2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Blanchimont]

Good point, humble sabot. I'd say that this theory is only valid for high revving gasoline engines, which are typical for motorcycles and race cars.

[Owen.C93]

Hi all, I haven't read the 2014 engine rules in detail so this may be a dumb question:

Would it be possible to use really tiny intercoolers that are actively assisted by solid state electrical devices (TEC's) linked on the hot side via heat pipes to the engine radiators?

In theory they could be powered by excess energy not allowed to be used by the drive train and potentially result in higher horsepower and smaller, lower CoG radiator packaging?

Thoughts? legal or illegal?

And how would you cool the other side? Either way heat must be dissipated.

[djos]

Hi all, I haven't read the 2014 engine rules in detail so this may be a dumb question:

Would it be possible to use really tiny intercoolers that are actively assisted by solid state electrical devices (TEC's) linked on the hot side via heat pipes to the engine radiators?

In theory they could be powered by excess energy not allowed to be used by the drive train and potentially result in higher horsepower and smaller, lower CoG radiator packaging?

Thoughts? legal or illegal?

And how would you cool the other side? Either way heat must be dissipated.

As I said in my post, heat pipes linked to the main radiators. I realize TEC's aren't "free" cooling but I'm wondering if the charge cooling (TEC's can produce sub 0 temps) producing more engine power and smaller intercoolers might be worth the effort if legal?

[Holm86]

6 cylinders would allow a higher CR than 4 cylinders would

Could you please explain the mechanics behind this statement??

In the book Motorradtechnik by Jürgen Stoffregen (BMW), one can read that the thermal efficiency is the highest for single cylinder volumes of 0,25 to 0,4 l. The 2013 F1 engine (0,3l / cylinder) and the 2014 one (0,266l / cylinder) are placed it this range. The reasoning behind is that in smaller cylinders the distances from the spark plug to the cylinder walls are smaller, this should help that the fuel is activated by the flame in a shorter time period.

Smaller surface-volume ratios of the combustion chamber can decrease energy losses through the surface.

Though there are many v twin bike engines that exceeds 0,4 l per cylinder. Also the high revving ones. Ducatis 1198/1199 are 0,6 l per cylinder and they rev over 10k rpm. I'm not saying they are the most efficient engines but there must be some reason to use this solution.

I recon their large bore makes them able to fit much larger intake valves causing the engine to have perhaps slightly lower thermal efficiency but larger volumetric efficiency.

In the end I guess you want the bore to be big enough to have large valves but not compromise the flame travel, and you want the stroke as large as possible so that the piston speed doesn't exceed the flame travel speed at the desired rpms. So there is no holy or optimal cylinder size.

[Owen.C93]

I recon their large bore makes them able to fit much larger intake valves causing the engine to have perhaps slightly lower thermal efficiency but larger volumetric efficiency.

Larger bore also creates a larger surface area for the same volume so you increase heat losses in the engine. It has a surprisingly large impact on thermal efficiency.

[ozzimark]

As I said in my post, heat pipes linked to the main radiators. I realize TEC's aren't "free" cooling but I'm wondering if the charge cooling (TEC's can produce sub 0 temps) producing more engine power and smaller intercoolers might be worth the effort if legal?

More air only means more power if you're not already limited in fuel flow. In this case, it'll just make the engine run leaner, since they would already be up against the fuel flow limit.

Also, I remember seeing some articles linked here on F1technical regarding the effect of charge air temp and BSFC from a paper on one of the 80's turbo F1 engines. I believe peak BSFC occurred at a surprisingly high temperature, around 80ºC iirc. Hotter air means better fuel vaporization, which promotes better burning characteristics, so this isn't entirely unsurprising. I wish I could find that paper to re-share it with you guys.

[djos]

Interesting, I wonder if that applies to modern high pressure direct injection engines tho?

[Holm86]

I recon their large bore makes them able to fit much larger intake valves causing the engine to have perhaps slightly lower thermal efficiency but larger volumetric efficiency.

Larger bore also creates a larger surface area for the same volume so you increase heat losses in the engine. It has a surprisingly large impact on thermal efficiency.

I already said that the TE would decrease? And if the impact really is that large, again why do the massive ship engines have such high thermal efficiency? And beside that modern coatings could help with the heat losses.

[Holm86]

Don't know if its been discussed in this thread already. But do you guys think that anyone would make their engine with offset cylinder bores?? Honda has experience with this so perhaps they would do it??

The concept is simplicity itself. In a normally-configured engine, the conrod sits at an angle, pushing the piston against the cylinder wall. Increased friction saps power and requires stronger components, increasing reciprocating mass, which also wastes energy during the power stroke, also reducing power. Reposition the cylinder (the CBR and Ninja move it forwards a couple millimeters) and that conrod now travels straight up and down during the power stroke. Voila, less force pushing the piston sideways and therefore less friction. As a result, the length of the piston skirts can be reduced and the size of the rods, pistons and bearings can also be decreased.

