2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Holm86]

But the V8 is from 2006 and also was effectively a castrated V10. We are now almost 8 year further. Also with the Turbo always spinning because of the MGU-H isn't that a big improvement? ( i dont believe this engines makes 740 without the electrical part. But 640-660 isn't that possible? Because i find it hard to believe that a AMG A45 makes 350 out of a 2.0 four cylinder and that thoroughbred F1 engine would not make more than 600hp. I know that these papers spreading these rumors aren't always accurate. But those same papers have been right for more then a year about the engine advantage Mercedes would have and we know can see that they were right on that one. So maybe there is some truth in those reports.

How much power Mercedes is making from their 2.0 four cylinder has zero to do with efficiency. I know you said you have no technical background but you need to understand that that engine is not restricted in any ways. In a four cylinder 2.0 engine like in the A45 creating huge horsepower figures is not difficult. Street tuners have reached far beyond 345hp in 2.0 engines. That's because you can always add more fuel and air which is what creates the power. What Mercedes has achieved with the A45 engines is a great step in material technology because they can now create so much power reliably.

In a fuel-flow regulated formula as F1 you can't just pump in more fuel and air to create more horsepower. So you need to get as much power out of the fuel you are given which means to get more power you need to increase the thermal efficiency of the engine.

Typically fuel has a energy density of 46 mega joules per kilogram. That's 46.000.000 joules / kg. The fuel-flow is capped at 100kg/h or 100.000g / 60 / 60 = 27,77 grams per second.

And to calculate the energy density into grams as well: 46.000.000 j/kg / 1000 = 46.000 j/g.

One watt is = one joule per second. So the maximum amount of energy going into these engines are 27,77 g/s x 46.000 j/g = 1277420 watt.

1277420 watt / 1000 = 1277,42 Kw.

But a gasoline engine is not 100% efficient. Far from it. Normal is about 32% so lets calculate a bit optimistic and say 35%.

1277,42 Kw x 0,35 = 447,1 Kw. So the power output of engine is 447,1 Kw or 447,1 Kw x 1,34 = 599,1 hp.

So you see by increasing the efficiency you get more power. Not like on street cars like the A45 AMG where you can just add more fuel and boost to get more horsepower.

How about the turbo, you know have calculated it without the turbo? Doesn't the 500bar GDI has an influence?

You don't really understand so its a bit difficult for me to explain further. The turbo does not create the power. The turbo only provides the air necessary to combust the 27.77 grams per second of fuel. Its the fuel that holds the energy which in the end decides how much power you get. There are 3 factors deciding how much power the engine can make.
1. the amount of fuel. (which is capped at 100kg/h as per regulations)
2. the energy density of the fuel.
3. the efficiency of the engine.

[kooleracer]

Oke, thanks for explaining! So 600hp would be a great achievement on itself if a manufacturer got that out of the ICE. That would mean 35% TE which is a leap in ICE technology in itself. If I understand your reasoning.

[Holm86]

Oke, thanks for explaining! So 600hp would be a great achievement on itself if a manufacturer got that out of the ICE. That would mean 35% TE which is a leap in ICE technology in itself. If I understand your reasoning.

Yes

Though there is still the energy density of the fuel. I'm no chemist so I don't know that much of fuel compositions etc. But there is a possibility that the energy density could be slightly higher which would mean more power. So the thermal efficiency and the energy density of the fuel are two unknowns where we can only give qualified guesses.

[Sulman]

The fuel flow limit (in the light of the disqualification) got me thinking - in a race without safety cars, is there any advantage to having it removed? In an ideal world the car would cross the line using the last spoonfuls of fuel, so what difference does it make if they're limited or not?

In Ricciardo's case I can see it was a problem because given the safety car in theory he had more rate to play with than his competitors, but outside of that, 100kg in the tank is the same for everyone, surely?

[TinoBoost]

You don't really understand so its a bit difficult for me to explain further. The turbo does not create the power. The turbo only provides the air necessary to combust the 27.77 grams per second of fuel. Its the fuel that holds the energy which in the end decides how much power you get. There are 3 factors deciding how much power the engine can make.
1. the amount of fuel. (which is capped at 100kg/h as per regulations)
2. the energy density of the fuel.
3. the efficiency of the engine.

The turbo does not create power? It very well can through the MGU-H nowadays. ICE+MGU-H can be more than 600hp.

Turbo's don't just provide the air. At same MAF & lamda, turbo's are usually more powerful = more efficient. After all they do use exhaust flow.

[timbo]

The turbo does not create power? It very well can through the MGU-H nowadays. ICE+MGU-H can be more than 600hp.

