2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[321apex]

I was trying to be precise, so let me restate:
As a net piston power source without "compounding" effect of MGU-H, the new 1.6L engine will produce on it's own NO MORE than 500 HP. My prediction is based solely on the limited fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr.

The effect of "compounding" will be additive to the overall power capacity and will present itself as follows:
- piston power - 500HP max.
- MGU-K - 160HP
- MGU-H - ~ my estimate 50 HP max.

All these engines will make their maximum rated "piston" power at not much over 10k RPM. Why?
1. By definition, maximum fuel flow usually occurs at the point of maximum power
2. If this power can be achieved at lower RPM then that is more efficient
3. Can this engine efficiently burn 100kg/hr of at 10k RPM? YES


So the total measure of the road power will be not more than 500+160+50=710HP at least at the beginning before the technical world get's into MGU-H development and more balanced optimization towards yielding more power from it.

[Tommy Cookers]

- piston power - 500HP max.
- MGU-K - 160HP
- MGU-H - ~ my estimate 50 HP max.
3. Can this engine efficiently burn 100kg/hr of at 10k RPM? YES
So the total measure of the road power will be not more than 500+160+50=710HP .....

the only EM that adds power to the power from the crankshaft (ie propels the car) is the mgu-k
its power is limited to 120 kW/161 hp nominally
the engine cannot have fuel at 100 kg/hr at rpm below 10500

[langwadt]

I was trying to be precise, so let me restate:
As a net piston power source without "compounding" effect of MGU-H, the new 1.6L engine will produce on it's own NO MORE than 500 HP. My prediction is based solely on the limited fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr.

The effect of "compounding" will be additive to the overall power capacity and will present itself as follows:
- piston power - 500HP max.
- MGU-K - 160HP
- MGU-H - ~ my estimate 50 HP max.

All these engines will make their maximum rated "piston" power at not much over 10k RPM. Why?
1. By definition, maximum fuel flow usually occurs at the point of maximum power
2. If this power can be achieved at lower RPM then that is more efficient
3. Can this engine efficiently burn 100kg/hr of at 10k RPM? YES


So the total measure of the road power will be not more than 500+160+50=710HP at least at the beginning before the technical world get's into MGU-H development and more balanced optimization towards yielding more power from it.

someone already mentioned it, the MGU-K can only deliver 120KW(160hp) so you can never get anymore
than engine + 160hp, the power to make those 160hp with come from either MGU-H or the battery
depending on what is available

[langwadt]

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.

_at wide open throttle_ which is most what matter in a racecar

The question was whether the inefficiency of a read car at low loads was not only the pumping loss over the throttle, but also than when you only fill the cylinder with very little, the pressure then at the end of the compression stroke is also much smaller.

I've always assumed that part of the reason for using EGR is to use the exhaust as an inert "filler" to get the pressure back up with out adding oxygen

[mrluke]

, the new 1.6L engine will produce on it's own NO MORE than 500 HP. My prediction is based solely on the limited fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr.

http://www.renaultsport.com/IMG/pdf/rsf ... final2.pdf

‘‘The next generation of F1 cars will be powered by a turbocharged
1.6-litre V6 internal combustion engine of around 600 bhp plus around
160 bhp of electrical propulsion from the energy recovery system,
meaning the term ‘engine’ will no longer fully describe a car’s source
of propulsive power. It is more relevant to refer to the complete system
as a ‘Power Unit.’’ Rob White, Deputy Managing Director (technical)

Considering Mercedes are supposed to have a power advantage over Renault it is difficult to agree with your assertion that 500bhp is the max from the ICE.

Im sure with some digging I can find the article from Renault stating the power unit was exceeding their power predictions.

Is it so hard to believe that with half the fuel flow rate of the 80s, we can achieve half the power? Especially with 35 years of tech development?

Besides how would you substantiate your assertion following completion of the first race? We aren't going to get any dyno plots, lap times will arguably be affected by reduced downforce and increased weight...

[vtr]

So the total measure of the road power will be not more than 500+160+50=710HP at least at the beginning before the technical world get's into MGU-H development and more balanced optimization towards yielding more power from it.

I'm pretty sure can not add the power from the MGU-K AND the MGU-H to calculate the power "at the crank". The MGU-K (the electric motor linked at a fixed ratio to the crankshaft) is indeed limited at 160hp, but the MGU-H does not generate road power directly. It can help run the MGU-K (not above 160hp) and work the "pressure charging system" (worded as in the regulations), in which case the actual power "at the crank" comes from the engine. I don't think it is possible, or useful, to try to separate the power from the engine from the MGu-H power at the crank.

