2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[J.A.W.]

For now.. ..for sure.. ..but if the 'efficiency' mantra/green mask is to be determinedly carried forth..
..C.I... is in the future for F1..
& beyond that.. ..controlled detonation mills.. ..IF 'efficency' - is the real goal..

[gruntguru]

Besides, there's nothing to stop them switching off the spark when in HCCI mode.

[Tommy Cookers]

Besides, there's nothing to stop them switching off the spark when in HCCI mode.

we know that HCCI is intended for partial power without throttling ie road use
as VVT and variable compression are banned in F1, at high power such an engine would be a detonating engine, CI in all but name
(unless 11000 rpm is very much less inclined to detonate than 7000 rpm is)
would a 48mm? stroke continuously detonating engine with diesel-heavy pistons, rods, block, bearings be happy at 11000 rpm ?
(though Gilles Simon suggested part-steel pistons would be required (ie current SI) due to the temperature/pressure conditions)
87 Octane is the minimum allowed, such fuel would have a too long a delay (for 7-11000) before self-ignition
maximum Octane number is unlimited

clearly the rules were intended for nothing more novel than the current glamorous/commercially-relevant SI hybrid

F1 has many (non-HCCI) ways of avoiding throttling when the driver demands only partial power
and F1 is not an efficiency competition, it has essentially a regime of fixed fuel allocation
particularly at partial powers there is negligible benefit in using less fuel than that allocated

a full-power HCCI engine would need to be much larger than 1600cc, so its mechanical losses would be larger

btw - Germany in WW2 had a scheme for non-SI timed combustion of HC using timed injection of detonant fluid
as an alternative to SI that had become very troublesome to their sparkplugs as lead content was increased

[Sasha]

How about Honda's new HLSI?

Lean burn with spark plug and without the noise/vibration of a diesel.
Lean limit of A/F31 and found out when in lean mode it's better to have warmer intake(heated fuel or more bypass of intercooler) and combustion temp.
That explains why the Honda DI 2.0L GDU Engine in SGT runs so hot.
Effiecincy improve by 6.2% over stoichiometric combustion.

[ringo]

I think these novel methods of saving fuel simply don't apply to these engines. I've been bawling and hollering against the way the discussionis going but what can i do. haha. No one seems to care about what happens in a direct injected turbocharged sports car.

anyhow..



This is a lovely shot of the mercedes engine.
Is that the throttle under the compressor entry?

[Brian Coat]

"I think these novel methods of saving fuel simply don't apply to these engines." I'm inclined to agree with you, Ringo.

The only motor sports HCCI "application" I am aware of is a fuel hemi, if the plugs melt

"No one seems to care about what happens in a direct injected turbocharged sports car."

That would appear to be true! I am assuming (rightly/wrongly) that's because it is fairly well known how a modern GDI t/c (road) sports car engine works, and people are assuming the winning edge will take 'something beyond' this.

As you say, nice shot of Merc's engine. Lots of scale-able dimensions there ...

[Jolle]

Looking at the fuel usage of the Merc boys, especially HAM, even at the Russian GP he uses very little fuel compared to the rest of the field. In "normal" engine's you would have the fuel a bit rich to cool the engine and prolong the durability.

It looks like that Mercedes have such a good lifespan and heat management that they don't need options like that to be extra gentle on the engine, or do they have so much extra power that they can and save fuel, use a bit more to cool the pistons and be faster and more efficient then anybody else?

[trinidefender]

I think these novel methods of saving fuel simply don't apply to these engines. I've been bawling and hollering against the way the discussionis going but what can i do. haha. No one seems to care about what happens in a direct injected turbocharged sports car.

All you have said is you don't believe that any of these apply to F1, you haven't actually given us any data to back yourself up or any actual reasons. You have, as you were saying "bawling and hollering." People tend to ignore that and prefer to listen to arguments based on fact and data.

Ringo the thing about it is that many of these methods are not really about saving fuel. They are more about methods used in road cars and other ICE units that increase brake thermal efficiency and as an end result save fuel. Moving these various ideas and technologies into F1 cars is more about making more power through higher brake thermal efficiency. Considering we have a fixed fuel flow rate the question then becomes how do you extract the most amount of energy from that fuel. That is where things like turbo compounding etc come into play.

Writing this leads me onto another thought. While we debate the effects on stratified injection and all the variations that manufactures are coming up with (debatable if used in F1, probably isn't at this current stage), how much of a reduction in cooling capacity needed would running stratified injection? As in how much heat would the wall of air stop from getting to the cylinder walls....less heat into the cylinder walls not only means more energy going into the crank but also less heat that needs to be removed by the cooling system.

[gruntguru]

Looking at the fuel usage of the Merc boys, especially HAM, even at the Russian GP he uses very little fuel compared to the rest of the field. In "normal" engine's you would have the fuel a bit rich to cool the engine and prolong the durability.