Discussing the benefits, Honda says, “Another slick bit of design work further reduces engine friction: The cylinder centerline is offset from the center of the crankshaft 4mm toward the exhaust side. Doing so reduces the lateral resistance generated between the piston and the cylinder during the power stroke. Granted, it’s a small increment, but it’s an ingenious design element exemplifying attention to detail that yields free benefits.”

So why don’t all engines offset their cylinders, reaping frictional and reciprocating mass benefits? According to Kevin Ash, the arrangement does have its disadvantages. Kev writes, “The power stroke takes longer, which is good for a high revving engine as it allows more time for efficient combustion, but it also makes controlling vibration more difficult as the secondary out-of-balance forces become more complex and asymmetric.”

A longer stroke is necessitated and the power stroke requires more time, which can lead to vibration problems. The v-twin in the Hesketh Vulcan used offset cylinders, which were partly to blame for that bike’s significant vibes.

The full article here

[Tommy Cookers]

6 cylinders would allow a higher CR than 4 cylinders would

Could you please explain the mechanics behind this statement??

... one can read that the thermal efficiency is the highest for single cylinder volumes of 0,25 to 0,4 l. ... in smaller cylinders the distances from the spark plug to the cylinder walls are smaller, this should help that the fuel is activated by the flame in a shorter time period.
Smaller surface-volume ratios of the combustion chamber can decrease energy losses through the surface.

I was suggesting that it is not clear that 400cc cyls would be better than 267cc cyls in 2014 F1
the 267cc will have smaller valves and smaller pistons
the 267cc valves will run cooler due the shorter conduction path to the seat (which is larger relative to the heat flow)
the 267cc pistons will run cooler due to the shorter conduction path from crown to cylinder walls (also larger relative to heat flow)
valve temp and/or piston crown temp determine how high the CR can be without detonation
(certainly when the old British motorcycles used the same bore:stroke ratio with 350cc and 500cc the 350cc had higher CR)
this is part of the reason why SI engines can never have the huge cylinder sizes possible in CI engines
the other factor being, as another poster said, the smaller cylinder will have quicker combustion because of smaller flame travel
also the 267cc friction would not be as unfavourable as we might guess
because its piston speed would be lower and its piston travel shorter (and it has only 4 main bearings)
(and of course the V6 is better structurally for the F1car than an inline 4)

true, when the real fuel quantity limit was imposed on 80s turbo F1, one new 4 cyl design appeared

[Tommy Cookers]

the Honda kind of offset was very fashionable 100 years ago in GP cars, known as desaxe (with accents that I can't generate here)
yes it makes sense in inline road car engines for slow speed running
given that engine height is often crucial to body lines, and that Honda etc often uses a surprising long stroke
IMO the leading benefit is to allow such a reduced piston height, that would give slap if offset was not used
(motorcycles are maybe different, typically having much larger bore:stroke ratios than cars, and reach much higher rpm)

the traditional argument against offset is that it worsens the geometry on the upstroke, and so increases the side force then
side forces will come both from combustion loads and from inertia loads (from reciprocation of piston mass etc)
given that at high rpm even in road cars the reciprocating inertia loads are larger than the combustion loads
offset, particularly in racing, can in this respect be regarded as worse than useless
and offset appears to increase vibration somewhat

traditionally, the place to find offset will be in V engines trying to be particularly narrow
such as the old Lancias made from 1920-1980 ?, and definitely the VW VR5 and its spinoffs
and some motorcycle Vs like the 70s Morini 350cc and its relatives
in these V cases the offset reduces the combustion load side thrust on one half of the engine but increases it on the other
only with geared cranks eg in GP 4 cyl 2-strokes could the offset work as desired
(though radial aero engines and even Vs having articulated rods always had the correct offset for combustion loads)

other offsets are possible - don't recent F1 engines have the gudgeon pin/wrist pin offset in the piston ?
because the combustion and/or inertia loads are not central, and the pistons are so wide and squat they want to rock
(these pistons must be rather mass-asymmetric)

EDIT - IMO the (rather limited) reference that Holm gave essentially agrees what I had posted here
in part it seems to parallel F1 developments with pistons (Kawasaki claiming squatter, lighter pistons from crank offset)
it seems that crank offset in an inline engine and gudgeon/wrist pin offset eg in the F1 V8 achieve the same thing .....
lighter, squatter, pistons that give more power by allowing higher rpm and by having less frictional swept area