Using Renault's data for the outgoing engine (170g/h "typically" - yes, not that reliable) and Cosworth's power data for their 2013 engine (760 hp peak - much more realiable IMO), you can estimate the old engines' BSFC at the max power condition as 170g/h / 760 hp => 0.299 g/kW*h = 0.4931 lb/HP*h

It's hard to think that the transition from a formula with little restriction in the fuel flow to one with a strong restriction would yield just a 8.75% improvement in specific consumption (in your best case scenario, otherwise it would just stay the same), especially when Andy Cowell, Mercedes engine guy, said they were aiming (yes, they are probably not there yet) at a 33% increase in thermal efficiency (30% -> 40%).

[Lycoming]

1. By definition, maximum fuel flow usually occurs at the point of maximum power

I'm being pedantic here, but that is not correct use of the term "by definition". More like by conservation of energy.

Andy Cowell, Mercedes engine guy, said they were aiming (yes, they are probably not there yet) at a 33% increase in thermal efficiency (30% -> 40%).

40% sounds a bit unrealistic unless you include recaptured energy from the MGUs.

[vtr]

40% sounds a bit unrealistic unless you include recaptured energy from the MGUs.

Of couse it sounds a bit unrealistic for now, but they are probably further along than 33.5% or so.

[chip engineer]

I was trying to be precise, so let me restate:
As a net piston power source without "compounding" effect of MGU-H, the new 1.6L engine will produce on it's own NO MORE than 500 HP. My prediction is based solely on the limited fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr.

Assuming a moderate fuel energy density of 45 MJ/kg, 500 hp is only attaining 29.8% efficiency, which seems extremely low even when excluding energy recovered by the MGU-H.

[vtr]

I was trying to be precise, so let me restate:
As a net piston power source without "compounding" effect of MGU-H, the new 1.6L engine will produce on it's own NO MORE than 500 HP. My prediction is based solely on the limited fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr.

The effect of "compounding" will be additive to the overall power capacity and will present itself as follows:
- piston power - 500HP max.
- MGU-K - 160HP
- MGU-H - ~ my estimate 50 HP max.

Please explain the "compounding" part, especially on the MGU-H. Where is it taking those 50hp from, and how is it getting to the crankshaft? I don't understand it.

[Holm86]

Please explain the "compounding" part, especially on the MGU-H. Where is it taking those 50hp from, and how is it getting to the crankshaft? I don't understand it.

From the exhaust. The MGU-H works as the boost control. Braking the turbine when max boost is reached thus creating electricity. And instead of sending this electricity to the ES it is send directly to the MGU-K.

[Lazy]

I was trying to be precise, so let me restate:
As a net piston power source without "compounding" effect of MGU-H, the new 1.6L engine will produce on it's own NO MORE than 500 HP. My prediction is based solely on the limited fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr.

The effect of "compounding" will be additive to the overall power capacity and will present itself as follows:
- piston power - 500HP max.
- MGU-K - 160HP
- MGU-H - ~ my estimate 50 HP max.

All these engines will make their maximum rated "piston" power at not much over 10k RPM. Why?
1. By definition, maximum fuel flow usually occurs at the point of maximum power
2. If this power can be achieved at lower RPM then that is more efficient
3. Can this engine efficiently burn 100kg/hr of at 10k RPM? YES


So the total measure of the road power will be not more than 500+160+50=710HP at least at the beginning before the technical world get's into MGU-H development and more balanced optimization towards yielding more power from it.

So you are saying that the F1 engineers who are claiming 600-650 bhp from the ICE alone are making it up?

[321apex]

the engine cannot have fuel at 100 kg/hr at rpm below 10500

You will see engines having their power peak at 10500 RPM and NOT running any higher past that. When the engine is designed to have such power delivery profile, it will use it's fuel most efficiently and will realize it's potential of being "fastest" around the track over a race distance.

[Holm86]

the engine cannot have fuel at 100 kg/hr at rpm below 10500

You will see engines having their power peak at 10500 RPM and NOT running any higher past that. When the engine is designed to have such power delivery profile, it will use it's fuel most efficiently and will realize it's potential of being "fastest" around the track over a race distance.

I really dont agree with you. You are not even considering the fixed ratio gearboxes. And going beyond 10500 rpm the engine itself will supply more of the needed air meaning the MGU-H can harvest more energy from the turbine increasing the compunded power.

[321apex]

someone already mentioned it, the MGU-K can only deliver 120KW(160hp) so you can never get anymore
than engine + 160hp, the power to make those 160hp with come from either MGU-H or the battery
depending on what is available

I'm afraid that you are making a valid point.
So in that case my prediction is even more pessimistic and the MGU-H part of the "compounding" which I attributed as being 50HP we may expunge from our analysis. It's contribution will be only as not exceeding the overall 160HP of energy compounding total.

We get:
500HP from piston engine
160HP from all cumulative compounding
660HP total