2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

@ ringo
so you think that the billions of Al alloy pistons are wrong ?
(and the millions of British motorcycle Al alloy conrods that lasted just fine, even in racing)
even British designers knew that steel designs would tend to a longer fatigue life - so what when the Al design has enough life ?

your paper clip example is the usual 'physics teacher' nonsense
because fatigue is all about behaviour within the elastic range

a steel piston would be used when the temperature is more than Al alloy could handle
ie a temperature at which its elastic limit stress would be so lowered the engine couldn't stand the rpm or even combustion loads
your S-N curves are for normal temperatures, not elevated temperatures

Why the aggression? Did i say anything incorrect?
Yes the paper clip example is in the plastic range.
It's just an illustration. Regardless you can still bend a paper clip below the yeild strenght and it will fail at some point.

Regardless of what you'd like to say, aluminum does not have infinite life, and i've already said that the designer may choose an application where the failure point is not reached. And this is where we see aluminum used in various applications. And that curve is an example, there are many more out there.

I've never said that a steel piston is superior or inferior. The main issue is the weight with steel. The other characteristics are more favourable over aluminum.
Aluminum crank shaft is something you may not find, and this isn't because of temperature. Same for long haul diesel engines. There are so many examples as to aluminums longevity beside a piston.
If a piston maker decides to go for steel, how do you know that in cylinder temperatures are much higher than the same with aluminum pistons? And this isn't the combustion temperatures we're talking, i'm talking the heat absorbed by the piston.
Temperature could be a factor, but if you're allowed five engines per season in F1, going for steel pistons is a wise choice if you consider the properties of the metal.

[xpensive]

As a design engineer, you have to value stiffness, strength, hardness and weight for various materials in different applications.
Reasons for using steel in the crankshafts are the superior stiffness vs Aluminium and the fact that the latter is not a suitable material as bearing-surface in the journals due to its relative softness. Pistons are a totally different matter however.

[ringo]

The hardness also plays a role in determining the life of a component.
So yes there are a lot of aspects to material selection for engine parts applications as you have alluded to. I was just making the point that steel makes a more durable component than aluminum in most cases and steel pistons are in fact something that could actually make sense in the new f1 engines.
If the engines are to operate in almost diesel like conditions surely steel is a consideration.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Pat Fry on the new Power Units for 2014 and possible loopholes.

"I think the aero rules are fairly stable," said Fry. "It is when you get to the power-unit rules they are a can of worms.

"There are certainly opportunities for the FIA to get involved, yes."

Fry feels it is not just the engines rules that will be open to different interpretations, and he is not ruling out a team finding something like the Brawn squad did at the start of the 2009 season with its double diffuser.

"What was a double diffuser worth at the start? Ten or 15 points [of downforce]. I am sure there are items out there like that, so will be interesting to see who finds them," he said.

"People keep on trying to restrict the rules. There will be lot of different shapes next year that you haven't seen before, so it is all done for a reason."

F1 2014 engine rules could open a can of worms - Ferrari's Pat Fry

[Shafto]

Hello guys,

I apologize if this has been brought up as I am not going to read through an impressive 315 pages!

I would like to have a little talk about these drivers saying how they will have all this torque next season and the car will be much harder to drive.

I have not even looked at specs, but just for comparison sake lets make some numbers up

2.4L V8: 750HP@18000 300lbf@15000
1.6L V6: 750HP@15000 750lbf@10000

So these numbers I completely made up, but do represent roughly what is going to happen next year.

I have a fairly good understanding on tq vs hp but I am little confused and want to clear things up. Next years cars will have roughly the same hp, so even though they might make way more torque, the power at the wheel will be the same, therefore there should not be a huge oversteer tendency in that respect. However, With the NA V8s mid corner when they punch it, the engine is not really in its sweet spot, whereas next year when they punch it mid corner, they will have a considerable amount tq available which would create more power at that moment. With that somewhat answering my own question, with the way these things are geared, I just can't see these things being drift monsters. The v6 will have a larger power band but at the end of the day, the same energy is going to the wheels. The V8s were obviously geared around their small peak power band, whereas the v6's will be the same. even more focused on peak power as 8 speed.

I am probably wrong, just because as stated, mid corner, they will find immediate grunt, but out of control? I guess we will see.

