2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[321apex]

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

That is correct.
The pumping loss comes from the "effort" to move the air across the restriction. The best way to illustrate this is by looking at pressures across the piston.

In Otto cycle "street" engines the crankcase is somewhat vented to the atmosphere in spite of PCV effect which effectively filters transients. At part throttle during inlet cycle, the piston "sees" higher pressure in the crankcase than in the combustion chamber. At this instance the piston is extracting work from the crankshaft to move against resistance posed by this deltaP. This is this "pumping work". In an instant the power flows INTO the engine.

EGR was discovered as a panaceum in diminishing the "pumping loss" in exchange for some controlled combustion instability. This helped fuel efficiency and moreover NOx emissions, which is a big deal. EGR is/was used only at part throttle.

[321apex]

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...

Otto cycle engines do not "like" lean mixture or stratified charge as a form of operational envelope. Racing engines operate primarily at full load and REALLY don't like lean operation due to excess heat, lower power and durability risk especially to exhaust valves. Otto cycle operates most efficiently at richer end of the stoichiometric ratio, which for typical gasoline is around 14.x:1 by mass.

If you start leaning out the mixture, you begin to have thermodynamically less efficient and unstable combustion, where "cold" excess air goes for a thermal ride wastefully absorbing the heat. Practice and experience has shown, that taking into account engineering solutions for engines that impact internal friction - bearings, piston rings, lubricants - there is a certain, fixed amount of internal friction which has to be "paid for" by the fuel energy.

The "bottom line" from this internal friction combined with typical combustion characteristics is a parameter called - Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. BSFC for short. The industry acceptable range of this index is not much below 0.450 lb/HP-hr, while to achieve 600HP from the new F1 engine this parameter would have to fall even lower to 0.368 range, which in my view would represent too quick of a revolution without recognizable revolutionary changes.

[321apex]

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

Granted.
What I meant was, that fuel consumed will rise thru the rev range towards power peak. If the engine runs past it's power peak it will often consume more fuel while producing less power as compared to it's power peak.

My assertion was a bit "idealistic" in terms of a principle of fuel consumption being proportional to power produced.

[Blanchimont]

The "bottom line" from this internal friction combined with typical combustion characteristics is a parameter called - Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. BSFC for short. The industry acceptable range of this index is not much below 0.450 lb/HP-hr, while to achieve 600HP from the new F1 engine this parameter would have to fall even lower to 0.368 range, which in my view would represent too quick of a revolution without recognizable revolutionary changes.

You do not seem to be up to date with current bsfc numbers. 0,45 lb/hph is about the same as 273 g/kWh, 0,368 lb/hph would mean 224 g/kWh.

If you look at the bsfc numbers used in the Le Mans regulations draft ( http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2014%20D ... 202012.pdf ) for 2014 where they try to balance engine power and total energy content, bsfc figures of 220 g/kWh for petrol engines are mentioned (page 43). Of course, this pdf is only a draft and they even say these bsfc numbers are based on a hypothesis but at the same time they are very close to 0,368lb/hph.

[321apex]

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.

I would like to point out, that we are operating within a "conventional" realm of fuel chemistry, which was known for many years. Energy density of fuel is a very well explored parameter especially in F1 for the past 25 years.

I would like to refer you to an SAE paper on Honda's turbo 1.5L F1 engine back in the 80's. In it you'll see the BSFC parameters quoted (page 4) of 272 g/kW-hr, which is roughly 0.450 lb/HP-hr. Back in the 80's the teams had no engine replacement limit, so the engines were "squeezed" to the maximum in regards of stress and heat.

http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... 0604,d.ZGU

[Juzh]

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

Plz explain where did you get 500bhp for ICE? Pretty much everyone disagrees with you on that one. 600-610 is considered to be the most logical number, not to mention renault confirmed it.

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.

According to this:
http://postimg.org/image/55m2bz01f/
peak power will be at approximately 11,5 - 12k rpm. So I predict normal running will be somewhere between 10500 and 12500 rpm. If you shift at 10500 you will loose too much power in the next gear.

[321apex]

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.

Good point, my error.
All regenerative energy goes thru maximum 160HP "funnel" which is the MGU-K.

