2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

.......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%.
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.

.....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 ....

yet again .......
all N/A F1 etc engines (and 99+% of forced induction ones) used over-rich mixtures for maximum power regardless of the ineffiency
any mixture richer then neutral/stoichiometric simply throws fuel away unburnt
any such engine would be significantly more efficient by using a neutral mixture (though slightly less powerful of course)
originally GPs were limited to 9.4 miles/(UK) gallon, but the rules have not since 1913 required fuel efficiency
....... so the FIA was biased in setting the target that it did, without letting the N/A engine to be efficiency-optimised

we know that the Wright 'Turbo-Compound' engine that powered the last half-generation of piston-engined airliners .....
gained from its compounding 18% 'free' takeoff power, but only gained 6% at best efficiency (cruise) power

the real gain from 2014 F1 technology will be much less (then the FIA headline) at partial and low powers, ie in road cars
and should be corrected to a degree of downsizing beyong the level of 'turbo downsizing'
the practical effect will be to sell hybrids to people who wouldn't without the F1 buzz ever buy a hybrid

80 years ago the most efficient SI engines (aircraft engines) were those lightly boosted by a centrifugal supercharger/compressor
(costing 2% of crankshaft power (1% net ??) , but 'upsizing' the power of the engine by 20% without increasing friction etc losses)
this was useless for cars, because the compressor delivery is highly sensitive to its rpm
2014 has ingeniously solved this problem by electrically driving it at crucial times, ie crucial for the road car buyer
(F1 rules prevent eg compressor drive by the near-ideal, an electrically modulated differential-input planetary geartrain)

[chip engineer]

...often hydrocarbon fuel gases eg butane, propane are sourced by extraction from crude oil
ie they are natural ingredients in gasoline (extracted only 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
cyclopentene is one of many such such, its LHV is IIRC about 50.5 MJ, also cyclopropene
the rules try to restrict this approach by limiting content with 3 carbon atoms, but these escapes this limit
presumably these methods have already been used in F1 fuel, high LHV being desirable though not the prime property in N/A F1
...

According to this reference, cyclopentene LHV is just 43.15 MJ/kg, not 50.5: page 318 of
"Thermo Chemical Conversion of Biomass and Wastes, Nordic graduate school BiofuelGS-2 Chalmers, Göteborg 19-23 November 2007, Henrik Thunman and Bo Leckner" (found by Google search for 'cyclopentene lhv', listed 2nd after our thread!).

So I'm still not convinced LHV of legal fuel can approach 50 MJ/kg.

[Tommy Cookers]

the relative values of the UCS and LCV we are looking at don't seem to correspond
cyclopropene UCV of 50.7 MJ seems to be what I had in mind

try bubbling propane or butane into gasoline, it will re-dissolve and boost the LCV

USA race gasoline (of the type optimised for mass-specific energy) suppliers state 48 MJ LCV

also 2014 must have 5.7% biofuel content
using ethanol here or in road fuel as they do is just throwing away LCV
any bio-isobutanol derived product is miles better in LCV than ethanol
bio-isobutanol is allowed via FIA 'commercial intent' rule, it can be made into any fuel eg gasoline, kerosene, or diesel

the FIA waived the (upper) Octane limit but specified an Octane minimum
they must have had something in mind

[atanatizante]

I don`t know is the right thread to post this but, knowing the fact that ERS weights between 20-25kg (so it`s practical the same as it was in 2013) it`s very interesting to know about what changes have been made in battery technology in order to cope with:
a) 10 times amount of energy store - from 400kJ to 4MJ ?
b) charging and depleted times, knowing the above a) statement ?
Btw. charging time may not be different than last year but depletion could be extended from almost 6,67 sec. to almost 33,33 sec. now ...

[ringo]

well i wont get into details, but 670hp is not possible from the ICE with the existing fuel limits.
610 BHp is what i have with a compression ratio of 14:1 and mechanical efficiency of 85%.

As for the total brake thermal efficiency, it's actually between 38% and 42%.

This is without considering self sustained driving of MGUH power to MGUK. That case is actually quite interesting. I'm getting some weird figures, so i'll reason it out a bit more before i state anything.

[chip engineer]

the relative values of the UCS and LCV we are looking at don't seem to correspond
cyclopropene UCV of 50.7 MJ seems to be what I had in mind

try bubbling propane or butane into gasoline, it will re-dissolve and boost the LCV

USA race gasoline (of the type optimised for mass-specific energy) suppliers state 48 MJ LCV

also 2014 must have 5.7% biofuel content
using ethanol here or in road fuel as they do is just throwing away LCV
any bio-isobutanol derived product is miles better in LCV than ethanol
bio-isobutanol is allowed via FIA 'commercial intent' rule, it can be made into any fuel eg gasoline, kerosene, or diesel

the FIA waived the (upper) Octane limit but specified an Octane minimum
they must have had something in mind

But cyclopropene seems to be banned by the fuel regulations.

Do you have a link for the 'race gasoline (of the type optimised for mass-specific energy) suppliers state 48 MJ LCV'?

Propane or butane would help raise LHV some, but the amount the rules allow seems severely limited by: DVPE max of 60 kPa. The LHV of butane is still only 45.75 MJ/kg anyway.

I agree that isobutanol is much better than ethanol, but still has less energy density than gasoline.

So it seems to me the rules are written to prevent using compounds that provide much above 45 MJ/kg.

