2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[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.

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

Based on?

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.

It is actually lower than Cosworth claim, and mostly due to my scaling of the graph.

The V8s ran at about 28-29% efficiency. 33% is a gain of 13-14%. Considering direction injection and the turbo (recovered work helping compress the air) that is not out of the ballpark.

Also note that 42% is a gain of 40%+ - similar to the claimed aims of the manufacturers.

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.

Cosworth have been building high performance and race engines for 50 years plus. They have expertise in the area, understanding of the fundamentals, and, no doubt, excellent simulation programs.

Their assumptions are guided by experience and empirical data. Stipulations? I guess that means the 100kg/hr fuel flow rate - which is stipulated in the rules.

You have no basis to say that their numbers have been "fudged". I suggest that your idea that they "fudged" the figures is because they don't agree with your thesis.

I'd also like to say, that I doubt that they are the real figures Cosworth would expect. They may be reasonably close, but with a good fuel supplier they may expect a bit more.

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.

The engine may may less power above 10,500rpm than at 10,500rpm, but it will make more than below 10,500rpm. That is certain.

For best performance they will not want to drop below 10,500rpm, or if they do, not by much.

How do you claim that 29.7 bar is "the thermodynamic capability" of engines?

240g/kW/hr is 11-12% improvement over the Honda RA186E. In 25 years. With better material, new and better lubricants and direct injection. Add to that the improvement if fuels and I'm sure it is more than possible.

[vtr]

240g/kW/hr is 11-12% improvement over the Honda RA186E. In 25 years. With better material, new and better lubricants and direct injection. Add to that the improvement if fuels and I'm sure it is more than possible.

Also the fact that the Honda engine was made to run at 1.02 equivalence ratio, 70 oC intake temperature to minimize BSFC, but also to run 1.15 equivalence ratio, 40 oC intake temperature to maximize power. The 2014 engines will not do that second part.
11-12% improvement is quite possible IMO, especially considering direct injection.

[Tommy Cookers]

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

or ..... that Honda would have given a better best bsfc on 2014 fuel

[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

Based on?

Based upon a dawning fact that FIA probably miscalculated wanting to preserve the high revving sound (15k RPM limit), while simultaneously killing it with the imposition of fuel FLOW RATE limit. Engine engineers know, that fuel efficiency is inversely proportional to engine speed and 10.5K RPM will be the design target for most powerful engine.

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.

Cosworth have been building high performance and race engines for 50 years plus. They have expertise in the area, understanding of the fundamentals, and, no doubt, excellent simulation programs.

Their assumptions are guided by experience and empirical data. Stipulations? I guess that means the 100kg/hr fuel flow rate - which is stipulated in the rules.

You have no basis to say that their numbers have been "fudged". I suggest that your idea that they "fudged" the figures is because they don't agree with your thesis.

I'd also like to say, that I doubt that they are the real figures Cosworth would expect. They may be reasonably close, but with a good fuel supplier they may expect a bit more.

No doubt Cosworth are a highly competent company in their field, however you take for granted documents that are no more than cartoon studies. Cosworth have not become a developer of such engine as far as we know, so this data is not from testing. The mere fact that they anticipate running at 12k RPM somewhat discredits the seriousness of data presented.

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.

The engine may may less power above 10,500rpm than at 10,500rpm, but it will make more than below 10,500rpm. That is certain.

For best performance they will not want to drop below 10,500rpm, or if they do, not by much.

How do you claim that 29.7 bar is "the thermodynamic capability" of engines?

240g/kW/hr is 11-12% improvement over the Honda RA186E. In 25 years. With better material, new and better lubricants and direct injection. Add to that the improvement if fuels and I'm sure it is more than possible.

The reported power of that Honda 1.5L turbo engine revealed BMEP figure of over 32 BAR. BMEP is an important performance indicator of an engine and in this case for comparison sake it allowed me to pose the following question:

Can the 2014 F1 engine achieve BMEP value not exceeding to that while running at 10500 RPM?
The answer was YES, the BMEP works out to be 29.7 bar which is roughly 10% less.

