2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

When the Fuel Flow Sensor of de FIA was presented, I was thinking of a way to cheat the 100L/hour fuel rate limit.
If you add a flexible fuel line behind the fuel flow sensor, than you can "store" a little of fuel in the flexible fuel line. So you can get a little storage, that alows you to have a very small peak of more than 100L/hour when you start to tweak the pressure of the fuel pump & the line expands or shrinks.

I think there is nothing written about flex fuel lines, and the FIA can't check of they don't know it's there.

The rules forbid any attempt to beat the fuel flow sensor, even if they do not specifically rule out any ideas.

But how do they know? I don't think they are going to check the fuel lines to check the flexibility of them. Because when the car is in parc Ferme, they is no pressure on the line at all.

They will tear the car apart if they suspect something is up.

And a flexible fuel line may have the issue of being built from a different material to normal, or of being a lighter gauge than would be expected. Also, to be of any use the fuel line would have to be larger than normally necessary - a red flag for the FIA. This has previously been discussed - maybe even in this thread.

The FIA will be checking fuel systems to make sure that the meter is installed correctly and in the correct place.

[Vale46]

I'm still not certain all cars will have an intercooler, the boost is relatively low and the aerodynamic demands so grotesque that running without might be advantageous as a whole. As for the engine oil, when I'm pretty sure those liquids are without Viscosity-index enhancers, viscosity will be xtremely temperature-dependent, but that would be the case also with 2013 V8s.

All in all, as fun as it is to speculate on this, I think there is a whole heap of desinformation going around and what we will see will be a lot different than what has been presented so far.

Even a small intercooler 'll give you a lot more horsepower, so why won't they? If you get only 1 or 2 bar pressure, you get hot air. Very inefficient for the engine!
Also, if you put hotter air in the engine, the engine itself 'll be hotter and needs more cooling.
So you need a bigger radiator anyway!

The more power from the normal intercooler operation is the be able to stuff in more air, and this stuff in more fuel. Not applicable in 2014.

I know the principle of turbocharging
I also know that the cooler int incoming air of the engine, the more efficient it gets. The burning of the fuel is more efficient at lower temperatures.
You suggest almost no pressure and no intercooler, so why simply don't add a turbo?

The turbo means energy harvesting! To stuff 100L/H in an engine, you need boost, especially at lower revs due to the flow rate limits on higher revs. The cooler the air, the more air goes in the engine AND the more efficient the fuel 'll burn.

[xpensive]

@Vale46;
Perhaps you should spend some time browsing through the 300+ pages of this thread before you start posting in such a haste?

[motobaleno]

Piola says on omnicorse that ferrari's going air-water intercooling

[xpensive]

But how about your interpretation of; "five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle"

You can ignite the spark plug / bolt a maximum of five times during one cycle of the four-stroke cycle in each cylinder. You could use 5 ignitions to burn the fuel as thoroughly as possible, or you could use three to ignite the fuel under compression and the other two to ignite the rest fuel in the exhaust gas (i.e. after the exhaust valves opened) to increase its energy (most likely used last year, could be counterproductive in 2014, since you'll want to be as efficient as possible...or could the fumes be used to cool the turbo? ).

IIrc this is common practice in road cars to get a smoother and more efficient ignition, and I think that tailoring the burn process could help the engines last longer by reducing the shock of the pressure build-up in the cylinder.

If this had been a legal document, these rules would have counted for nothing, any seasoned patent attorney or lawyer would have taken it to parts in no-time, almost embarrassingly amateurishly written;

5.11.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder.
No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

- What is a "spark plug"? You have to name it "Spark generating device"
- Identify "spark"? Oh please, "An electrical discharge between two electrodes"
- What is a "cycle"? Should be "One 360 degree revolution of the crankshaft"

Otherwise, we would bypass the patent with "Spark bolts", "Flashes" and "Lifecycles" and have time for a three-martini lunch.

