2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03226852

The Lean Boost Direct Injection (LBDI) concept uses lean operation to reduce full load octane requirement, allowing operation at about 1.5 compression ratios higher than for a conventional DI turbo engine. This allows 11.5 - 12.0 compression ratio with 95 RON fuel. LBDI requires no over-fuelling for component protection . . . The LBDI system is based on the fundamental precept of the reduction in octane requirement due to the DI system and the role of excess air as a knock suppressant. . . . . with increasing boost - and the consequential change in the available AFR operating band - it is possible to boost to a level where substantial increases in the IMEP over the stoichiometric NA value can be achieved. Downsizing whilst maintaining a lean homogeneous mixture thus becomes feasible.

[ringo]

All other reference documents of other different types of engines aren't of much use.
Until there is real data, there can be no assumptions made. We cannot look on characteristics of specific fuel consumption on other power plants and then apply the same trends to this engine.
Big mistake. Best to use what will happen in theory with the same engine parameters, direct injection, high compression etc.
Best to look on a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection. The new BMW M3 for example.

[trinidefender]

All other reference documents of other different types of engines aren't of much use.
Until there is real data, there can be no assumptions made. We cannot look on characteristics of specific fuel consumption on other power plants and then apply the same trends to this engine.
Big mistake. Best to use what will happen in theory with the same engine parameters, direct injection, high compression etc.
Best to look on a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection. The new BMW M3 for example.

You can't look at "a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection" like the BMW M3 because, and I can't believe this has to be repeated again, those engines are always restricted by the mount of air that can be taken in then the ECU pumps in as much fuel as it has been programmed to that it thinks will give maximum power.

The 2014 F1 engines on the other hand are FUEL RESTRICTED. This automatically means that different rules will apply concerning air to fuel ratios when it comes to max power.

We have established that maximum power occures at max brake thermal efficiency in the 2014 engines. Considering the competitive nature of F1 and the amount of money that is invested into engine building it, I wouldn't be surprised if some technologies that all of us are thinking of as "experimental" are being implemented. Whereby in a road car, the requirements of getting these methods to work with varying qualities of fuel, mass production manufacturing processes and tolerances and simple cost/gain factor would not permit them YET.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the Mercedes engineers at Brixworth brought in engineers from the Mercedes Benz/AMG engine R&D department to see if there were any experimental technologies that they can use.

Btw nice information there guys, please keep it coming.

[gruntguru]

Whereby in a road car, the requirements of getting these methods to work with varying qualities of fuel, mass production manufacturing processes and tolerances and simple cost/gain factor would not permit them YET.

Plus - don't forget the killer - road car engines must meet emissions regulations.

[gruntguru]

All other reference documents of other different types of engines aren't of much use.
Until there is real data, there can be no assumptions made. We cannot look on characteristics of specific fuel consumption on other power plants and then apply the same trends to this engine.
Big mistake. Best to use what will happen in theory with the same engine parameters, direct injection, high compression etc.
Best to look on a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection. The new BMW M3 for example.

Are you deliberately trying to be a nuisance? We were discussing the paper linked by Brian Coates http://www.fisita2012.com/programme/pro ... 01-041.pdf and you come out with that comment? You clearly didn't even read the paper - research (by Petronas and Ricardo) into direct injection, multiple injection pulses - MAP up to 3 bar. The test engines were "modern" and "turbo charged" by any definition of those words.

The dinosaur here is you - can't get your head beyond traditional tuning metrics.

[ringo]

Ok carry on with the idle banter, as it doesn't matter if the engine is fuel or air restricted. Maximum efficiency has no bearing on "restricted" by fuel or air.
Guess i'll comment when i see something realistic in this thread. It's been quite a while now that the thread has gone off on a tangent with completely imagined situations.