[chip engineer]

the Honda kind of offset was very fashionable 100 years ago in GP cars, known as desaxe (with accents that I can't generate here)
yes it makes sense in inline road car engines for slow speed running
given that engine height is often crucial to body lines, and that Honda etc often uses a surprising long stroke
IMO the leading benefit is to allow such a reduced piston height, that would give slap if offset was not used
(motorcycles are maybe different, typically having much larger bore:stroke ratios than cars, and reach much higher rpm)

the traditional argument against offset is that it worsens the geometry on the upstroke, and so increases the side force then
side forces will come both from combustion loads and from inertia loads (from reciprocation of piston mass etc)
given that at high rpm even in road cars the reciprocating inertia loads are larger than the combustion loads
offset, particularly in racing, can in this respect be regarded as worse than useless
and offset appears to increase vibration somewhat
...
EDIT - IMO the (rather limited) reference that Holm gave essentially agrees what I had posted here
in part it seems to parallel F1 developments with pistons (Kawasaki claiming squatter, lighter pistons from crank offset)
it seems that crank offset in an inline engine and gudgeon/wrist pin offset eg in the F1 V8 achieve the same thing .....
lighter, squatter, pistons that give more power by allowing higher rpm and by having less frictional swept area

I wonder if some of the benefits of this offset in reducing side loads and friction could be obtained without most of the disadvantages of offset. By using the MGUK to apply torque in a large pulse to accelerate the crankshaft for a few degrees immediately after ignition, most of the combustion force could go to accelerating the piston for a short time (until the con rod geometry is more favorable). Then the MGUK could apply no torque during the most unfavorable upstroke time, so that some deceleration would reduce the side force.

This would probably be more effective in an inline 4 than V6, but still might be helpful. Pulsing the MGUK is probably not too difficult.

[WhiteBlue]

In the book Motorradtechnik by Jürgen Stoffregen (BMW), one can read that the thermal efficiency is the highest for single cylinder volumes of 0,25 to 0,4 l. The 2013 F1 engine (0,3l / cylinder) and the 2014 one (0,266l / cylinder) are placed it this range. The reasoning behind is that in smaller cylinders the distances from the spark plug to the cylinder walls are smaller, this should help that the fuel is activated by the flame in a shorter time period.

Smaller surface-volume ratios of the combustion chamber can decrease energy losses through the surface.

All these rules are not considering the fuel formula. I'm convinced it will create different optima across all motor sport technology. Every single parameter needs to be re optimized. I'm pretty sure they did massive simulations before they designed the engines. And they would have done even more simulations if there had been any significant freedom of choice as there is in LMP1.

[WhiteBlue]

I was suggesting that it is not clear that 400cc cyls would be better than 267cc cyls in 2014 F1
the 267cc will have smaller valves and smaller pistons
the 267cc valves will run cooler due the shorter conduction path to the seat (which is larger relative to the heat flow)
the 267cc pistons will run cooler due to the shorter conduction path from crown to cylinder walls (also larger relative to heat flow)
valve temp and/or piston crown temp determine how high the CR can be without detonation
(certainly when the old British motorcycles used the same bore:stroke ratio with 350cc and 500cc the 350cc had higher CR)
this is part of the reason why SI engines can never have the huge cylinder sizes possible in CI engines
the other factor being, as another poster said, the smaller cylinder will have quicker combustion because of smaller flame travel
also the 267cc friction would not be as unfavourable as we might guess
because its piston speed would be lower and its piston travel shorter (and it has only 4 main bearings)
(and of course the V6 is better structurally for the F1car than an inline 4)

true, when the real fuel quantity limit was imposed on 80s turbo F1, one new 4 cyl design appeared

I'm surprised you make all these statements knowing nothing at all about the combustion process of the 2014 engines and how it compares to systems you know. Do you really believe that things will even be remotely similar to anything that has run in F1 or comparable categories of motor sport? These engines and the LMP1 engines will be a land slide in technology and everbody who claims he knows all about them must be either involved in one of the projects or he is speaking from an incredible hybris.

I'm absolutely hopping mad to see these things on the test tracks from next month. I hope there will be a bunch of things revealed. It is such a shame that we do not have any freedom in design in F1 any more. It was killed by the cost argument. But now they have frozen it on top because the cost cutting argument never stood up in reality. They could have easily left the displacement and engine config unlimited for 2 years and started to freeze it from the third year. All of this really is a shame.

[wuzak]

I'm absolutely hopping mad to see these things on the test tracks from next month. I hope there will be a bunch of things revealed. It is such a shame that we do not have any freedom in design in F1 any more. It was killed by the cost argument. But now they have frozen it on top because the cost cutting argument never stood up in reality. They could have easily left the displacement and engine config unlimited for 2 years and started to freeze it from the third year. All of this really is a shame.

You're hopping mad? You should be excited, surely?

As for cost savings....

If they didn't define the architecture then they would, by your own reasoning, spent much more on simulations and calculations to get their best result.
Have the potential to require an architecture change if someone stole a march on the opposition.
The engines would cost a lot more to customer teams if more manufacturers were involved.
I dare say that the three manufacturers in F1 at the moment know a thing or two about the costs of these power plants and they are the ones that chose the standard layout.
The frozen engine formula means that costs will be amortized over several seasons, with some developments still allowed for the years to come. If, like the '90s, they basically redesigned the engine every year there would be a cost blow-out.