[wuzak]

But how about your interpretation of; "five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle"

You can ignite the spark plug / bolt a maximum of five times during one cycle of the four-stroke cycle in each cylinder. You could use 5 ignitions to burn the fuel as thoroughly as possible, or you could use three to ignite the fuel under compression and the other two to ignite the rest fuel in the exhaust gas (i.e. after the exhaust valves opened) to increase its energy (most likely used last year, could be counterproductive in 2014, since you'll want to be as efficient as possible...or could the fumes be used to cool the turbo? ).

IIrc this is common practice in road cars to get a smoother and more efficient ignition, and I think that tailoring the burn process could help the engines last longer by reducing the shock of the pressure build-up in the cylinder.

If this had been a legal document, these rules would have counted for nothing, any seasoned patent attorney or lawyer would have taken it to parts in no-time, almost embarrassingly amateurishly written;

5.11.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder.
No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

- What is a "spark plug"? You have to name it "Spark generating device"
- Identify "spark"? Oh please, "An electrical discharge between two electrodes"
- What is a "cycle"? Should be "One 360 degree revolution of the crankshaft"

Otherwise, we would bypass the patent with "Spark bolts", "Flashes" and "Lifecycles" and have time for a three-martini lunch.

The terms are common usage terms, and don't need specific definitions.

The cycle is two revolutions of the crankshaft, not one.

[xpensive]

As I said, if it had been a legal document, like a patent, they would indeed need be more specific, otherwise useless.

"Common usage terms" are xactly that.

[ringo]

The storage of fuel in the line is not enough to not be seen by the sensor.
It won't make a difference overall.

[ringo]

Piola says on omnicorse that ferrari's going air-water intercooling

Yes the boost pressure will vary throughout the rev range and the different fuel saving modes. They will be used next year.

[xpensive]

Piola says on omnicorse that ferrari's going air-water intercooling

When the massflow will be constant in the operating window, 10.5-15 k, this makes sense, if you want an intercooler that is.

[chip engineer]

Piola says on omnicorse that ferrari's going air-water intercooling

When the massflow will be constant in the operating window, 10.5-15 k, this makes sense, if you want an intercooler that is.

If an air-water intercooler is built into water cooling of the compressor, does it count as part of the power unit weight?
Since the power unit has a minimum weight and center of gravity, it would seem a significant advantage to do this:
5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference
plane.
Edit: I see appendix 2 excludes from power unit weight and CG: "Heat exchangers and their associated accessories. (included but not limited to tubes, hoses, supports, brackets and fasteners) "

Even though 'heat exchangers' are apparently not allowed in power unit weight, it seems built-in water cooling of the compressor would still be included. This compressor cooling may still give some significant intercooling effect.

[langwadt]

The storage of fuel in the line is not enough to not be seen by the sensor.
It won't make a difference overall.

and since the injectors must be from an approved list and pressure/temperature of the fuel at the injectors logged by
the FIA datalogger is should be very easy to prove cheating

[ringo]

Piola says on omnicorse that ferrari's going air-water intercooling

ok. interesting. I wonder if they have have the a combination heat exchanger with the kers coolers and intercooler in the same shell as the cooling water. Then that water goes out to a radiator in the side pod.
So you just have 2 radiators in the sidepods.

[Pavan_MP423]

I hope my follow query doesn't get the discussion on the above topic go astray. Turbo lag is a major parameter which the drivers have to cope up with especially in street circuits, to get the power down early & get a faster exit.
What's the best possible way to counteract this effect? I've read that power from MGU-H can be harnessed to spool the turbines until enough boost is produced.

Looking forward to hear from y'all

Cheers!!
Good day everyone.

[WhiteBlue]

I hope my follow query doesn't get the discussion on the above topic go astray. Turbo lag is a major parameter which the drivers have to cope up with especially in street circuits, to get the power down early & get a faster exit.
What's the best possible way to counteract this effect? I've read that power from MGU-H can be harnessed to spool the turbines until enough boost is produced.

Looking forward to hear from y'all

Cheers!!
Good day everyone.

It is indeed expected that Turbo lag will not be an issue due to electric spool up assist by the MGU-H.