2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

Guru,

I dont care what efficiency honda had 26 years ago. Im telling you what i calculated. I dont have empirical data. Hondas efficiency was observed, mine was not. So i dont see why you are nitpicking 31.x % the point is that 3x low % id what the ice is. Its not 4x %.
You may not want to agree but the engine makers doe include the mguh power deliveres by kers in their bte. Regardless if its the moral thing to do or not. What you must understand is that the direct injection turbo engine is not giving you 42% bte. The fuel may not allow it much less the kind of compression ratios that would have to be used. The whole novelty of these power units is actually the mguh power that is included in the overall. As for the graph i dont think you have thought about what you have said pertaining to it.

Why bother posting your "calculated" efficiency if it doesn't align with the real world? What efficiency does your method calculate for the Honda RA168E - that will allow you to check the veracity of your method. My reason for quoting the Honda figure is to show what is possible from a similar engine - 32.2% BTE. From that number we can move upwards -

- Add 26 years of engine development - things have probably improved a bit since then.
- Add DI. We know DI and stratified charge will help thermal efficiency
- Add turbo-compounding. The only reason for TC is to improve TE - and it works!
- Add a different motivation. The new rules are aimed exclusively at best TE - the 1988 rules limited boost and total race fuel.

The BTE is almost certainly 4x%. Yes it does include MGUH power. The only reason to capture waste energy from the exhaust (Turbo-Compounding, MGUH same thing) is to increase TE.

MGUH is NOT KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System). It is turbo-compounding and it is part of the ICE. For evaluating BTE on the dyno, the MGUH power is fed directly into the crankshaft via the MGUK. No energy flows into or out of the battery.

An ICE is a heat engine that combusts fuel in its own working fluid (air). Gas turbines and jet engines are also ICE's.

As for the graph - please explain the term "PU self sustaining".

[gruntguru]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/08 ... ogiso.html
"The gasoline engine in the next-generation Prius powertrain feature thermal efficiency of greater than 40%; the thermal efficiency of the gasoline engine in the current Prius is 38.5%." - Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) Managing Officer Satoshi Ogiso. . . earlier in his career had been the chief engineer for the Prius, chief engineer for the Prius family, and chief engineer, product planning.

http://www.motoring.com.au/news/2013/sm ... rius-38495

So clearly Mr Ogiso and Toyota Motor Corporation are fantasising.

Note the options for Toyota's 40+% TE engines do not include compounding. Compounding as used in F1, can clearly add a few percentage points to the TE of any SI engine although at considerable expense. Toyota's 40+% is not an absolute limit by any means.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26943423
"The new F1 engines have a thermal efficiency of "40% and above" - better than that of a road-going diesel." - Professor Dr Thomas Weber, the Daimler board member responsible for research and development.

So now we also have Daimler board members fantasising in the media. What is the world coming to?

Very Missleading information. These people are simply apealing to the fans.. Note that both the prius and f1 engines are hybrids. The core internsl combustion part they have not isolated in teir quotes. They are using marketing tactics to trick you. Where is the non hybrid car engine that has this termal efficiency? You wont find it becuase there is no hybrid energy system to muddy the waters with. People have to think. Please work it out. Do the math then you will see.

Nonsense. In both cases the figures are for the internal combustion engine only. If you understood engineering thermodynamics you would know that it is outright dishonest to include recycled energy in a BTE claim - it just doesn't happen! You are accusing two highly credentialed individuals not of marketing tactics and trickery - but scientific fraud.

There is a reason both engines happen to be mated to hybrid power trains. With a conventional transmission, the engine must perform over a wide range of speeds and loads. To achieve this requires compromising the TE slightly compared to what the engine can do when optimised for a narrow range of load and speed.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/109 ... 38-percent
38% without a hybrid transmission. Do you really believe that it is the transmission that gives the Prius an extra half percent to achieve its 38.5% TE?

[gruntguru]

it seems wrong to suggest the F1 engine needs scavenge cooling of the exhaust valve but the P&W doesn't

The vast majority of engines do not need scavenge cooling of the exhaust valve. Most NA engines get none at all. Not many engines have 38 Bar BMEP and 350 kW/L.

