discharged at very high rates (to minimise battery size and weight)
the only way round this life issue is to use much more battery, say 50-80 kg
which means they then throw away three times the batteries one third as often (as with road EVs)