The power on wheels comes only by MGU-K motor which has fixed power. So the boost due to any energy saving is same for everyone.

Turbo's don't just provide the air. At same MAF & lamda, turbo's are usually more powerful = more efficient. After all they do use exhaust flow.

That's because power comes from the smaller engine = less friction/inertia.

[ylk1]

Hello all, I was wondering if there is any method to collect and store fuel after bypassing the mandatory f1 flow sensor which is located in the fuel tank. By doing so I guess we can have overpowered engine though for short period.

Forgive me if this is a stupid or repeated question.
Cheers!

[ppj13]

The turbo does not create power? It very well can through the MGU-H nowadays. ICE+MGU-H can be more than 600hp.

The power on wheels comes only by MGU-K motor which has fixed power. So the boost due to any energy saving is same for everyone.

Turbo's don't just provide the air. At same MAF & lamda, turbo's are usually more powerful = more efficient. After all they do use exhaust flow.

That's because power comes from the smaller engine = less friction/inertia.

If you use the turbine to move the compressor, as in regular turbo engines, you "reduce" flywheel power, because of backpressure. If you vent the exhaust around the turbine (waste-gate) you effectively reduce backpressure to almost zero and get maybe 40 hp more at the flywheel, at the cost of eating 80 hp (electrical) in the MGUH to keep turbo boost. It's highly inefficient, but could be done; I would definitively have this mode for the first couple of seconds before long straights on qualy trim.

So, yes, in a way, turbo+MGUH does "produce" power.

I mean, maps would be, assuming 600hp ICE alone, 160hp mguK:

Maximum harvesting: 440 (very strange), maybe useful in qualy at partial driver torque demand.
Normal mode: 600+160 (most of the time during racing). In this mode, MGUK uses 80hp from ERS and 80 from MGUH (turbocompounding).
Maximum power: 600+160+40 (only short bursts in qualy) This mode MGUK uses 160 from ERS and MGUH 80 from ERS, so eats up 3x more electric power than normal mode to get "only" 40hp more.

(please, notice I made up the figures).

On theory (and I don't believe this is technically possible) you could extend this strategy to the infinite. If instead of venting the exhaust, you just allow the assembly to spin faster than the ideal point, even eating energy from the MGUH, you could overboost the engine, creating lean combustion (manageable with stratified combustion) and reducing backpressure, even to negative levels. In theory, both compressor and turbine are coaxial air pumps that, when overrun, will transfer power to the MCI "core". In reality, I don't believe this is possible, the inefficiency will quickly exceed the advantage.

Another point, in a way 2013hp are not the same than 2014hp to calculate to speed. Why? because in 2014 the average power at 100% throttle is 98% of peak power, while in 2013 it would be like 90%, due to the power band not being flat from 16000 to 18000. Having the same Hp and the same drag does not equal to same speed at a given speed trap. Only if perfect ratios and infinite straight (aka, spa) are used.

Related to the DR dq, I still wonder:

-Is the use of a single sensor enforced?
-Is it possible for the teams to have 8 sensors tested and in stock and use the best one (or set)?

[Blackout]

Great posts Holm86.
But I still cant believe that the teams can be that 'stupid' and could run with ''1000hp'' during 20 laps in the race and end it running with just ''250hp'' (if we remove the fule flow limit)... the teams will be forced to mange the power wisely during the race if they have a 100l fuel tank IMO... but that wouldnt be the case during qualifying, yes. So what's the problem if the teams can release 900hp for just 2 or 3 laps during qualy? And if consumption is too high in that case, why dont the FIA apply the fuel flow limit just for the qualy ?

[Tommy Cookers]

@ ppj (mostly)

AFAIK ....... a turbo is normally operating in blowdown turbine condition
blowdown 'pulses' drive the turbine, the mean exhaust pressure is not raised relative to the induction pressure (it can fall)
backpressure means the mean exhaust pressure is higher than the induction pressure, this is called pressure turbine condition
(the exhaust valve motions of course isolate the combustion chamber from the backpressure)
agreed our accounting of power may not be straightforward

an earlier post mentions 3.5 bar boost ie 3.5 bar absolute (if that can be believed)
many have calculated that as a turbo engine around only 2 bar abs is needed (the 1988 engines were 'only' 2.5 bar abs)
though I have evidenced the efficiency benefits of backpressure, 3.5 bar does not suggest backpressure any time soon

mgu-k recovery is torque limited by rule so that 161 hp recovery is only allowable over about 5500 crank rpm, below that it falls
surely there will be little or no capacity provided eg in the motor drives to allow higher total power (than this 161 hp) from storage ?