You should talk to some tuners with experience on high-boost turbo applications. Ask them what happens when an engine is run with a positive pressure differential vs negative. Even if durability is not an issue, the benefits in terms of removing combustion products, improved combustion stability and detonation suppression are remarkable.

Regardless, you have ignored an important part of my post which shows the nett recovery improvement of 0.5 Bar increase in BP to be about 7.5 kW which I am sure will more than disappear if the benefits of positive DP are passed up.

"1. MAP = 3.5, EBP = 3.0 Power(compressor) = 80 kW. Pt = 125 kW. Psurplus = 45 kW
2. MAP = 4.5, EBP = 4.0 Pc = 130 kW. Pt = 177 kW. Ps = 47 kW

The upshot is clearly line ball. Not much change in pumping losses, BMEP of the recip' machine nor surplus power from the turbo machinery. OTOH reducing the DP (by increasing EBP) to the following scenario might be useful.

3. MAP = 3.5, EBP = 3.5 Pc = 80 kW. Pt = 140 kW. Psurplus = 60 kW That's a 15 kW improvement. The PMEP will increase by 0.5 Bar so BMEP reduces to 37.5 and crankshaft work suffers by about 7.5 kW"

[Tommy Cookers]

I had not ignored any part of your post
though you have ignored the part of mine concerning the invalidity of bhp/litre as a measure of exhaust valve loading

the part you say I ignored actually shows that 0 dP is better than + dP (the gist of the NACA info that I gave 2 years ago)
ie a reason to avoid using scavenge cooling unless vital

unlike any previous engines these F1 engines are equipped to manage the scavenge to any state required
as the mgu-h energisation is managed (either way) by the millisecond to control turbo rpm and so control scavenge state

the idea that F1 engines are harder thermally on exhaust valves than eg heavily supercharged air cooled aircraft engines ?
the P&W 2800 was bench run at 130" manifold (without WI), giving 4500 bhp
by then they had gone to exhaust valve closure at 26 deg atdc iirc

crudely, NACA showed that raised exhaust pressure improved efficiency without loss of PU power - without raising the AFR
iirc your approach uses much raised AFR and correspondingly much raised exhaust pressure
have you calculations for eg 5% lean AFR and for your intended much higher % lean AFR ?
we know this higher AFR demands much higher supercharging power from the turbine power
(fwiw - I do not intend to keep on about this or anything else)

btw
has anyone got efficiency figures for engines at high or full power ? (not just at the lower powers that give the best efficiency)
or - how many Prius engines are needed (operating at the power that gives 38.5% efficiency) to use fuel at 100 kg/hr ?

the world's hitherto only successful compound SI engine was in the 7.25:1 CR version 36% efficient in sea-level cruise power
(if built for cruise only it could have used eg 11:1 CR and approached 40% ?? efficiency - all without raised exhaust pressure)

[Blanchimont]

btw
has anyone got efficiency figures for engines at high or full power ? (not just at the lower powers that give the best efficiency)
or - how many Prius engines are needed (operating at the power that gives 38.5% efficiency) to use fuel at 100 kg/hr ?

The highest power of the 220g/kWh line is found at ~3000rpm and 110Nm, that makes 34,6kW. The 230g/kWh line at 4100rpm and 125Nm results in 53,7kW. Compared to the power of the ICE alone(~600hp or 441kW) the ratios are 12,7 and 8,2. But it's a bit of an unfair comparison, as the Prius isn't turbocharged.

I think it would be better to compare the Toyota and Porsche Le Mans engines with the F1 one as the revs are closer, is there any information available on bsfc?

[Tommy Cookers]

thanks for that
it looks as though the high power and max power bsfcs are about 300 g/kW-hr
and we already know that we can't slog along in a super-high gear and low rpm, because the fuel allocation falls with rpm

[Moose]

So all teams other than Honda are now allowed in season engine development as long as they stick to 32 tokens

It appears the FIA sucked at writing the rules, and didn't stipulate a time at which the engines had to be homologated. Because of that, the teams have all chosen to simply homologate their engine at the last race of the year, and develop it all the way up until that point.

