2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[321apex]

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

Appreciate your response, however at WOT racing engines are fuel thirsty. The figures of a Prius engine you mention (in the link) are rather at part throttle "sweet spot" and not at WOT.
"The following table takes selected values as an example for the minimum specific fuel consumption of several types of engine."

I will grant, that in it's day the V10 was the most fuel efficient racing engine, however comparing it's efficiency to a production one is misguided. These are two different machines, developed to serve two different tasks.

For years, all US OEM's have been developing their street engines to run at the centroid of the EPA cycle, which was approx 1500RPM and 38 PSI bmep. I would expect that Toyota adopted the same target performance criteria for fuel consumptions and emissions (Prius).

In case of an F1 engine running at WOT, especially a turbo one you will undoubtedly see 0.890-0.920 lambda, which means 10% richer than stoich. BSFC figure of 0.45-0.50 lb/HP-hr is not likely to be very far off and as such I stand by my HP estimate.

[321apex]

@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 up to the energy limit per lap.

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.

If you just consider the plausible BSFC estimates I provided above, it will become clear that there isn't any 600HP coming from the piston engine source. Mechanical capability of the engine is much higher, however the 100kg/hr fuel flow limit dictates the piston power.

If you then consider that if the MJ limit during a lap is adhered to, you may harness 160HP from the K AND additional power from the H.

In my view, the potential power from the H is not more than 50HP.

So in total at the beginning of the learning curve in Adelaide 2014 you will have an approx 700 HP power source, regardless what somebody's pipe dream allegedly was at Cosworth. The graph you mention isn't official and as such I would not treat it as a significant technical document.

[Blanchimont]

Appreciate your response, however at WOT racing engines are fuel thirsty. The figures of a Prius engine you mention (in the link) are rather at part throttle "sweet spot" and not at WOT.
"The following table takes selected values as an example for the minimum specific fuel consumption of several types of engine."

The sweet spot, or better sweet spot region, is usually found at WOT.

Look at this Prius bsfc map, there's a very large sweet spot region:

[321apex]

Appreciate your response, however at WOT racing engines are fuel thirsty. The figures of a Prius engine you mention (in the link) are rather at part throttle "sweet spot" and not at WOT.
"The following table takes selected values as an example for the minimum specific fuel consumption of several types of engine."

The sweet spot, or better sweet spot region, is usually found at WOT.

Look at this Prius bsfc map, there's a very large sweet spot region:
http://thewolfweb.com/photos/00525525.JPG

The Prius engine is really the wrong example to compare to an F1 engine. Take a look at the following link
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.p ... 66-24.html
at a post date stamped: 03-04-2013, 06:07 PM

Please refer to the bsfc chart for the honda v-tec engine.
You will see, how bsfc changes when going from peak torque to peak power at WOT. From this graph, you will see that a passenger car engine such as this one has BSFC at full power in the range of 350 and I resume the units here are g/kW-hr. This value equates to 0.575 lb/HP-hr, which is even higher than my silver bullet estimates.

[Holm86]

Appreciate your response, however at WOT racing engines are fuel thirsty. The figures of a Prius engine you mention (in the link) are rather at part throttle "sweet spot" and not at WOT.
"The following table takes selected values as an example for the minimum specific fuel consumption of several types of engine."

The sweet spot, or better sweet spot region, is usually found at WOT.

Look at this Prius bsfc map, there's a very large sweet spot region:
http://thewolfweb.com/photos/00525525.JPG

Makes sense as all engines with a throttle body suffers pumping losses at partial throttle.

[321apex]

I will add to my last post, that the Honda V-TEC engine although a much better production based machine to compare with an F1 engine for the purpose of discussing BSFC, than a Prius engine, still compromises our discussion.

Why?
Basically, the Honda V-TEC engine is highly "under square" meaning it has small bore and long stroke. This is not akin to a racing engine which is highly over square (large more and short stroke). As a result of small bore and small valves, V-TEC was the only way to make an emissions friendly and fuel efficient mom and pop engine perform above it's basic power density.

It's breathing deficiencies due to small bore were exchanged (very long cams at top end) for fuel waste and large power output was achieved.

[langwadt]

Appreciate your response, however at WOT racing engines are fuel thirsty. The figures of a Prius engine you mention (in the link) are rather at part throttle "sweet spot" and not at WOT.
"The following table takes selected values as an example for the minimum specific fuel consumption of several types of engine."

The sweet spot, or better sweet spot region, is usually found at WOT.

Look at this Prius bsfc map, there's a very large sweet spot region:
http://thewolfweb.com/photos/00525525.JPG

Makes sense as all engines with a throttle body suffers pumping losses at partial throttle.

I wonder how much of it is down to the cylinder being less filled, i.e. the compression ratio is effectively
less on the compression stroke

[321apex]

I wonder how much of it is down to the cylinder being less filled, i.e. the compression ratio is effectively
less on the compression stroke

Compression ratio is a fixed parameter in Otto cycle.