At this point it is clear that the 2014 engine can easily produce maximum power allowed by fuel flow limitation without having to exceed 10500 RPM. I'd be curiously watching come Bahrain test maybe to see whether I am correct or not.

Your other concern regarding BSFC I will just rest. I still doubt that with direct cylinder injection such frugal fuel consumption is possible, but I will not be upset if I am proven to be wrong. I have been right in my professional life many times and there were great many when I was not.

[tuj]

I thought there were reports that the engines at Jerez were running up to 13k? And Mclaren did one or two laps at 15k redline?

[Blanchimont]

apex, what about the Le Mans bsfc figures i presented here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 84#p485284 ?

I'd guess your professional life experience tells you they are nonsense?

[rscsr]

Apex
How do you even calculate bmep?

[321apex]

Apex
How do you even calculate bmep?

BMEP [psi] = 150.8 x Torque [lb-ft]/DIsplacement [cu.inch]

1 bar = 14.50377 psi

[dren]

Based upon a dawning fact that FIA probably miscalculated wanting to preserve the high revving sound (15k RPM limit), while simultaneously killing it with the imposition of fuel FLOW RATE limit. Engine engineers know, that fuel efficiency is inversely proportional to engine speed and 10.5K RPM will be the design target for most powerful engine.

As wuzak stated:

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.

I think it may be up to the driver to short shift in certain cases, be it fuel limitations or traction limitations.

You also have to look at the power unit as a "unit", not as just the ICE and some slap on electronic devices.
WC and others have stated several times that the drop in power to drive the compressor due to less need at higher RPMs more than offsets the increased frictional losses. Thus more power can be generated at the MGUH which is directly transfered to the MGUK. So, "sustained" power unit running will likely be at a higher RPM than 10.5k. The bsfc of the total power unit package (sans batteries) will be higher at an RPM over 10.5k.

Drivers are talking about the power units already being quite strong which leads me to believe they are in the ballpark of last year's numbers.

[321apex]

apex, what about the Le Mans bsfc figures i presented here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 84#p485284 ?

I'd guess your professional life experience tells you they are nonsense?

I did not ignore your original post, but rather had no time to browse thru your sited link. In it, towards the end in the Appendix B is a table below which is written the following text, which I provided in it's entirety. I suggest you read into it.

Tank Volumes and Fuel technology factor are calculated with the following values and could be adjusted should the fuel characteristics and engine actual performance be modified ( For Petrol (2014 20% bio) : 220g/kwh, 0.756 kg/l and 39.55 MJ/kg // For Diesel (2014 10% bio) : 195 g/kwh, 0.832 kg/l and 42.31 MJ/kg).
These values are defined, based on an hypothesis of efficiency of 195 g/kwh for diesel engine, and 220 g/kwh for gasoline engines.
These values depend on the evolution of the technologies and precise chemical characteristics of fuels used in 2014.
For this reason they are defined within a range of 5g/kwh, with 2012 LMP fuel reference.
The precise values will be frozen in September 2012, after further fuel tests have been performed on experimental test engines (agreed with LMP manufacturers).

First of all, the fuel efficiency targets mentioned in this text (BSFC of 220g/kW-hr for gasoline) are "hypothetical" and are the basis to account for as the overall boundaries the chemical energy available plus any recuperative ERS. I deliberately underlined text which shows that the authors were at the time of writing not sure of themselves as to what they were really trying to say. Sports car racing in general is nowhere near as competitive a sport as F1 and these regulations show that. The rules are rather "loose" opening a wide spectrum of configurations allowed to compete. F1 rules are "tight" and far more challenging from technical standpoint.

[vtr]

Tank Volumes and Fuel technology factor are calculated with the following values and could be adjusted should the fuel characteristics and engine actual performance be modified ( For Petrol (2014 20% bio) : 220g/kwh, 0.756 kg/l and 39.55 MJ/kg // For Diesel (2014 10% bio) : 195 g/kwh, 0.832 kg/l and 42.31 MJ/kg).
These values are defined, based on an hypothesis of efficiency of 195 g/kwh for diesel engine, and 220 g/kwh for gasoline engines.
These values depend on the evolution of the technologies and precise chemical characteristics of fuels used in 2014.
For this reason they are defined within a range of 5g/kwh, with 2012 LMP fuel reference.
The precise values will be frozen in September 2012, after further fuel tests have been performed on experimental test engines (agreed with LMP manufacturers).