Honda unfortunately for them are not allowed any in season dev, as the FIA have contradicted their decision for the other manufacturers with Honda. Even though no date is written in the rules for them to homologate by either, the FIA have declared that they, and only they must by the 28th of Feb.

[Nickel]

Because of that, the teams have all chosen to simply homologate their engine at the last race of the year, and develop it all the way up until that point.

I've seen nothing to suggest that. Everything I've seen suggest teams can choose to run last year's engine in favor of a later date of homologation of the 2015 unit, not incremental use of the tokens. In other words, of the allocation of 4 PU/season, you take your first one as a 2014 pu, then homologate and are left with 3 2015 PU to run for the season. I predict a few drivers getting a bit screwed by this in fact.

Honda may benefit by running against renault and ferrari in 2014 spec to start the year. Expect Merc to homologate before first race anyways.

[f1316]

This is actually the point I am waiting to see explained somewhere.

This is what the autosport article said:

It means that manufacturers now have the option of introducing upgrades to their engines throughout the season - as long as they stick to the 32 development token limit that is laid down within the rules and do not exceed the four-engine per car limit for the campaign.

This implies to me that they can continuously develop throughout the year and use the upgrades as and when they come along. I.e. The raced engine can keep evolving throughout the year. Does anyone know if that's correct?

If so, the other thing I'm unclear on is if an engine that has, say, been changed to the tune of 4 tokens is still the same engine?

Would be very grateful for any clarification or thoughts.

Thanks

[Moose]

Yeh, I got that from the autosport article, but reading the rules, I think they're wrong.

The sporting regs state that any engine raced must be homologated, so it must be either the 2014 homologated engine or the 2015 homologated engine. Once they've made a set of changes, they have to homologate them in order to be able to race them. Once they've done that, that's them done on changing the engine. So basically all this allows is delaying deployment of the 2015 engine.

[gruntguru]

I had not ignored any part of your post . . .

Still, I think you might have misjudged the general thrust of the post e.g.

I accept the findings published in NACA 822 without question but there are at least two issues that make me wary of extrapolating the numbers to a current F1 engine.

Any reasonable person with an understanding of engines and thermodynamics would be equally wary on those two counts.

. . . though you have ignored the part of mine concerning the invalidity of bhp/litre as a measure of exhaust valve loading

Yesterday I actually typed a response to that paragraph then deleted it as being too insulting. I kinda hoped you would have a closer look and do a rethink but it seems you are sticking to the idea.

Consider valve seat area. If you make some broad but very conservative assumptions:
- exhaust seat area = 20% x exhaust valve area (this would be high for the racing engine where flow is much more important than seat durability)
- F1 exhaust valve area = 25% x piston area (high side also. NA F1 engines are about 20%)
- R-2800 exhaust valves 60mm dia (a guess) x 18 valves

Result. Total exhaust valve seat area:
R-2800 = 100 sq cm for a power of 1500 kW gives 15 kW/sq cm
F1 2014 = 15 sq cm for a power of 500 kW gives 33.33 kW/sq cm

So the heat flux on the F1 exhaust valve seats is very conservatively 2.2 x that of the R-2800 under the compounding conditions in the NACA paper. Racing seat widths and less valve area could easily double that i.e. 4 x.

the part you say I ignored actually shows that 0 dP is better than + dP (the gist of the NACA info that I gave 2 years ago) ie a reason to avoid using scavenge cooling unless vital

Yes, a net gain of 7.5 kW but at the expense of increased EGR, thermal stress and detonation - guaranteed to cost more than 7.5kW.

the idea that F1 engines are harder thermally on exhaust valves than eg heavily supercharged air cooled aircraft engines ?
the P&W 2800 was bench run at 130" manifold (without WI), giving 4500 bhp by then they had gone to exhaust valve closure at 26 deg atdc iirc

. . and adding a turbine at 160" EBP (MAP + 25%) would have killed it in a heartbeat.

crudely, NACA showed that raised exhaust pressure improved efficiency without loss of PU power - without raising the AFR iirc your approach uses much raised AFR and correspondingly much raised exhaust pressure

