2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ESPImperium]

Power figures are often up to 15% lower than actuals. The V8s up to 820hp without KERS, there was only 25hp in it from the fastest to the slowest in Horsepower terms. However with the EBD and Coanda of the past 3-4 years the card lost up to 45Hp from the Crank to Axle as the electronics and exhaust contained that power. The fact that up to the end of 2007 BMW has a engine pumping out 815hp that lost 12% with the MES ECU introduction is testament to that. Also, if there was unrestricted development and allowance of some new 'green' tech in the V8s, Mercedes said their engine that ended 2013 could have done 22,000rpm with almost 950Hp. Thats an extra 2.4 to 2.9 seconds around Monza, without KERS.

Personally, i think the V6 combustion engine is getting closer to the 650 to 670 mark, with the 140 from the ERS, thats easily on par with the V8s, and personally id like to have seen the ERS to have been to 40 seconds with it rising to 50 seconds in 2016 and a further 2.5 seconds every year there after, with the reduction of fuel in 2016 to 90kg and 2Kg every year for 5 years.

However, the V6T era needs to have at least 9 years of free and next to open ERS development. The V6T era is all well and good, but its long term rule changes need to be worked out and properly in order for the V6Ts to work properly. At the moment i think they are a bit stillborn, and this might be what will hurt some teams and engine manufacturers over the next year or two until things get straightened out.

[wuzak]

Redbull's power unit problems may stem from the same things we were arguing in this thread.
They may be putting too much mechanical control responsibilities in the hands of electronic control Boost control being one.
Listening to the Mercedes and the Ferrari, both cars seem to use typical mechanical control valves to control their turbo engine transients.
Renault is trying to play god and model boost control into a motor, which i think they will fall short at.

Can you hear when a wastegate is operated? I doubt it.

And since any blow off valve would have to exit into the exhaust system, do you think you can hear that?

Perhaps what you think is "mechanical control valves" is actually the MGU-H?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLcrTw7FOI

A motor is a load, I was concerned when they said it was being used as a form of boost control. I can imagine the heat soaking taking place on the exhaust side when the motor loads up the turbine to limit the speed. This is all speculation on my part however; the interview says it all.. the engine has too many electic controls and mechanical hardware has been added as a bandaid.
http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/01/31/rob- ... nce-level/

I doubt a wastegate has been added as a bandaid. A backup, in case there are problems for the MGU-H, I can see. But not a bandaid.

[wuzak]

Check out the sound of the Ferrari after the engine stops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdBy5eyzNL0

At about 21m

[ringo]

These things are audible. I guess it depends on how good your ears are. haha.

That video that you posted, that's just the turbine spinning on it's own. That's usually the case for big ball bearing turbines.
The inertia keeps it spinning a while after you shut off.

[ringo]

Can you hear when a wastegate is operated? I doubt it.

umm yes?

And since any blow off valve would have to exit into the exhaust system, do you think you can hear that?

Why not? It wont sound like a sneeze, but you may still hear it.

[Mysticf1]

I thought using the mgu-h for boost control was the whole point?

[Holm86]

You should definitely be able to hear the wastegate. It bypasses the exhaust around the turbo and the turbo is muffling the sound. So exhaust should be louder when going through a wastegate.

But I'm pretty sure that all engine manufactures uses the MGU-H to control boost. Wastegates will only be a safety matter.

If you don't use the MGU-H to control the boost then you cant really harvest much energy from the MGU-H any ways.

[wuzak]

I agree with you Holms.

I don't think you can hear any wastegate opeation, nor any blow-off valves, in the videos taken at Jerez.

[wuzak]

Power Curves comparison of the V8 and V6 (forecast):
http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/
relative fuel consumption of the V6:
http://postimg.org/image/aiawq3nxv/

Looking at the upper picture, the maximum efficiency in ICE + MGU-H is at around 12rpm, as is maximum power.

Also of note is that the "self-sustaining" mode is working from around 8000rpm - meaning that the MGU-H is making useful power at that stage.

It may be, contrary to what I have said before, that they store energy from the MGU-H in the ES at low speeds and when the car is traction limited.

