2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

... Anyway, this is all theoretical. What a manufacturer will gain in knowledge about these PU's will not change whether it's a 4 or 6 cylinder, the tasks are pretty much the same. It's not the absolute level which counts here.

You are quite wrong. It makes a big difference in fuel efficiency if you run a 1.6 or 2L turbo engine with 6 or 3 cylinders. There is a huge amount of friction from the additional mechanical components to begin with. On top you loose thermal efficiency by all the additional heat exchange surfaces.

[Tommy Cookers]

....... It makes a big difference in fuel efficiency if you run a 1.6 or 2L turbo engine with 6 or 3 cylinders. There is a huge amount of friction from the additional mechanical components to begin with. On top you loose thermal efficiency by all the additional heat exchange surfaces.

are you now saying that Porsche etc should be using a 3 cylinder engine, not a 4 ?
the 6 has smaller pistons, shorter stroke, and lower piston speed than the 3 so friction (swept area x velocity) is only slightly more
the V 6 and your inline 3 will both have 4 main bearings
anyway, friction power will only be about 9% of engine power in 2014
the main difference between 6 and 3 cylinders is the surface area:volume ratio of the combustion zone
this gives relatively less heat loss in the 3 (helping TE)
but this lower heat loss causes the limiting CR to be lower in the 3 (hindering TE)
granted some of this efficiency loss could be recovered with more ERS bias than F1 currently has
(ERS bias could take us to free-piston engines with linear and turbine generation, no rods, no crank, no transmission etc)

there is little new here
unless you believe the new DI and superoctane fuel will allow unlimited CR even with a boosted engine
and you seem to be determined to confuse the downsizing etc benefits for road use, ie at partial powers
with the different situation (WOT) that is racing

[Blackout]

Massa too thinks it seems that Ferrari is cutting off its engine in some brakings.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 87304.html

[Del Boy]

The cars don't look as zippy to me. They have the electric torque for 33s and the gearing and the low downforce body and pirelli tyres. The truth about the top speeds is somewhere in the middle of that.

They're not limited to 33s. They're limited to 120KW from the MGU-K and 2MJ from the ES. This year, since they don't have a KERS button, the MGU-K will apply it's power as part of the engine mapping. The teams will probably not use it as a "turbo boost" but rather use the MGU-K to improve acceleration and to make the PUs' torque curve flatter.

I don't think you fully understand joules? The joule is the same as a watt second. That means that the MGUK can produce 120 kilowatts for 33 seconds 120 x 33.3= 3,996 or just about 4MJ. The MGUK can only produce 120 kilowatts (160 hp) but 4 mega joules it can take from the ES has a time limit 33.3 seconds. Or if you reduce the watts you can increase the time. Here is the formula
Time x kiloWatts = kilojoules


Edited to kilowatts thanks to Dren my mistake typo

[dren]

120 watts is roughly 0.161 hp.

[motobaleno]

in the comments on an exclusive interview with vettel autosprint reports that merc engine is revving 14.000 and renault 12.500 so far. also, they implicitly suggest that all the teams are looking for 15.000 despite the decrease in power above 10.500 due to friction...

[Abarth]

... Anyway, this is all theoretical. What a manufacturer will gain in knowledge about these PU's will not change whether it's a 4 or 6 cylinder, the tasks are pretty much the same. It's not the absolute level which counts here.

You are quite wrong. It makes a big difference in fuel efficiency if you run a 1.6 or 2L turbo engine with 6 or 3 cylinders. There is a huge amount of friction from the additional mechanical components to begin with. On top you loose thermal efficiency by all the additional heat exchange surfaces.

You obviously don't or do not want to understand my sentence that you quoted.
The most important part of it being:
"What a manufacturer will gain in knowledge about these PU's will not change whether it's a 4 or 6 cylinder, the tasks are pretty much the same."
If there is any know how transfer between these F1 engines and road cars, it pretty much doesn't change a thing whether the engines are I3 or V8. As soon as DI, turbo with MGU-H, MGU-K and ES are used, the tasks remain the same.

