2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

In race engines, downsizing will not bring that much for fuel efficiency as in road cars, as the engines are used at full load mostly.

I think that the F1 and LMP1 rules show the opposite is true. All new projects go for turbo charged small and slow running engines and they have very low fuel consumption compared to the older and substantially bigger NA engines.

[Holm86]

In race engines, downsizing will not bring that much for fuel efficiency as in road cars, as the engines are used at full load mostly.

I think that the F1 and LMP1 rules show the opposite is true. All new projects go for turbo charged small and slow running engines and they have very low fuel consumption compared to the older and substantially bigger NA engines.

Downsizing still have the advantage of lower friction and less heat dissapation even in race engines.

[Tommy Cookers]

downsizing means raising the mep
raising the mep means lowering the CR
unless you have spare Octane
which has now been arranged in F1, but not on the road

[Holm86]

downsizing means raising the mep
raising the mep means lowering the CR
unless you have spare Octane
which has now been arranged in F1, but not on the road

This is where Direct Injection becomes relevant. As it both allows higher MEP and CR compared to traditional port injection. Without the need of higher octane.

[Tommy Cookers]

F1 will be needing higher Octane ? - Octane is now unlimited, the 'road Octane' limit in F1 (fixed since 1958) has been abandoned
there is nothing new about the merits of forced induction when suoer-high Octane is engineered (eg WW2)

in principle the benefits of DI apply equally to the NA engine
in principle it would allow NA to use higher CR and so be more fuel-efficient
but the poppet valves wouldn't (in volume-efficient F1 anyway) allow a small enough combustion chamber to give such a high CR

this is where NA F1 has been for years
because (NA) F1 has never been asked to be fuel-efficient
and of course because NA F1 had DI banned and injection pressure limit lowered to 100 bar

[Holm86]

in principle the benefits of DI apply equally to the NA engine
in principle it would allow NA to use higher CR and so be more fuel-efficient
but the poppet valves wouldn't (in F1 anyway) allow a small enough combustion chamber to give such a high CR

this is where NA F1 has been for years
because (NA) F1 has never been asked to be fuel-efficient
and of course because NA F1 had DI banned and injection pressure limit lowered to 100 bar

True but a NA engine would still need to be of much higher capacity than a charged engine to achive the same effect. And the higher capacity means more friction, more inertia and more heat dissapation (heat loss).

So downsizing with smaller capacity charged engines with fewer cylinders would be more efficient than NA engines with larger capacity.

[mrluke]

I dont understand the comparison between a large NA engine and a small FI engine.

Shouldn't you compare a large NA with a large FI and a small NA with a small FI? Or do we skip this comparison because it is obvious that the FI is the better solution?

Is there any motorsport arena where FI is permitted but the successful teams choose to stay NA?

[Holm86]

I dont understand the comparison between a large NA engine and a small FI engine.

Shouldn't you compare a large NA with a large FI and a small NA with a small FI? Or do we skip this comparison because it is obvious that the FI is the better solution?

Is there any motorsport arena where FI is permitted but the successful teams choose to stay NA?

The point is that you can achive the same amount of kW in a small FI engine as in a large NA engine. But more effectively. So the comparison is totally valid.

[tuj]

Wastegate operation of such optimized cars is, in "normal" duty cycle, not that often, thus an MGU-H would be of relative importance in road cars.
Transient response and start of car, a problem with such downsized engines, can be bettered with an MGU-K (mild hybrid.

I think we may be speaking past each other here, but I'm confused when you say the wastegate on a road car is not used that often. I drive a BMW 135i, N55 engine, which has a single twin-scroll turbo on an inline 6. The turbo is relatively small, and the twin-scroll means it spools fairly fast. That said, in the ECU there is a boost target and when boost reaches/exceeds target, the wastegate is opened. I couldn't find a datalog of the wastegate actuation itself, but here is an example.



Notice that as the engine revs, boost builds up to a point, and is then managed. Also notice that when the knock sensor spiked, boost was pulled by the ECU (via opening the wastegate of course).

The magic of the MGU-H on a road car is that you can size the turbo appropriately for top-end breathing, but then use the MGU-H to keep it spooled. Ever drive a Supra with a huge turbo like a T78? The thing takes forever to spool, but once it does, look out!