[Holm86]

I wonder how much of it is down to the cylinder being less filled, i.e. the compression ratio is effectively
less on the compression stroke

Compression ratio is a fixed parameter in Otto cycle.

Precisely. The ratio of which the gasses entering the cylinder is compressed is a fixed ratio. What changes is the pressure and amount of gasses entering.

[321apex]

As a final comment to my initial one from today.

If the new 1.6L turbo engine could make 600HP while consuming just 100 kg/hr of net allowable fuel flow, it's brake specific fuel consumption would have to be 223g/kW-hr or 0.368 lb/HP-hr.
Those figures are unattainable in this engine from just piston energy conversion.

So, the engine can easily produce 600HP, but it would need about 122 kg/hr of fuel flow.

[321apex]

I wonder how much of it is down to the cylinder being less filled, i.e. the compression ratio is effectively
less on the compression stroke

Compression ratio is a fixed parameter in Otto cycle.

Precisely. The ratio of which the gasses entering the cylinder is compressed is a fixed ratio. What changes is the pressure and amount of gasses entering.

What you seem to be alluding to ( I guess) is called "volumetric efficiency". It is an important operating parameter of an engine, since combustion engines are air limited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency

It is a measure of how well the nominal volume of working cylinder is filled with oxidizing air. Atmo racing engines via high RPM, "long" cam timing and inlet/exhaust geometry tuning can attain more than 100% VE. Turbo engines can push that into 300%+ range.

[rscsr]

As a final comment to my initial one from today.

If the new 1.6L turbo engine could make 600HP while consuming just 100 kg/hr of net allowable fuel flow, it's brake specific fuel consumption would have to be 223g/kW-hr or 0.368 lb/HP-hr.
Those figures are unattainable in this engine from just piston energy conversion.

So, the engine can easily produce 600HP, but it would need about 122 kg/hr of fuel flow.

Figures from Cosworth in Monza configuration from the intercooler thread show a min BSFC of 225 g/kWh at 9000rpm and about 227 g/kWh at 10000rpm. But the really interesting part is the self sustaining mode (being able to use the excess exhaust energy and use it directly for MGU-K and achieving 190g/kWh.
First posted in the intercooler thread: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 42#p478542

I dont have any information on the power curve of the old V8 but I expect it to be very peaky and to make peak torque somewhere around 16-18krpm this gives about 230ftlbs of torque. I would suggest that in the 6-12krpm range its going to be making an awful lot less torque whereas the v6 is making about 300ftlbs.

Your calculations seem to be correct, power depends on the maximum fuel flow allowed for 2014.

But why do you compare the torque of the 2013 engine at 16-18k with the torque of the 2014 engine at 6-12k without multiplying with the gear ratio?

Just for the sake of keeping with actual data. Here are some charts from the Cosworth V8 and V6. Taken from the Race Engine Technology #72 and #73. (That magazine is really worth reading).

Power Curves for the Cosworth CA (V8):
http://postimg.org/image/cbdtef94j/
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/

P.S.: I'm Sorry for the crappy picture quality, I had to take a photo with my mobile phone and the paper is really shiny.

[321apex]

Figures from Cosworth in Monza configuration from the intercooler thread show a min BSFC of 225 g/kWh at 9000rpm and about 227 g/kWh at 10000rpm. But the really interesting part is the self sustaining mode (being able to use the excess exhaust energy and use it directly for MGU-K and achieving 190g/kWh.
First posted in the intercooler thread: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 42#p478542

Thanks for posting this info.
I would like to make it clear that we are speaking of "piston power" - meaning just the net power delivered by the crankshaft. The BSFC figures you mention of 225-227 g/kW-hr are unattainable in this case.

It may come as a shock to many that this new formula one engine will not even produce 500HP. I would venture a guess, that this power will be produced at not much more than 10k RPM. So these engines may not be run any higher for the reason of fuel limitation. In turn their sound at 10k RPM may be disappointing to many and may vindicate Bernie Ecclestone's concerns about the new F1 sound.

[Tommy Cookers]

the Cosworth 190 gm/kW-hr combined bsfc seems like a very high bte ?

the mgu-h recovered power will be more than 85 kW/110 hp if there is any reduction in crankshaft power due to backpressure

[rscsr]

Figures from Cosworth in Monza configuration from the intercooler thread show a min BSFC of 225 g/kWh at 9000rpm and about 227 g/kWh at 10000rpm. ...

Thanks for posting this info.
I would like to make it clear that we are speaking of "piston power" - meaning just the net power delivered by the crankshaft. The BSFC figures you mention of 225-227 g/kW-hr are unattainable in this case.

It may come as a shock to many that this new formula one engine will not even produce 500HP. I would venture a guess, that this power will be produced at not much more than 10k RPM. So these engines may not be run any higher for the reason of fuel limitation. In turn their sound at 10k RPM may be disappointing to many and may vindicate Bernie Ecclestone's concerns about the new F1 sound.

The engines will nevertheless have almost 715 bhp all the time due to compounding. So I don't get your problems?!