By the way that article has nothing to do with what we are discussing. To many counter points to even post to show why it is unrelated to the v6 turbo race engine. but for those who are interested, that article is one page long, has no figures, has nothing to do with high performance, and in fact caters to emissions and part load of a turbocharged engine versus a naturally aspirated engine; contrary to what trini or grunt has lashed out on.

[ringo]

You can't look at "a modern turbo charged engine with direct injection" like the BMW M3 because, and I can't believe this has to be repeated again, those engines are always restricted by the mount of air that can be taken in then the ECU pumps in as much fuel as it has been programmed to that it thinks will give maximum power.

[/quote]

What rules. Please state them.

The 2014 F1 engines on the other hand are FUEL RESTRICTED. This automatically means that different rules will apply concerning air to fuel ratios when it comes to max power.

As above, state the rules and also how operation of the engine, especially in cylinder conditions, for max combustion efficiency will differ.

We have established that maximum power occures at max brake thermal efficiency in the 2014 engines.

I am not denying this or accepting it, but where have you "established" this? lol.
A Christopher Columbus moment perhaps? but i missed the establishment.

Considering the competitive nature of F1 and the amount of money that is invested into engine building it, I wouldn't be surprised if some technologies that all of us are thinking of as "experimental" are being implemented. Whereby in a road car, the requirements of getting these methods to work with varying qualities of fuel, mass production manufacturing processes and tolerances and simple cost/gain factor would not permit them YET.

Not responding to the above, it's just filler.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the Mercedes engineers at Brixworth brought in engineers from the Mercedes Benz/AMG engine R&D department to see if there were any experimental technologies that they can use.

They did more than likely.

[trinidefender]

Ringo it would be nice if you would quote things I say properly. In an air restricted formula, I.e. Pretty much every formula other than F1, including high performance road cars engines are always limited by the amount of air that can be drawn into to the engine. Therefore the point at which those air restricted engines make maximum power is NOT the point at which they give maximum efficiency.

While in a fuel restricted formula the point at which they give maximum power IS the point of maximum efficiency.

[rscsr]

... Therefore the point at which those air restricted engines make maximum power is NOT the point at which they give maximum efficiency.
While in a fuel restricted formula the point at which they give maximum power IS the point of maximum efficiency.

Although I agree completely that the fuel restriction means that the engine will be designed to run lean.
But the point of maximum efficiency doesn't necessarily mean that the maximum power is produced at that point. Let's look at the current F1 engines. It would be pretty possible that the engines have max efficiency (assume 40%) at about 9000rpm with a slightly falling efficiency (to 39%) at 11000rpm. The available fuel flow at 9000rpm is 0.009x9000+5=86kg/h and over 10500rpm it is 100kg/h.
If we use a fuel with 44MJ/kg we get the following power numbers.
9000rpm (max efficienxy) --> 420.4kW
11000rpm --> 476.6kW

[trinidefender]

... Therefore the point at which those air restricted engines make maximum power is NOT the point at which they give maximum efficiency.
While in a fuel restricted formula the point at which they give maximum power IS the point of maximum efficiency.

Although I agree completely that the fuel restriction means that the engine will be designed to run lean.
But the point of maximum efficiency doesn't necessarily mean that the maximum power is produced at that point. Let's look at the current F1 engines. It would be pretty possible that the engines have max efficiency (assume 40%) at about 9000rpm with a slightly falling efficiency (to 39%) at 11000rpm. The available fuel flow at 9000rpm is 0.009x9000+5=86kg/h and over 10500rpm it is 100kg/h.
If we use a fuel with 44MJ/kg we get the following power numbers.
9000rpm (max efficienxy) --> 420.4kW
11000rpm --> 476.6kW

rscsr I agree with that. I was more referring to the fact that if you were to increase the efficiency at any point in this formula it will make you more power. While in an air restricted formula that may not be the case. We were more looking at the engines from a purely thermal efficiency perspective and how air:fuel ratio affects it.

Edit: reading though my previous posts to see where I may have confused people I mentioned brake thermal efficiency.....take the brake out.