[Tommy Cookers]

cyclopropene LCV should be 48.7 MJ (agreed it's now ruled out by the (recent ?) 3 Carbon atom ban)
cyclobutene LCV should be close to this, and should be legal as 4 Carbon atoms
JP 9 & 10 (cruise missile fuels) are not unrelated, they are outstanding in volume-specific energy but not in mass-specific energy

can't confirm gasoline sources better than 47 MJ UCV (ERC A 19A) ..... not everything on the 'net is to be believed ?

(bio) Isobutanol can be made into gasoline that fulfills the 5.7% biofuel obligation (BIB is intended to be feedstock for any fuel)
credit is due to a fellow poster for mentioning this biofuel

the permitted lead level seems trivial, boosting Octane No by less than 1 in fuel of conventional composition
Triptane is legal, and is very sensitive to lead, if used as a major constituent it could deliver a gain of about 3 or 4 Octane nos

[WhiteBlue]

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.

Wuzak, you obviously missed the fact that my quotation was almost three years old. At that time plenty of people denied that the naked ICE would exceed a BTE of 35%. We did not have official quotations at that time that 40% were targeted.

All of those who repeat the mindless mantra of the irrelevance of fuel consumption of F1 engines simply demonstrate that they have no understanding of how motor sport is supposed to connect to the real world.

F1 is not only entertainment for some extreme thrill seekers who have a preference for mind numbing and ear shattering noise. It is also potentially a big arena for the best car makers of this world and many people want to see them fighting it out with great technology as it happened before. I for one want those times back and it means that F1 should continue on the path that the FiA has put it on together with LMP1. To become a battlefield for cutting edge fuel efficiency and relevant technologies. Sorry if that violates your pet objectives of noise at any price. There are many F1 fans who find the new V6T noise very nice and acceptable. I belong in that group.

About the question of performance and what the new engines will actually be able to achieve in terms and power output I'm convinced we have not seen the true level. The Jerez test was all about releablility and system tests. We will see a glimpse of the performance to come in the next test. From there we should be getting more and more information on the many questions we have been discussing for many years now.

If we go fast forward to July and the time of the next Le Mans race we will get even more information. Porsche will show us with their 4-cylinder engine how powerfull such a concept could have been. I'm really looking forward to see the battle grounds of F1 and LMP1 being fought over with very similar efficiency formulae. It will be a great experience. I'm sure of that. And long term it will not fail to influence F1 to go back into the right direction: Beside entertainment F1 needs to provide an engineerimg competition for true motor companies and not for inverted air planes.

[eslam1986]

James Allen saying on his website that Lotus only managed 1 lap on their 'filming day' in Jerez on Friday

[ringo]

That's a serious issue.
I'm really wondering what the heck is Renault doing. You run an engine on a dyno for thousands of hours, then you put it in a car and it doesn't even lasts 2 minutes?
There must be something fundamentally wrong with this engine. And it's a thermal issue caused by how the secu is controlling the power unit I believe. If it's mechanically sound on the Dyno, which is usually at steady loads, then it may be a control system issue that is causing overheating.

[chip engineer]

cyclopropene LCV should be 48.7 MJ (agreed it's now ruled out by the (recent ?) 3 Carbon atom ban)
cyclobutene LCV should be close to this, and should be legal as 4 Carbon atoms

I don't know, but assume cyclobutene is a naphthene. If so, the rules don't allow that either (require 5 carbon atoms):
"Naphthenes - Monocyclic alkanes (with five or more carbon atoms in the ring) with or without paraffinic side chains."

[tuj]

And it's a thermal issue caused by how the secu is controlling the power unit I believe. If it's mechanically sound on the Dyno, which is usually at steady loads, then it may be a control system issue that is causing overheating.

First off, why wouldn't Renault test the engine on the dyno with the SECU? This seems like a cursory step. Secondly, how often is an F1 engine run steady-state? My understanding was that all the engine makers had 'simulations' of the various tracks they could program for the throttle control. Very little steady-state running in a race.

[Tommy Cookers]

..... 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.

the combined power (mechanically combined at the end of the crankshaft) might be raised by 110 hp from exhaust recovery
but if this recovery caused even 12 hp fall in crankshaft power before the combining gear (eg due to raised exhaust pressure) ....
the actual recovery power would be 122 hp
so in principle limiting the scope within the 120 kW/161 hp nominal limit of mgu-k motor power

[Skippon]

I don't think the SECU is anything to do with Renaults issues.......
Whilst TAG320 will overheat on the bench (natural convection) the teams would know it well from 2013 running etc.
Of course there are a host of other engine control electronics to consider. Injector/fuel pump Driver, Ignition Driver, 2x motor controllers, a battery store manager, and a power box of some sort to generate chassis/ECU 12V Supply.

Renault must have a full transient dyno to replay real track loadings, but that may not include ERS and other new for 2014 features. Can they dyno test ERS and its pack separately? or only as whole system?

[langwadt]

I don't think the SECU is anything to do with Renaults issues.......
Whilst TAG320 will overheat on the bench (natural convection) the teams would know it well from 2013 running etc.
Of course there are a host of other engine control electronics to consider. Injector/fuel pump Driver, Ignition Driver, 2x motor controllers, a battery store manager, and a power box of some sort to generate chassis/ECU 12V Supply.

Renault must have a full transient dyno to replay real track loadings, but that may not include ERS and other new for 2014 features. Can they dyno test ERS and its pack separately? or only as whole system?

with the kind of money involved I can't imagine making some brackets to bolt the ESR to some sort of dyno is a problem

And it would be unbelievable that an outfit like Renault would miss something like the inertia of the car not being accounted
for if the engine dyno is a simple brake