It looks like that Mercedes have such a good lifespan and heat management that they don't need options like that to be extra gentle on the engine, or do they have so much extra power that they can and save fuel, use a bit more to cool the pistons and be faster and more efficient then anybody else?

None of the engines use "fuel" for cooling. Normal mixture is well lean of stoichiometric. Making the mixture richer (moving it towards stoichiometric) will increase the cylinder temperatures. If the mixture can be made leaner without misfiring or dramatic loss of efficiency, that could be used to "cool the pistons".

[J.A.W.]

Engineers have been putting significant work into these combustion considerations going back a ways..
Here is an interesting British evaluation of the findings in this area - by Nazi-era German science.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_ ... s_1612.htm

[gruntguru]

Besides, there's nothing to stop them switching off the spark when in HCCI mode.

we know that HCCI is intended for partial power without throttling ie road use

More a case of "HCCI has not been successfully demonstrated at other than part load". Researchers would love to extend HCCI to the full range of operating modes. Yes it is unlikely that F1 is employing HCCI.

The efficiency gains from HCCI have little to do with throttling/pumping losses and everything to do with CR, knock, NOx and pressure rise.

[gruntguru]

Writing this leads me onto another thought. While we debate the effects on stratified injection and all the variations that manufactures are coming up with (debatable if used in F1, probably isn't at this current stage), how much of a reduction in cooling capacity needed would running stratified injection? As in how much heat would the wall of air stop from getting to the cylinder walls....less heat into the cylinder walls not only means more energy going into the crank but also less heat that needs to be removed by the cooling system.

There is no doubt the current engines are rejecting a lot less heat. TE alone tells us that. Say for example an engine makes 800hp and TE is 40%. Heat rejection will be 1200hp. Compare that to previous technology with 800hp and say 30% TE. Total heat rejection will be 1867 hp - over 50% more.

Total heat rejection includes exhaust, radiator and intercooler heat plus the equivalent heat of any unburned fuel remaining in the exhaust. Clearly many of these will have a markedly different magnitude in the current engines. Impossible to put numbers on them but my guess in general terms:
Exhaust heat - increased
Radiator - reduced
Intercooler - increased
Waste fuel - reduced

[Tommy Cookers]

How about Honda's new HLSI?
Lean burn with spark plug ....
Lean limit of A/F31 and found out when in lean mode it's better to have warmer intake(heated fuel or more bypass of intercooler) and combustion temp.
Effiecincy improve by 6.2% over stoichiometric combustion.

Honda seems to be saying they get a best BTE of 33% fuelled stoichiometrically and a best BTE of 39% fuelled at half stoi
doesn't this imply that cutting fuel to 50% of stoi fuel cuts power to 60% of stoi power ? (useful on the road but less useful in F1)
so apparently they would need a much bigger engine fuelled at half stoi to get the same power as an engine fuelled at stoi
bigger in some sense ie capacity, rpm or boost
these values can't be normalised for power (unless eg the stoi engine is throttled and the lean engine unthrottled) ?
again a legitimate comparison for road use but unrepresentative of F1

it would be useful to see the SAE paper

btw they can't futureproof it wrt part-time stoi running for NOx catalysis - true they need less of it (stoi running) at current standards

[trinidefender]

How about Honda's new HLSI?
Lean burn with spark plug ....
Lean limit of A/F31 and found out when in lean mode it's better to have warmer intake(heated fuel or more bypass of intercooler) and combustion temp.
Effiecincy improve by 6.2% over stoichiometric combustion.

Honda seems to be saying they get a best BTE of 33% fuelled stoichiometrically and a best BTE of 39% fuelled at half stoi
doesn't this imply that cutting fuel to 50% of stoi fuel cuts power to 60% of stoi power ? (useful on the road but less useful in F1)
so apparently they would need a much bigger engine fuelled at half stoi to get the same power as an engine fuelled at stoi
bigger in some sense ie capacity, rpm or boost
these values can't be normalised for power (unless eg the stoi engine is throttled and the lean engine unthrottled) ?
again a legitimate comparison for road use but unrepresentative of F1

it would be useful to see the SAE paper

btw they seem unable to eliminate part-time stoi running for NOx catalysis ? true they need less of it (stoi running)

This would be true assuming air mass flow levels stay the same. An increase in pressure ratio of the turbocharger and consequently higher air mass flow may can provide the artificial increase in engine capacity needed to realise the lean ratio that they are looking for with the maximum fuel flow. This is assuming of course that the increase in boost pressure and higher mass flow by the turbocharger, and greater friction generated by the additional pressure in the engine doesn't outweigh the benefits.

Out of curiosity. Where did you get these Honda efficiency figures?

[Tommy Cookers]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/04 ... -hlsi.html
thanks to the original poster of this link

we don't seem to know whether the 'thermal efficiency' is ITE or BTE
UK convention was that thermal efficiency is ITE not BTE as thermal efficiency is about the conversion of heat to work

there's a lot more unburnt fuel