But what about the part i underlined, in the very next line? The numbers are hypothetical, but based on 2012 fuel characteristics, not on ACO dreams. And the regulations do admit that the values are not final, but they also determine a very small range for the precise values.
In essence they are not sure if it's 220 or 225, but it's certainly not 270.

In the end, the ACO, Cosworth, the Renault engine people and the Mercedes engine people (I haven't read anything from Ferrari yet), all point to the possibility of an engine being able to go well below your 272g/kWh limit, and we see no one in the industry disagreeing.

And as for the sportcars being not as competitive, one can argue that the looser the regulations, the more challenging and interesting the whole design becomes. I've heard technical people lament that an I4 engine is not allowed, or that the V angle is fixed, weight and cg and so on... Who knows what kind of f1 cars we could have today were the regulations more loose.

[321apex]

But what about the part i underlined, in the very next line? The numbers are hypothetical, but based on 2012 fuel characteristics, not on ACO dreams. And the regulations do admit that the values are not final, but they also determine a very small range for the precise values.
In essence they are not sure if it's 220 or 225, but it's certainly not 270.

In the end, the ACO, Cosworth, the Renault engine people and the Mercedes engine people (I haven't read anything from Ferrari yet), all point to the possibility of an engine being able to go well below your 272g/kWh limit, and we see no one in the industry disagreeing.

And as for the sportcars being not as competitive, one can argue that the looser the regulations, the more challenging and interesting the whole design becomes. I've heard technical people lament that an I4 engine is not allowed, or that the V angle is fixed, weight and cg and so on... Who knows what kind of f1 cars we could have today were the regulations more loose.

As I pointed out, those figures of 220 g/kw-hr include regeneration. Which misses completely our discussion of "piston only" BSFC. My original argument was that the "piston only" power will be seriously limited to not much more than 500HP due to this stingy fuel flow limit.

[ringo]

Apex
How do you even calculate bmep?

BMEP [psi] = 150.8 x Torque [lb-ft]/DIsplacement [cu.inch]

1 bar = 14.50377 psi

For all this talking, not from you per say, and this is the evidence being used to justify the power from the new engines?
Do better than that guys.

I don't have much to say, but the engines will not make anywhere near 700hp. I've gone to a deeper level than the above calculation, and try as I might, the available energy from the fuel, with ungodly 14:1 compression ratio with 40 degree C air to the throttle, with the most efficient combustion, 15% mechanical efficiency losses and still nowhere near 700hp.
I am convinced that 590hp to 630hp is the range of power from these engines.
Before the figure was laughed at, but in truth, and even from the media released from the engine makers themselves, the engines will be on average at 600hp.

[ringo]

As I pointed out, those figures of 220 g/kw-hr include regeneration. Which misses completely our discussion of "piston only" BSFC. My original argument was that the "piston only" power will be seriously limited to not much more than 500HP due to this stingy fuel flow limit.

I agree with you the engines will be relatively weak compared to the V8s. But more like 600hp.

[321apex]

As I pointed out, those figures of 220 g/kw-hr include regeneration. Which misses completely our discussion of "piston only" BSFC. My original argument was that the "piston only" power will be seriously limited to not much more than 500HP due to this stingy fuel flow limit.

I agree with you the engines will be relatively weak compared to the V8s. But more like 600hp.

We may not readily know for sure outside of someone's loose talk, but I already expressed my doubt that it will be that much.

I would like to draw attention to the gear ratios, which have to be declared by all competitors prior to the season start and may only be altered once during the year. There are 8 allowable gears. The gear ratios are closely related to the power band of the engine.

The rules define them as a ratio from the input shaft of transmission all the way to the output (half) shafts. That also means, that final drive ratio (differential) is an integral part of the equation.

Seems to me that this gear "composition" will be optimized towards the fastest race tracks, in particular Monza. So at Monza the drivers will use all 8 gears, whereas at Monaco they will only use the first 5-7 and that's it.

Any thoughts on this?