2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

@ 321apex

thanks for the reference, but/and ......
surely the more fertile subject is the value or otherwise if EGR in 2014 F1 ?
18 months ago I suggested 'accidental' EGR as a benign consequence of increased BP from mgu-h generation load
as being thermodynamically the least disadvantageous way of using the engine if/when rpm rises well above 10500
and anyway then less disadvantageous than the otherwise inevitable alternatives

later I found the NACA research that seemed to show greater merits in increased BP with appropriately-matched EV closure timing

FWIW EGR as such doesn't seem IMO to be particularly beneficial in racing
though we might see both these effects in F1, maybe some of each in the same engine at different times ?
unless VVT is allowed

[321apex]

@ 321apex

thanks for the reference, but/and ......
surely the more fertile subject is the value or otherwise if EGR in 2014 F1 ?
18 months ago I suggested 'accidental' EGR as a benign consequence of increased BP from mgu-h generation load
as being thermodynamically the least disadvantageous way of using the engine if/when rpm rises well above 10500
and anyway then less disadvantageous than the otherwise inevitable alternatives

later I found the NACA research that seemed to show greater merits in increased BP with appropriately-matched EV closure timing

FWIW EGR as such doesn't seem IMO to be particularly beneficial in racing
though we might see both these effects in F1, maybe some of each in the same engine at different times ?
unless VVT is allowed

In my view, the EGR may just be the byproduct of circumstances and not by design, at least not initially. The optimization of the new powertrain from the perspective of gear ratios, component selection for it to be frozen for 10 months is a pressure cooker for responsible engineers. Bad engineering decision will be VERY costly and undoubtedly will get heavily penalized.

This new realm has so many options and unknowns to make your head spin. M&M dillemma - what configuration for Monaco and what for Monza? In the years past engineers had notebooks full of "prior art" - their own or more widely known "magazines of silver bullets". This year is a blank sheet.

MGU-H is going to be the most coveted and worked on trinket in 2014.

[321apex]

Additional general questions to all, who have delved deeper into the FIA regulations.

- How does FIA plan to police the complicated energy flow limits to/from MGU's, energy stored/used per lap?

- Meaning how will they measure and account for it?

- Is the telemetry data going to be stored on board or via link to pits?

- How will it be proven that a given team is in breach of these limits.

- I find this whole new set of limitations to be a bag of worms, which may be difficult or even unpoliceable altogether.

Any insight or opinions?

[Tommy Cookers]

whatever the (relative) work done by whatever to get fresh charge into the engine past the valves
it's in recent years at an all-time low, the unprecedentedly high bore:stroke ratios allowing the biggest-ever valves (relatively)
helped also by gas valve springs, 7 speed instant-change paddle transmissions, and mapped power curve smoothing
the engines no longer needed a good spread of power that required compromised peak-rpm cylinder filling
bmep values at high rpm show cylinder filling corresponding not to a 1 bar atmosphere, rather to 1.2 bar

this would suggest that the usual '1 bar' methods for calculating 2014 boost are pessimistic ?
though the 2014 engine will have relatively smaller valves, due to lower b:s ratio
'tuned length' exhaust may be as efficient (notwithstanding the turbo) than recent N/A systems designed for 'exhaust blowing'

N/A F1 fuel was not in recent years Octane-critical due to the very high rpm, Shell stated here around 95 Octane
what is undisputed is the recent waiving of the fuel Octane limit that was a key feature from 1958
never mind the efficiency claims on fuel of unlimited specific energy and Octane No, what would be the efficiency using road fuel ?
the efficiency benefits of this technology would anyway be less in road use ie at partial and low powers
though one maker seems to be giving it some publicity talk already

[321apex]

whatever the (relative) work done by whatever to get fresh charge into the engine past the valves
it's in recent years at an all-time low, the unprecedentedly high bore:stroke ratios allowing the biggest-ever valves (relatively)
helped also by gas valve springs, 7 speed instant-change paddle transmissions, and mapped power curve smoothing
the engines no longer needed a good spread of power that required compromised peak-rpm cylinder filling
bmep values at high rpm show cylinder filling corresponding not to a 1 bar atmosphere, rather to 1.2 bar

Increasing bore size has it's limits in terms of "quality" of geometry of the combustion chamber volume. You are speaking of volumetric efficiency and you are correct that with resonant tuning effects 120% was/is possible without turbo. Bear in mind that it is the huge valve overlap that helps achieve this VE.