The NACA paper on compounding settled on lambda 1.08 (carburetted engine). The Wright TC produced best TE at 1.2

"My approach" as you call it, predicts that F1 AFR at peak power (peak efficiency) is somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 and exhaust pressure is significantly lower than MAP.

have you calculations for eg 5% lean AFR and for your intended much higher % lean AFR ? we know this higher AFR demands much higher supercharging power from the turbine power

This calculation (previously posted) demonstrates that increasing MAP and EBP by 1 Bar while maintaining 0.5 Bar +ve differential increases supercharger demand by 50 kW and increases turbine power by 52 kW - so no loss.

1. MAP = 3.5, EBP = 3.0 Power(compressor) = 80 kW. Pt = 125 kW. Psurplus = 45 kW
2. MAP = 4.5, EBP = 4.0 Pc = 130 kW. Pt = 177 kW. Ps = 47 kW

[Blanchimont]

More on bsfc in an older post from riffraff: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 69#p370069

Mazda: http://www.rotaryeng.net/Mazda_R26B_US.pdf
Mercedes: http://papers.sae.org/920674/

The 235g/kWh @ 340kW and 4000rpm sounds impressive.

[PlatinumZealot]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/08 ... ogiso.html
"The gasoline engine in the next-generation Prius powertrain feature thermal efficiency of greater than 40%; the thermal efficiency of the gasoline engine in the current Prius is 38.5%." - Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) Managing Officer Satoshi Ogiso. . . earlier in his career had been the chief engineer for the Prius, chief engineer for the Prius family, and chief engineer, product planning.

http://www.motoring.com.au/news/2013/sm ... rius-38495

So clearly Mr Ogiso and Toyota Motor Corporation are fantasising.

Note the options for Toyota's 40+% TE engines do not include compounding. Compounding as used in F1, can clearly add a few percentage points to the TE of any SI engine although at considerable expense. Toyota's 40+% is not an absolute limit by any means.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26943423
"The new F1 engines have a thermal efficiency of "40% and above" - better than that of a road-going diesel." - Professor Dr Thomas Weber, the Daimler board member responsible for research and development.

So now we also have Daimler board members fantasising in the media. What is the world coming to?

Very Missleading information. These people are simply apealing to the fans.. Note that both the prius and f1 engines are hybrids. The core internsl combustion part they have not isolated in teir quotes. They are using marketing tactics to trick you. Where is the non hybrid car engine that has this termal efficiency? You wont find it becuase there is no hybrid energy system to muddy the waters with. People have to think. Please work it out. Do the math then you will see.

Nonsense. In both cases the figures are for the internal combustion engine only. If you understood engineering thermodynamics you would know that it is outright dishonest to include recycled energy in a BTE claim - it just doesn't happen! You are accusing two highly credentialed individuals not of marketing tactics and trickery - but scientific fraud.

There is a reason both engines happen to be mated to hybrid power trains. With a conventional transmission, the engine must perform over a wide range of speeds and loads. To achieve this requires compromising the TE slightly compared to what the engine can do when optimised for a narrow range of load and speed.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/109 ... 38-percent
38% without a hybrid transmission. Do you really believe that it is the transmission that gives the Prius an extra half percent to achieve its 38.5% TE?

Ooohh.. The prius engine is an atkinson cycle engine.... Lol. I have modelled that engine before. I posted that many years ago on this very same site. In fact i did an animation on it.

You do realise what occurs in an atkinson cycle engine right? The power stroke is much much longer than the compression stroke. This is an extended expsnsion for the gases. This alone can make up huge percentage points in efficiency. Also remember that te prius engine operates at very low speeds compsred to an F1 engine.
If you had some data for the best regular otto cycle engine, ( and please do not come with those delayed valve opening virtual atkinson cycle engines either!) some similar that is used in formula 1. then we can talk.

Again, information is there. You dont have to be swayed by the media. Remove the wool from over your eyes.