[321apex]

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

Plz explain where did you get 500bhp for ICE? Pretty much everyone disagrees with you on that one. 600-610 is considered to be the most logical number, not to mention renault confirmed it.

Simply the fuel consumption parameters would not add up for the 600HP power output. There isn't enough fuel flow allowed to support such power output. 500HP is a better figure, at least more probable from an engineering point of view.

[Lazy]

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

Plz explain where did you get 500bhp for ICE? Pretty much everyone disagrees with you on that one. 600-610 is considered to be the most logical number, not to mention renault confirmed it.

Simply the fuel consumption parameters would not add up for the 600HP power output. There isn't enough fuel flow allowed to support such power output. 500HP is a better figure, at least more probable from an engineering point of view.

Seeing as you disagree with pretty much everybody, including Cosworths figures, Renault etc, I can only assume you have made an error in your assumptions at some point.

[Tommy Cookers]

Energy density of fuel is a very well explored parameter especially in F1 for the past 25 years.
I would like to refer you to an SAE paper on Honda's turbo 1.5L F1 engine back in the 80's. In it you'll see the BSFC parameters quoted (page 4) of 272 g/kW-hr, which is roughly 0.450 lb/HP-hr.
http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... 0604,d.ZGU

the fuel was mostly Toluene, the engine would need a greater weight of this fuel relative to its power

there is energy density in mass terms
and energy density in volume terms
and energy density in chemical terms (fuel stoichiometric mass equivalent to the mass AFR conceptually for entire combustion)
Shell said NA F1 fuel was mostly optimised for (after combustion speed) volume specific energy rather than mass specific energy

the 80s fuel had increasing amounts of Toluene
Toluene (like the more common Aromatics) is unusually dense at 0.867, so its energy density in volume terms is outstanding
though its energy density in mass terms is rather poor at 40.6 MJ/kG
though this is compensated in useable-energy/power terms by its low Stoichiometric AFR of 13.2
in those days F1 fuel volume was progressively reduced by the rules to limit the growth of power
but this was rather offset by the teams increasing Toluene eg to 84%
in this way it would give about 8% more race power than gasoline (eg under the 150 litre limit of 1988)
and it would give higher 'Octane' in race use than implied by the RON values

because of this, in 2014 we have the exact opposite, fuel is limited by mass

thanks for posting this valuable link to the original paper
(IIRC is shows they never raced less than 8% rich even in 1988 for response reasons though on the testbench 2% rich was better))
others have posted here using only material extracted from this paper by another author
it's a shame we will have to wait until about 2025 for a similar SAE paper about the winning engine of 2014-6 etc

[321apex]

Seeing as you disagree with pretty much everybody, including Cosworths figures, Renault etc, I can only assume you have made an error in your assumptions at some point.

Who said that we all have to agree?
The entities you mentioned have not provided any official test figures other than "loose" talk. At this stage in the process no one will shed any details into what they are doing. Please note when did Honda write the technical paper on their 1.5L F1 turbo engine.

So in a nutshell - my opinion isn't contrary to anything, other than other people's opinions, which is still quite civilized.

[wuzak]

And considering that the FIA and the engine manufacturers set out to match the V8 output (~750hp) with the new engine (ICE + MGU-K), it would be unlikely that the power is <<600hp.

If we take the Cosworth curves, at 12k rpm the BSFC is ~240g/kW/hr in ICE only mode, ~190g/kW/Hr in ICE + MGU-H and ~180g/kW/hr in ICE + MGU-K.

Assuming a LHV for the fuel of 45MJ/kg, that works out to be 33%, 42% and 44% efficiencies respectively.

In power terms, that works out to 558hp, 706hp anf 744hp. At 12,000rpm.

At 10,500rpm, the BSFC are ~230g/kW/hr, ~195g/kW/hr and ~175g/kW/hr. Efficiencies are 35%, 41% and 45%. Power is ~583hp, ~687hp and ~766hp. Note that in compounded mode - the mode they will be in most of the time when traction i sup to it - the engine is more efficient at 12k rpm than at 10.5k rpm.

Also, from a practical point of view, as pointed out by others above, power falls off dramatically below 10,500rpm. Gear changes will want to drop the rpm to 10,500rpm, not below. Again, only in traction limited situations will it be different.