I disagree with you on the diminished need for a good spread of power. That is always a nice thing to have and peaky engines are never winners. The optimization of combustion is usually a game of compromise to have minimum "missed cycles" due to poor mixture filling/preparation or poor combustion. Key to that is combustion chamber shape and charge delivery (some amount of swirl/tumble but not too much).

this would suggest that the usual '1 bar' methods for calculating 2014 boost are pessimistic ?
though the 2014 engine will have relatively smaller valves, due to lower b:s ratio
'tuned length' exhaust may be as efficient (notwithstanding the turbo) than recent N/A systems designed for 'exhaust blowing'

True. The V6 will have significantly smaller total valve area to deliver and extract gases thru. I have not analyzed the b/s impact , but we could assume the compression ratio will be lower so the combustion chamber will have better geometry as compared with atmo V8. Inlet and exhaust system geometry and tuning will have the same general important impact as before, requiring some engineering design an tuning. Turbo or no turbo, the game is the same when you have compressible gases to deal with. Principles don't change, but details are different.

N/A F1 fuel was not in recent years Octane-critical due to the very high rpm, Shell stated here around 95 Octane
what is undisputed is the recent waiving of the fuel Octane limit that was a key feature from 1958
never mind the efficiency claims on fuel of unlimited specific energy and Octane No, what would be the efficiency using road fuel ?
the efficiency benefits of this technology would anyway be less in road use ie at partial and low powers
though one maker seems to be giving it some publicity talk already

I am a bit weaker on the fuel subject, but can provide this.
For many years now, the operating temperatures inside of many formulas of racing engines are higher that 100 degC. The chemistry of all fluids used inside must conform and support those operational needs and that includes fuel.
With atmo V8 you needed fast evaporating and burning fuel while having a sufficient knock limit to deal with a less than ideal combustion chamber. Large bore and high compression ratio resulted in a large diameter and very flat combustion chamber where you had around 42-45mm distance (50% of the bore) between the spark plug and the extremity of the combustion chamber. This distance is an important design factor since the flame has to travel this distance each combustion cycle. In ICE combustion science, there exists a phenomena called "end gas" which is prematurely quenched yet still hot and only partially burned fuel/exhaust mixture meandering at the extreme crevices of the combustion chamber near the cylinder bore. This end gas is the primary source of knocking detonation.

With the V6, the bore will be smaller and compression ratio will be lower allowing for better combustion chamber geometry reducing this "end gas" effect and requiring less relative knock resistance from fuel. I say relative, because in this case we have boost so from another angle this fuel must be even more knock resistant than with V8. The octane number game is rather meaningless because fuel is optimized for the particular combustion configuration of the engine. I would say that if in 2014 you poured the gasoline used by Ferrari into a Mercedes engined car, the performance would be different and most likely worse or even damaging.

In terms of fuel for road cars, there is such disparity of chemical engineering applied that those two worlds are really apart. Sorry again for a lengthy reply.

[langwadt]

Additional general questions to all, who have delved deeper into the FIA regulations.

- How does FIA plan to police the complicated energy flow limits to/from MGU's, energy stored/used per lap?

- Meaning how will they measure and account for it?

- Is the telemetry data going to be stored on board or via link to pits?

- How will it be proven that a given team is in breach of these limits.

- I find this whole new set of limitations to be a bag of worms, which may be difficult or even unpoliceable altogether.

Any insight or opinions?

I'd expect FIA to measure current/voltage to and from all the electric gadgets and store it in the FIA datalogger that also stores the other parameters like fuel
pressure, fuel flow, fuel amount etc. mentioned in the regulation

would be very simple to plug in a computer after the race and ask the box if any of
the controlled parameters have exceeded the allowed amount

[WhiteBlue]

I have been --- upon from great hight when I took predictions of 40% efficiency for granted and looked for final, power higher than we had from the V8s. So where are the people who took the opposing view then.
Berfore the year is over they will be higher than 40% with the V6 engine only. This also means we will exceed 800 bhp.