[motobaleno]

2.4L V8: 750HP@18000 300lbf@15000
1.6L V6: 750HP@15000 750lbf@10000

if the power at 15.000 will be 750
then, since the maximum fuel flux is reached at 10.500 and the boost is unrestricted, the same engine could have 780 at 10500

[Cold Fussion]

I think the lack of blown diffusers will have a more immediate affect than the slightly wider power band.

[Shafto]

I think the lack of blown diffusers will have a more immediate affect than the slightly wider power band.

good point

[thisisatest]

2.4L V8: 750HP@18000 300lbf@15000
1.6L V6: 750HP@15000 750lbf@10000

if the power at 15.000 will be 750
then, since the maximum fuel flux is reached at 10.500 and the boost is unrestricted, the same engine could have 780 at 10500

Also, if you have 750 lbft of torque at 10000 rpm, that's almost 1500 horsepower at that same rpm.

[techF1LES]

Updated 2014 TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
v2013-12-09

These are the latest changes concerning power units:

Valve stem diameter must not be less than 4.95mm.

- previously 5mm

No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.
[...]
Only approved ignition coils may be used and the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the
approval procedure, may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

- previously no specific limit on ignition sparks
- minor update in second paragraph - word "parts" was replaced by "ignition coils"

The system will be considered shut down when no high voltage can be present on any external
or accessible part of the ERS.

- marginal wording changes - "can be" instead of "is" and "the ERS" instead of "any ERS module"

Measures must be taken to ensure that in the event of failure of the turbine wheel any
resulting significant debris is contained within the car.

- new paragraph

Any single control device, including but not limited to switch, button, paddle or pedal, used by
the driver must be connected to a single analogue or digital input of the ECU.
Exceptions will be considered to handle the following :
a) A spare clutch paddle sensor.
b) A spare accelerator pedal sensor.
c) A separate "kick-down" sensor which indicates that the accelerator pedal has been
deliberately depressed past full travel.
d) Multiplexed shift signals.
e) A spare brake pressure and pedal sensor.
Any interface between such driver operated devices and the ECU must be approved by the
FIA.

- mostly redefined with added list of exceptions (n.b. first mention of "kick-down" in regulations)

Any alteration of the driver’s controls may only be commanded by direct, deliberate and
primary driver actions.

- added to article 8.6.3

APPENDIX 2
POWER UNIT SYSTEMS, FUNCTIONS AND COMPONENTS

- updated, see previous version of regulations: v2013-07-08 (page 83)

[dren]

Also, the torque gradient has been upped to .045Nm/rpm.

[techF1LES]

Also, the torque gradient has been upped to .045Nm/rpm.

It was changed on July 3 this year - see regulations v2013-07-08...

[dren]

Also, the torque gradient has been upped to .045Nm/rpm.

It was changed on July 3 this year - see regulations v2013-07-08...

Ahh I must have had an older reg. Thanks

[atanatizante]

I apologize but it takes to long to find out trough 315 pages, therefore have some questions.
Now bearing in mind there is a limit of 100kg of fuel per race:
1)they must fuel the cars no more or no less than this amount regardless where they have to race e.g. Monaco or Spa?
2)the flow rate is the same for each race or depends on the circuit?
3)had the fuel flow is constant from 10.500 to 15.000 rpm then under 10.500 rpm you could manage any flow rate?
... sorry for my poor engine knowledge

[wuzak]

I apologize but it takes to long to find out trough 315 pages, therefore have some questions.
Now bearing in mind there is a limit of 100kg of fuel per race:
1)they must fuel the cars no more or no less than this amount regardless where they have to race e.g. Monaco or Spa?

The 100kg is a maximum. If they only need 80kg, that is all they need to carry.

2)the flow rate is the same for each race or depends on the circuit?

Yes, the fuel flow rate is the same for every circuit. It is also a maximum, so they can choose to not use the maximum if, for example, they are trying to save fuel.

3)had the fuel flow is constant from 10.500 to 15.000 rpm then under 10.500 rpm you could manage any flow rate?

The flow rate below 10,500rpm is defined by a formula, and is always less than at 10,500rpm. The lower the rpm, the lower the fuel flow allowed.