And the most difficult will be to get all the components work well together, i.e. mainly a software/algorithm thing.

Apart that, Tommy Cookers is spot on when he states that there seems continuous confusion about what's of benefit in a road car (improving part load efficiency and shifting the load line to higher loads), and whats important in a race engine (improving full load efficiency), in F1 done with the compounding turbo /ERS and remarkably lower engine speeds.

[Abarth]

in the comments on an exclusive interview with vettel autosprint reports that merc engine is revving 14.000 and renault 12.500 so far. also, they implicitly suggest that all the teams are looking for 15.000 despite the decrease in power above 10.500 due to friction...

Which is a bit odd, I didn't think they will go much higher than 13/13.5k. I understand that with compounding the friction losses are traded in for less pumping losses/boost requirements and therefore higher MGU-H power harvest to be sent to the MGU-K, therefore improving WOT efficiency. However, I thought there is no point about going all up to 15'000. This also because the broad power band.

[atanatizante]

The Ferrari engine is the most compact laterally and uses an air-water-air intercooler, therefore it can run significantly smaller sidepods, thus reducing drag. Also, don't forget that top speed is often also an indicator of a lack of down-force in F1.

100hp less at 336km/h (Alonso's recorded maximum speed) would require ~12% less drag. Condsidering that the cars are said to be 15% less draggy compared to last year, it is unlikely that one has almost the same improvement against the others.

Next top speed was Magnussen at 330km/h. He has the Mercedes engine, supposedly with the 100hp extra. That would suggest the Macca is carrying ~20% more drag.

Seems very unlikely to me.

These increased speeds could be due to ? :

1. A lower AoA RW main flap
2. A rear wing flap this year is 20mm smaller than last year and therefore the flap is slightly shallower in profile
3. A DRS flap can now open as wide as 65mm, 15mm wider than last year.
4. No beam wing.

Nonetheless, this situation is very interesting coz this year car is 48kg heavier, at least in Qualy trim

[atanatizante]

The cars don't look as zippy to me. They have the electric torque for 33s and the gearing and the low downforce body and pirelli tyres. The truth about the top speeds is somewhere in the middle of that.

They're not limited to 33s. They're limited to 120KW from the MGU-K and 2MJ from the ES. ...

From ES they could use only 4MJ through MGU-K each lap.
MGU-K could harvest only 2MJ each lap, therefore MGU-H is responsible for harvesting the other 2MJ.
But what is interesting is the fact that if MGU-H could harvest each lap more than 2MJ this added energy could be used unlimited by the MGU-K, hence another boost of power other than 4MJ per lap (or 120KW for 33,3 sec/lap)

[atanatizante]

The Ferrari engine is the most compact laterally and uses an air-water-air intercooler, therefore it can run significantly smaller sidepods, thus reducing drag. Also, don't forget that top speed is often also an indicator of a lack of down-force in F1.

100hp less at 336km/h (Alonso's recorded maximum speed) would require ~12% less drag. Condsidering that the cars are said to be 15% less draggy compared to last year, it is unlikely that one has almost the same improvement against the others.

Next top speed was Magnussen at 330km/h. He has the Mercedes engine, supposedly with the 100hp extra. That would suggest the Macca is carrying ~20% more drag.

Seems very unlikely to me.

These increased speeds could be due to ? :

1. A lower AoA RW main flap
2. A rear wing flap this year is 20mm smaller than last year and therefore the flap is slightly shallower in profile
3. A DRS flap can now open as wide as 65mm, 15mm wider than last year.
4. No beam wing.

Nonetheless, this situation is very interesting coz this year car is 48kg heavier, at least in Qualy trim
and tyres are harder now so therefore car is slower

[Wayne DR]

in the comments on an exclusive interview with vettel autosprint reports that merc engine is revving 14.000 and renault 12.500 so far. also, they implicitly suggest that all the teams are looking for 15.000 despite the decrease in power above 10.500 due to friction...