[Tommy Cookers]

I found this paper on a superturbo simulation. It is basically a turbo charged engine with a mechanical link to the crank as well. It draws power at low revs from the crank for the compressor and when the turbo spools it transfers power to the crank and to the compressor. So it's basically the same thing we will see minus the electrical link.
superturbo
"The simulation results showed improvements in engine brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) up to 26% at high engine speeds when compared to the GM Vortec LMG engine and BSFC improvements up to 21% at 4500 rpm when compared to the stock Ecotec LSJ engine. At lower to mid-engine speeds both models saw BSFC improvements between 5 and 20%. It was
concluded that downsizing an engine with a SuperTurboTM was a practical way to improve engine BSFC while maintaining performance."

this is a non-electric system
(btw its proponent forgets that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, so it's 97% natural and rather self-adjusting)

a small-engined car could usefully have 'full-time' electric driving of a centrifugal supercharger (the kind the turbo uses)
other cars eg F1 could have (mixed via epicyclic gearing) mechanical and electric driving of said centrifugal supercharger
bidirectional modulation of the electric energy flow always providing the ideal supercharger speed
enabling the benefits to matching (as in the paper) with greater drive efficiency and integrated electrical generation
(this assumes large electrical systems are inevitable, the above paper is founded on assuming the opposite)

[Abarth]

In race engines, downsizing will not bring that much for fuel efficiency as in road cars, as the engines are used at full load mostly.

I think that the F1 and LMP1 rules show the opposite is true. All new projects go for turbo charged small and slow running engines and they have very low fuel consumption compared to the older and substantially bigger NA engines.

Yes, If you read carefully, I did not say that downsizing will bring nothing. Of course it has advantages, and Holm86 pointed it out. N/A Engines for racing have to rev as high as possible, with friction increasing massively.
Or they are rev limited, but can get bigger displacement, which will lead to higher friction too.

I just wanted to say that all this downsizing in road cars will have a bigger effect because of the part load character a road car is driven mostly, and with downsizing and shifting of the load line (longer gearing for a given wheel torque demand) will (and has already) lead to consistent real world fuel saving.

[Abarth]

Wastegate operation of such optimized cars is, in "normal" duty cycle, not that often, thus an MGU-H would be of relative importance in road cars.
Transient response and start of car, a problem with such downsized engines, can be bettered with an MGU-K (mild hybrid.

I think we may be speaking past each other here, but I'm confused when you say the wastegate on a road car is not used that often. [...]

Sorry maybe I can't explain myself correctly. I meant that in a road car duty cycle (a typical one, i.e. not driving above 150 kph or uphill using the engine fully), the wastegate will open during a fairly small percentage.
In your example, I can see that waste gate operation is only at WOT. Driving a 135i for long periods WOT will earn you a fair amount of tickets

You are right of course that shifting the load line in a normal car to higher engine torques (using longer gearing), waste gate will be open for longer time and an MGU-H could bring interesting advantages, but I doubt it will be that much, compared to the F1 2014 Engines.

[321apex]

Based upon a basic calculation, the power potential of the 1.6L formula one engine is as follows:
typical BSFC = 0.500 lb/HP-hr
max. fuel flow = 100 kg/hr

max power potential = 441HP

if we assume a very optimistic BSFC of 0,450 lb/HP-hr
then the power potential rises to - 490HP

As a result, I do not see any 600HP from the pistons.

If we then assume - 450HP from the piston engine
add to that 160HP from MGU-K for 30 sec
add to that 50HP form MGU-H
we get a - 660 HP power source to go racing

if we assume the optimistic (BSFC) version then add 50HP for a total of 710HP

[rscsr]

Based upon a basic calculation, the power potential of the 1.6L formula one engine is as follows:
typical BSFC = 0.500 lb/HP-hr
max. fuel flow = 100 kg/hr

max power potential = 441HP

if we assume a very optimistic BSFC of 0,450 lb/HP-hr
then the power potential rises to - 490HP

As a result, I do not see any 600HP from the pistons.

If we then assume - 450HP from the piston engine
add to that 160HP from MGU-K for 30 sec
add to that 50HP form MGU-H
we get a - 660 HP power source to go racing

if we assume the optimistic (BSFC) version then add 50HP for a total of 710HP

Your assumption of BSFC is 0,45 * 453,592/0,746=273 g/kWh
This is a rather high fuel consumption.
A more reasonable fuel consumption would be that of a Prius engine (Because F1 engines counted as really efficient engines even in V10 times, due to resistance reduction done to increase power, and the fuel efficiency just goes up due to the move to these engines). It has a BSFC of 225 g/kWh. This means (100kg/hr)/(0,225kg/kWh)=444kW=596bhp.

Check Wiki BSFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_spec ... onsumption

[dren]

@321apex

The max you can get from the MGUK is 160hp, it doesn't matter how much of that comes from the MGUH. So if you assume 50hp comes from the MGUH, like you have done, the remaining 110hp (or less) can come from the batteries as long as the energy limit per lap allows.

The Cosworth paper hints at a 600hp FI engine. Also, it was an engineer from Ferrari? or Renault? who hinted the main engine would be around the 600hp number. I'll have to go digging for that interview.