[ringo]

Why bother posting your "calculated" efficiency if it doesn't align with the real world? What efficiency does your method calculate for the Honda RA168E - that will allow you to check the veracity of your method. My reason for quoting the Honda figure is to show what is possible from a similar engine - 32.2% BTE. From that number we can move upwards -

Are you being serious? I don't think you are looking at certain details. The Honda engine had preheated fuel. That is against the rules. There are also other phenomena that i simply cannot calculate, but must be observed. I don't know about you but i am quite comfortable with the 31%. Have you ever done any kind of research or experiment with a real engine and compare it to the theoretical results? You would find even bigger deviations. I am not God, I can't account for everything and i simply don't know everything about engines. The fuel is aslo cause for discrepancy. I am only using gasoline, no trickery with mixtures.

- Add 26 years of engine development - things have probably improved a bit since then.

Maybe they have, maybe the haven't. No evidence.

- Add DI. We know DI and stratified charge will help thermal efficiency

yes, by me increasing compression ratios that are not typical of turbo charged engines.

- Add turbo-compounding. The only reason for TC is to improve TE - and it works!

I did this. Why do you think i have not? The MGUH sends power to the KERS which drives the flywheel.

- Add a different motivation. The new rules are aimed exclusively at best TE - the 1988 rules limited boost and total race fuel.

This statement doesn't really do anything quantifiable.

The BTE is almost certainly 4x%. Yes it does include MGUH power. The only reason to capture waste energy from the exhaust (Turbo-Compounding, MGUH same thing) is to increase TE.

MGUH is NOT KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System). It is turbo-compounding and it is part of the ICE. For evaluating BTE on the dyno, the MGUH power is fed directly into the crankshaft via the MGUK. No energy flows into or out of the battery.

MGUH/KERS whatever you want to call it, it is not really turbo compunding in a classical sense, because it doesn't have a mechanical link to the flywheel. There are no transferred inertial effects. It doesn't affect my calculations anyway.

An ICE is a heat engine that combusts fuel in its own working fluid (air). Gas turbines and jet engines are also ICE's.

As for the graph - please explain the term "PU self sustaining".

PU self sustaining, is when the MGUH power drives the KERS through the energy management unit, without any supplemental power from the battery. This is the power output that the PU can theoretically run over the race distance without drawing from energy stored in the battery. The power unit can be considered a true engine under this condition.

[gruntguru]

Nonsense. In both cases the figures are for the internal combustion engine only. If you understood engineering thermodynamics you would know that it is outright dishonest to include recycled energy in a BTE claim - it just doesn't happen! You are accusing two highly credentialed individuals not of marketing tactics and trickery - but scientific fraud.

There is a reason both engines happen to be mated to hybrid power trains. With a conventional transmission, the engine must perform over a wide range of speeds and loads. To achieve this requires compromising the TE slightly compared to what the engine can do when optimised for a narrow range of load and speed.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/109 ... 38-percent
38% without a hybrid transmission. Do you really believe that it is the transmission that gives the Prius an extra half percent to achieve its 38.5% TE?

Ooohh.. The prius engine is an atkinson cycle engine.... Lol. I have modelled that engine before. I posted that many years ago on this very same site. In fact i did an animation on it.

You do realise what occurs in an atkinson cycle engine right? The power stroke is much much longer than the compression stroke. This is an extended expsnsion for the gases. This alone can make up huge percentage points in efficiency. Also remember that te prius engine operates at very low speeds compsred to an F1 engine.
If you had some data for the best regular otto cycle engine, (and please do not come with those delayed valve opening virtual atkinson cycle engines either!) some similar that is used in formula 1. then we can talk.

Again, information is there. You dont have to be swayed by the media. Remove the wool from over your eyes.

Ah so the information is there? Why aren't you posting it? What is the real thermal efficiency of the Mercedes engine if Professor Weber is telling us lies?

You do know that the Prius "Atkinson cycle" engine is a normal piston engine with modified valve timing (LIVC) right? You do realise F1 engines are permitted to run whatever valve timing they choose right?

I can't find the article now but apparently Toyota were investigating two options for the next Prius power plant. One was a new Atkinson NA, the other a downsized turbo engine. The turbo engine had higher TE than the NA but of course is more expensive to make.