[djos]

I have been --- upon from great hight when I took predictions of 40% efficiency for granted and looked for final, power higher than we had from the V8s. So where are the people who took the opposing view then.
Berfore the year is over they will be higher than 40% with the V6 engine only. This also means we will exceed 800 bhp.

I hope you are right, F1 needs very powerful cars again that can sort the real men from the boys!

[chip engineer]

I have been --- upon from great hight when I took predictions of 40% efficiency for granted and looked for final, power higher than we had from the V8s. So where are the people who took the opposing view then.
Berfore the year is over they will be higher than 40% with the V6 engine only. This also means we will exceed 800 bhp.

I never argued for less than 40% efficiency, but I don't see how the fuel energy density can be much more than 45 MJ/kg (LHV) if the fuel must be a liquid at standard temperature and pressure. Methane gives you 50 MJ/kg, but is not a liquid.

So unless the 40% is assuming HHV, I don't see much more than 670 hp at 40%.

[Tommy Cookers]

...... Berfore the year is over they will be higher than 40% with the V6 engine only. This also means we will exceed 800 bhp.

I never argued for less than 40% efficiency, but I don't see how the fuel energy density can be much more than 45 MJ/kg (LHV) if the fuel must be a liquid at standard temperature and pressure. Methane gives you 50 MJ/kg, but is not a liquid.
So unless the 40% is assuming HHV, I don't see much more than 670 hp at 40%.

using the HHV will give a lower % efficiency (for a given engine) than using the LHV
because the engine's work output will be equivalent to a smaller % of the HHV than to the LHV

the hydrogen eg in a hydrocarbon ie gasoline combusts to water vapour ('steam')
if the heat in turning this from water to 'steam' is counted we have HHV (this gives a 'scientific % efficiency')
the engineer says his engine cannot be blamed for this waste of heat, so discounts it and uses the LHV (giving a higher % efficiency)
(some have also discounted the heat of evaporation of the fuel, this is relatively minor)

Methane has a large hydrogen content, so the LHV is very low relative to the HHV

often hydrocarbon fuel gases eg butane, propane are sourced by extraction from crude oil
ie they are natural ingredients in gasoline (extracted because of their high value as iiquid gas fuel), their LHV is rather high
there are about 10000-20000 ingredients in crude oil, and about 1000 in gasolines worldwide
high LHV is desirable though not the prime property in N/A F1

HHV (HCV) is called by science 'Enthalpy of Combustion'
to this day many of the minor constituents of crude do not have definitive EoCs (or Octane Nos)
some have unusually high EoCs that are scientifically interesting
Octane Nos have huge and unpredictable scatter ie IsoOctane has is 100 Octane but its 'brother' Octane is minus 12 Octane
(there must be a reason for waiving the traditional 'road relevant' Octane limit of F1 fuel)

[Del Boy]

Additional general questions to all, who have delved deeper into the FIA regulations.

- How does FIA plan to police the complicated energy flow limits to/from MGU's, energy stored/used per lap?

- Meaning how will they measure and account for it?

- Is the telemetry data going to be stored on board or via link to pits?

- How will it be proven that a given team is in breach of these limits.

- I find this whole new set of limitations to be a bag of worms, which may be difficult or even unpoliceable altogether.

Any insight or opinions?

I'd expect FIA to measure current/voltage to and from all the electric gadgets and store it in the FIA datalogger that also stores the other parameters like fuel
pressure, fuel flow, fuel amount etc. mentioned in the regulation

would be very simple to plug in a computer after the race and ask the box if any of
the controlled parameters have exceeded the allowed amount

Yes I agree the regulations basically say the standard ECU (made by McLaren electronic systems) data should be made available to the FIA before, during and after track time. It's not clear on telemetry received. Apart from it says real time telemetry should be posted on the FIA network

8.4 Data acquisition :
8.4.1 To assist scrutineering, the FIA requires unlimited access to the following ECU information before, during and after any track session :
a) Application parameter configurations.
b) Logged data and events.
c) Real-time telemetry data and events.
Throughout the Event, the logging memory and events buffer may only be cleared by an FIA engineer.
The FIA must have the ability to connect to the ECU via a jump battery using an FIA laptop. The teams should make a jump battery available at all times during the Event.
The teams should transfer the real-time telemetry data and events on the FIA network as requested by, and in the format defined by, the FIA.
Prior to the race, the ECU data logger must be configured in such a way that allows logging of data for at least two hours and fifteen minutes without exceeding the size of the logger memory.