but the fuel rate regime allows mgu-k generation directly from motor running (eg when the driver can't use a lot of power)
as has always been done with the KERS
this is a relatively tracktime-efficient use of fuel, and surely will be worthwhile at some times and places in 2014 etc ?

btw the engineer's view of the efficiency of a heat engine is based on the Lower Heating/Calorific Value
the chemist determines the Upper HV (heat of enthalpy) and so UHVs are the values generally given for fuels
because heating engineers use the LHV, sadly such Googled sources too often falsely tabulate UHVs as LHVs

[321apex]

It would have been so much more straight forward to mandate a fuel flow restricting DEVICE instead of a fuel flow rate METER.

For example a precise controlled section of flow restriction (orifice) in a fuel line (between fuel tank and hi press fuel pump) of specific diameter, say 0.25mm with a monitoring of pressure across it. The only monitoring electronics would be pressure sensor(s), which as a device is far more robust in tough on-board environment than a delicate flow meter.

The delivered volume is square root of pressure change. Meaning that if the pressure were to increase by 10%, the flow would increase only by 4.9%. High grade pressure sensors can easily have 0.5% full scale accuracy so the level of control would be far more robust.

[Tommy Cookers]

fine with control fuel at control temperatures and control flow states
otherwise not so fine

I thought the real point of rate limiting was to avoid the impression of the racing being undermined by economy driving
though Moto GP has so far avoided giving this impression
yesterday's F1 race was as a high fuel consumption circuit (when without safety car, rain, false starts etc)
and many expect fuel loads in 2014 often to be under 100 kg
so fuel load factors will influence events more than fuel rate factors ?
what if yesterday's race had without SC etc ?
would Mr R been DQ for using eg 101 kg of fuel ?
ie we could easily have been focussed on that, not on fuel rate

[chrispphunt]

Fascinating read guys thanks a lot.
Is it possible some people have underestimated just how much work has gone into efficency of the engine- Mercedes in particular.
I have read an article about Honda's new engine for f1 and there aim is for as close to 40% efficiency as they can
Surely the current engines must be similar and also aren't there fancy new fuels being used/developed by the teams?

[kooleracer]

Fascinating read guys thanks a lot.
Is it possible some people have underestimated just how much work has gone into efficency of the engine- Mercedes in particular.
I have read an article about Honda's new engine for f1 and there aim is for as close to 40% efficiency as they can
Surely the current engines must be similar and also aren't there fancy new fuels being used/developed by the teams?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/22551204

F1's new 2014 engine
Engine: 1.6-litre, V6s, with single turbo. Engines can rev to 15,000rpm, five power units per season per driver (each engine does 4,000km). 15% fewer moving parts

Turbo: Size unlimited, maximum revs 125,000rpm

Energy recovery (Ers) system: 161bhp for 33.3 seconds a lap

Fuel limit: No more than 100kg (about 140 litres) of fuel in a race; max fuel-flow rate of 100kg per hour. This is a 30% increase in fuel efficiency

Thermal efficiency: 40% (target)

If thats Honda its target then 37% TE or more should be achieved already by the other ICE engines. They wouldn't set a target that is impossible to achieve. Also the Toyota made a 38.5% TE engine for the Prius (next-gen target was 42.5% TE). I don't know if this is comparable to F1 engines because of the fuel flow limit?

wikipedia:

The next-generation Prius is being designed to deliver significantly improved fuel economy in a more compact package that is lighter in weight and lower in cost. These objectives are being achieved through the development of a new generation of powertrains with significant advances in battery, electric motor and gasoline engine technologies. The next Prius will feature improved batteries with higher energy density; smaller electric motors, with higher power density than the current Prius motors; and the gasoline engine will feature a thermal efficiency greater than 40% (in the current Prius is 38.5%)

btw, I am not here to irritate you guys am just checking if there is a possibility these rumors can be true. And if these current cars are real "monsters" like BILD.de said. They were saying that Mercedes could have 900hp when they turned everything up. So effectively 740hp from the ICE alone, that would mean 0.432% TE. 740/1.34 that dived by 1277,42= 0.4323% TE.

[Cold Fussion]

Fascinating read guys thanks a lot.
Is it possible some people have underestimated just how much work has gone into efficency of the engine- Mercedes in particular.
I have read an article about Honda's new engine for f1 and there aim is for as close to 40% efficiency as they can
Surely the current engines must be similar and also aren't there fancy new fuels being used/developed by the teams?

When they say 40% efficient, they are probably talking about the compounded efficiency and not just the TE of the engine that was being discussed here earlier.