[gruntguru]

By the way that article has nothing to do with what we are discussing. To many counter points to even post to show why it is unrelated to the v6 turbo race engine. but for those who are interested, that article is one page long, has no figures, has nothing to do with high performance, and in fact caters to emissions and part load of a turbocharged engine versus a naturally aspirated engine; contrary to what trini or grunt has lashed out on.

That is the wrong article. I posted it to illustrate the anti knock benefits of Lean Boost Direct Injection.

Here is the article linked by Brian. 16 Pages, testing up to 36 bar BMEP - same as a current F1 engine.

http://www.fisita2012.com/programme/pro ... 01-041.pdf
I thought this looked somewhat relevant, especially pages 12, 13.
It is an research paper by Ricardo and Petronas.

[gruntguru]

We have established that maximum power occures at max brake thermal efficiency in the 2014 engines.

I am not denying this or accepting it, but where have you "established" this? lol.
A Christopher Columbus moment perhaps? but i missed the establishment.

I will repeat what I said to you on Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:01 pm.

Power = BTE x Fuel Flow x Fuel heating value

Under current rules you cannot change Fuel Flow, you can only try to improve BTE and Fuel heating value.

Your F1 engine is on the dyno. You can't improve the fuel beyond the magic brew your petrochemical partner has developed for you. You are at the max fuel flow allowed - 100 kg/hr. You are setting the mixture by adjusting airflow (boost pressure).

The only thing you can do to increase power is improve BTE because the equation above has become:

Power = BTE x (a constant)

Where do you think the AFR will end up for maximum power - whoops - BTE?

Here is a clue (or two).


image from Bosch Automotive Handbook. 8th edition page 559. Quoting from the same page:

"Spark-ignition engines with intake manifold injection achieve the lowest fuel consumption at constant engine output dependant on the engine at 20-50% air surplus (lambda = 1.2 - 1.5)"

Clearly, direct injection engines will tolerate even leaner mixtures although - even with port injection - some researchers are seeing peak efficiency at lambda 2.0 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/04 ... -hlsi.html.

[Tommy Cookers]

While in a fuel restricted formula the point at which they give maximum power IS the point of maximum efficiency.

whatever the notional 'best BTE' AFR is .....
there is no true 'best BTE' AFR for the F1 engine as it will not use a fixed AFR throughout even WOT running ?

'best BTE' AFR for 10500 rpm is only maintained above 10500 if cylinder charging is reduced with rpm to keep massflow constant
this means the CR is sub-optimal over 10500
this problem could be addressed (as I suggested 2 years ago) by raising exhaust pressure relative to induction pressure
so reducing crankshaft power and increasing recovered (electrical) power (and increasing overall efficiency)
but the rules limit this by constraining the use of electrical power via the MGU-K power limit

so anyway there will surely be different 'best BTE' AFRs for different power envelopes ?
(and surely in each race we want to use all the fuel allowed)
and the 'best BTE' AFR will surely change with future reductions in fuel allowance with the current fixed engine size etc and rpm ?

BTW V Ganesan's book (3rd edition) appears to be available as a free download
the Prof's view (on the value of fuel:air cycle predictions of gains from lean running of SI engines) can be read there
(chapter 4.7 and eg figure 4.6)
he says the best BTE occurs 'within the lean zone very near the stoichiometric ratio'

BTW strad asked about humidity and power
in another thread we looked at this
there is an (SAE?) standard for this (and atmospheric pressure) compensation (for NA engines of course)

[mrluke]

so anyway there will surely be different 'best BTE' AFRs for different power envelopes ?
(and surely in each race we want to use all the fuel allowed)
and the 'best BTE' AFR will surely change with future reductions in fuel allowance with the current fixed engine size etc and rpm ?

The teams aren't putting the full 100kg in at every race.

[J.A.W.]

Is this high efficiency SI - in F1 use?
http://www.federalmogul.com/en-US/Media ... _62013.pdf