Which is a bit odd, I didn't think they will go much higher than 13/13.5k. I understand that with compounding the friction losses are traded in for less pumping losses/boost requirements and therefore higher MGU-H power harvest to be sent to the MGU-K, therefore improving WOT efficiency. However, I thought there is no point about going all up to 15'000. This also because the broad power band.

I agree. Due to the fuel flow limits, running a lambda of 0.98 (similar to the Honda RA168E) you can only run 2.5 bar to around 11,000RPM. The limit at 12,000 around 2.3 bar, 2.1 bar at 13k, 2 at 14k and less than 1.9 at 15k. Honda's testing on the RA168E showed a drop off in efficiency greater than 18% for boost pressures less than 2.1 bar! You can lean out further, but this also has efficiency and power generation penalties.

The other significant factors to note from the 1988 FIA Regulations:
- There was no limit on the ingredients in the fuel (the RA168E ran on a cocktail of 84% Toluene and 16% n-Heptane to get combustion stability)
- The cars were allowed 150kg of fuel per race (although we do have ERS now).

Honda achieved a minimum Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) of 272g/kWh on this engine (32.2% efficiency). This was over 25 years ago, and engine management and lubricants have come a long way, and direct injection engines will be inherently more efficient.

The numbers I saw from the Cosworth "still born" V6 project quoted minimum BSFC around 190g/kWh, an efficiency around 40% very impressive but what is the combustion stability of pump fuel at 2.5bar? At 25% Toluene content, Honda found volumetric fuel consumption increased by 14% (BSFC increased by 3.5%). The F14T's "backfiring" in the garage shows they are obviously working on the limit...

I am in awe of what the engine manufacturers have achieved to date!

[tuj]

I heard a rumor (albeit from a reputable source) that the Ferrari and Merc engines are making 900 bhp (ICE+ERS) on the dyno. I also heard that the Ferrari is sandbagging more than the Mercs, so they might have a serious contender on their hands. Supposedly Magnussen was allowed to take the Merc engine to 15k at the Jerez test (although I don't know if it was gaining any power at that redline), although I believe he was the only one to do so, and only for 1 lap. Also interesting is that the Merc factory team supposedly is not using 1st gear and are taking advantage of the broad powerband by using 2-8 only.

I don't know if I buy the 900bhp rumor, but maybe the ERS is more powerful than we think, in particular the unlimited MGU-H. Those are some pretty big turbo's they have going; makes me wonder... Still, the fact that we will likely see last year's pole times matched under the new rules is incredibly impressive.

[ringo]

in the comments on an exclusive interview with vettel autosprint reports that merc engine is revving 14.000 and renault 12.500 so far. also, they implicitly suggest that all the teams are looking for 15.000 despite the decrease in power above 10.500 due to friction...

That is an assumption we always make here. It's may not always be the case. It is empirically determined. I don't think it is something that is easily calculated.
But if engine friction were to really be increasing, i suppose using the max rpm will can allow harvesting from the MGUH to take place. If the Harvesting offsets the small loss of power then it's probably worth it. And revving to 15 grand does make the car more flexible drivability wise. We already know that the cars have a lot of torque.
So there is more than enough reason to use what you are allowed to.

[ringo]

I don't know if I buy the 900bhp rumor, but maybe the ERS is more powerful than we think, in particular the unlimited MGU-H. Those are some pretty big turbo's they have going; makes me wonder... Still, the fact that we will likely see last year's pole times matched under the new rules is incredibly impressive.

The MGUH is unlimited, but at the end of the the day it's the MGUK that puts the power to the wheels. That is limited, so all teams will have a maximum of 160hp added to their engine power.

By the way, does anyone know what compression ratio these engines have? I was using as high as 14:1 in my calculations.