[Del Boy]

Does anybody know if the ICE has it's own alternator? Sorry if this is a stupid question I was just thinking the large batteries coupled with MGUH&K and then some previous posts regarding using MGUK would a lack of alternator be a weight saving?

[WhiteBlue]

This is what I wrote almost three years ago. xpensive was one of the doubters who refused to accept the turbo ICE would have beyond 35% BTE for the next two years.

There is an official figure of a 35% fuel reduction in 2013 which is supposed to be achieved by the engine and a more efficient chassis with reduced drag. We have discussed the efficiency of the old engines and most people place them at 29-30%.

There is also semi official confirmation that the new engines will have in excess of 800 hp on a permanent basis including all recovery systems and that push to pass KERS will be abolished in favor of a duel torque system. If you consider all of this one can say that the 2011 and the 2013 power output including recovery would be very similar if not equal.

Based on those figures the fuel reduction would translate into a 12-13% improvement of the efficiency. Based on that thinking I would expect the engines to have an efficiency of 42% which isn't all bad for a reciprocating mobile power unit. IMO it would be a huge break through for F1 to make such a step and it would put F1 cars into the same league as some of the best commercial vehicles.

The turbo 4 will certainly cost much more to design, build, develop, race, and maintain than continuing with the current engine or some formula based on the current engine. So the cost reduction mantra of F1 goes right out the window.

If someone in power really wanted to be "green" and economical, the FIA would impose a series of "stepped" fuel restrictions -- for example, 5% less fuel in 2013, another 5% less in 2014, etc. That would achive the PR goal and cost less.

A new design will always be an investment that will pay off over a number of years. For the new engines to pay off the manufacturers will have to agree to development cost restrictions as the chassis makers do. They have already principally agreed to do this in last year's Singapore meeting of the FOTA as reported by Martin Whitmarsh and other sources. By comparing the official fuel saving and efficiency targets with your proposal you will see that the old engines cannot even come near an efficiency that will be achieved by the new breed. So everybody can easily see why it would not make any sense to take that approach.

If you want to express that in milage you have to look at 180L of petrol for a 300 km race today which translates into 60L/100km (3.92 mpg). In 2013 this will go down to 39L/100km (6.03 mpg). This is not impressive by road car standards but it will at least start to approach what LMP1 cars do today. Mind you LMP1 will still be much better than F1 but F1 would not look quite so ridiculous.

[wuzak]

Don't get too excited.

On what basis is the 40% calculated? On the ICE alone, or the ICE with turbo compounding.

Looking at the Cosworth graphs posted in various threads the peak predicted BSFC for their engine in "self sustaining mode" is 190g/kW/hr. Using a calorific value of 46MJ/kg that equates to an efficiency of 41% and 706hp (graph says 715hp). Also looking at their graphs, the MGU-H is supplying approximately 110hp, or about 15% of the power.

That means that there is only 50hp extra that can be put to the wheels using power from the ES. Or 756hp total.

This may also be the basis of the claim that Mercedes has 100hp more than the Renault. That they are measuring it with the compounding power and Renault are not.

[321apex]

I would refer all efficiency fans to the world of large ship 2 stroke diesels. You will love how those beasts get 50% thermodynamic efficiency every minute with no external help in the middle of Pacific Ocean.

In the mean time, F1 is about noise and speed and Bernie is right, that no one is accounting for the fuel burned by 20-odd trucks that travel around to support the new Mercedes F1 powertrain.

What combined efficiency would that be???
2% ????
Got a calculator?