[wuzak]

We've talked about the Wright R-3350 Turbo-compound.

The Allison V-1710 ran as a turbo-compound years before the Wright. They had problems with the ability of the turbine to withstand the temperatures of the exhaust at high powers.

However, it managed a fuel consumption figure at cruise of 0.405lb/hp/hr @26,000ft. This was equal to 1200hp. If my calculations are correct, this is 246g/kW/hr.

Considering extra power is used to drive the compressor harder to compensate for altitude, that is quite respectable.

[321apex]

And considering that the FIA and the engine manufacturers set out to match the V8 output (~750hp) with the new engine (ICE + MGU-K), it would be unlikely that the power is <<600hp.

Sensible assumption!
I would just add, that in theorized stage the FIA along with consulted manufacturers may have overestimated and missed the power targets due to many technical unknowns they were embarking upon

If we take the Cosworth curves, at 12k rpm the BSFC is ~240g/kW/hr in ICE only mode, ~190g/kW/Hr in ICE + MGU-H and ~180g/kW/hr in ICE + MGU-K.

In my view it is foolish to take those "Cosworth curves" seriously, since they are not based on fact, but are the results of assumptions. stipulations and a lot of fudgy wishful thinking.

Assuming a LHV for the fuel of 45MJ/kg, that works out to be 33%, 42% and 44% efficiencies respectively.

In power terms, that works out to 558hp, 706hp anf 744hp. At 12,000rpm.

You are getting closer, however the 558HP figure is still "out on the limb" in my view.

At 10,500rpm, the BSFC are ~230g/kW/hr, ~195g/kW/hr and ~175g/kW/hr. Efficiencies are 35%, 41% and 45%. Power is ~583hp, ~687hp and ~766hp. Note that in compounded mode - the mode they will be in most of the time when traction i sup to it - the engine is more efficient at 12k rpm than at 10.5k rpm.

Also, from a practical point of view, as pointed out by others above, power falls off dramatically below 10,500rpm. Gear changes will want to drop the rpm to 10,500rpm, not below. Again, only in traction limited situations will it be different.

When reviewing SAE paper on Honda 1.5T F1 engine key performance factors become evident.
Firstly the calculated BMEP at full power is 32.5 bar, which indicates a certain boundary to combustion in view of the knock limit permitted by the fuel.

If we assume the figures that you quote of 558HP and I would urge to accept 10500 RPM as real engineering target for this power peak, then we get the following.
RPM - 10500
Power - 558HP
Torque @ pwr peak - 279 lb-ft
BMEP - 29.7 bar

What we see in this scenario, is that the 1.6L turbo engine while running at it's limited fuel rate is still quite easily falling within the rough boundaries of thermodynamic capability. Meaning, that this engine can easily "use up" the chemical energy potential offered by the fuel and DOES NOT need to be run any higher than 10500 RPM. At RPM higher than 10500, this engine will make less and less power proportionally to internal friction increase.

My next question is whether this 558HP is possible from 100kg/hr of fuel flow?
That works out to 240 g/kW-hr or 0.395 lb/HP-hr

In my view that is very optimistic result.

[Holm86]

And considering that the FIA and the engine manufacturers set out to match the V8 output (~750hp) with the new engine (ICE + MGU-K), it would be unlikely that the power is <<600hp.

Sensible assumption!
I would just add, that in theorized stage the FIA along with consulted manufacturers may have overestimated and missed the power targets due to many technical unknowns they were embarking upon

Yes because there is a much bigger chance the FIA and the manufacturers have overestimated the power targets than you have underestimated them. What are your background since you have become this big oracle of engines?? You should try and look back in this thread. This forum has speculated and calculated on these engines for the past years. And everybody has come up with roughly 600 hp as realistic.

If we take the Cosworth curves, at 12k rpm the BSFC is ~240g/kW/hr in ICE only mode, ~190g/kW/Hr in ICE + MGU-H and ~180g/kW/hr in ICE + MGU-K.

In my view it is foolish to take those "Cosworth curves" seriously, since they are not based on fact, but are the results of assumptions. stipulations and a lot of fudgy wishful thinking.

Again its foolish to believe a manufacturer who has been involved in F1 for ages?? But we should believe your statements instead??