[Cold Fussion]

Power figures are often up to 15% lower than actuals. The V8s up to 820hp without KERS, there was only 25hp in it from the fastest to the slowest in Horsepower terms. However with the EBD and Coanda of the past 3-4 years the card lost up to 45Hp from the Crank to Axle as the electronics and exhaust contained that power. The fact that up to the end of 2007 BMW has a engine pumping out 815hp that lost 12% with the MES ECU introduction is testament to that. Also, if there was unrestricted development and allowance of some new 'green' tech in the V8s, Mercedes said their engine that ended 2013 could have done 22,000rpm with almost 950Hp. Thats an extra 2.4 to 2.9 seconds around Monza, without KERS.

Personally, i think the V6 combustion engine is getting closer to the 650 to 670 mark,

Do you have any sources at all for this? 670 HP is 40% efficient using the LHV of petrol (44.4 MJ/kg), which seems an unreasonable expectation.

Power Curves comparison of the V8 and V6 (forecast):
http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/
relative fuel consumption of the V6:
http://postimg.org/image/aiawq3nxv/

Looking at the upper picture, the maximum efficiency in ICE + MGU-H is at around 12rpm, as is maximum power.

Also of note is that the "self-sustaining" mode is working from around 8000rpm - meaning that the MGU-H is making useful power at that stage.

It may be, contrary to what I have said before, that they store energy from the MGU-H in the ES at low speeds and when the car is traction limited.

Why is the maximum ICE power at ~11500 RPM and not 10500 RPM?

[wuzak]

Why is the maximum ICE power at ~11500 RPM and not 10500 RPM?

That I don't know.

Possibly something to do with the combustion properties?

[Abarth]

I can't believe that max power is at higher than 10500 min-1. Lower rews less friction, most time to inject and burn fuel. Unless they deliberately map the engine in a way that it doesn't use all of available fuel... But why should they do this? Driveability?

[Blackout]

I agree with you Holms.

I don't think you can hear any wastegate opeation, nor any blow-off valves, in the videos taken at Jerez.

What do you think is the sound you hear at 0:27 ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqQbdEJsjHQ

[Tommy Cookers]

I can't believe that max power is at higher than 10500 min-1. Lower rews less friction, most time to inject and burn fuel. Unless they deliberately map the engine in a way that it doesn't use all of available fuel... But why should they do this? Driveability?

10500 rpm running has about 9% less friction than 11500 rpm running (from C Fayette Taylor's Allison data)
but 11500 rpm needs about 18% less supercharging/compressor power than 10500 rpm does
total (ambient+boost) induction pressure need to will fall proportionate to the 9% rpm rise from 10500 to 11500
so the boost (pressure added by the compressor) will need to fall about double that
this assumes of course the same AFR eg stoichiometric for both rpm, ie the same air massflow
IIRC earlier estimates that I posted, friction power and compressor power are roughly equal, around 8% of crankshaft power

(consider, if the engine ran at maybe 20000 rpm the compressor power would be zero, it would be a N/A turbocompound)
the 'ambient' pressure is actually a bit more than 1 bar, with the tuned length induction effects still present (and some exhaust)
posts here have generally predicted that the pressure added by the compressor is quite small, around 1 bar ?

so there is more power available to the turbine at 11500 rpm
and it's sent to the crankshaft by Gu-h & Mu-k compounding route, so there is more combined power at 11500 than at 10500

OR ........
if Cosworth were presenting transient powers (not steady-state powers) that would also explain the power difference ?
a race is a series of power transients, it's not steady state
eg is the turbo rpm really to be the same at 10500 engine rpm as at 11500 under all race conditions ?

btw .....
in the 80s drivers adjusted their driving to anticipate for and alleviate turbo lag
2014 cars will start spooling-up in anticipation of their need for turbo rpm
having (multi-dimensional ?) software maps and hardware to ensure this (even within the map 'non-proliferation' rules)
the car will not wait until the driver starts to put his foot down before it starts to 'spool up' the turbo
spooling up the turbo rpm will be possible independent of crankshaft torque output
so the driver will in principle not need to adjust/compromise his driving
generally there should be no turbo lag as far as the driver and spectator are concerned ?

[ringo]

I can't believe that max power is at higher than 10500 min-1. Lower rews less friction, most time to inject and burn fuel. Unless they deliberately map the engine in a way that it doesn't use all of available fuel... But why should they do this? Driveability?

That is not the case with formula 1 engines. The friction to engine speed relationship is not linear. Friction can increase with speed then decrease as speed continues to increase.