2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

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.

No it is not. Besides, the heated fuel improved BSFC by only 2% so TE would still have been 31.5% without fuel heating.

- 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.

A turbo engine with DI can use higher compression or more boost than without DI. There are other advantages, particularly stratified charge which enables leaner mixtures for higher TE.

- 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.

I didn't think you did this - because you called it "KERS".

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.

You should call things by their proper names - not whatever you want to call it. We can't understand your posts when you refer to things by the wrong name. KERS is "Kinetic Energy Recovery System" (regenerative braking).

Mechanical link, Electrical link what's the difference. Does a Diesel-Electric locomotive not have a transmission?

PU self sustaining, is when the MGUH power drives the KERS? MGUH? 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.

OK, now I understand a little better. If you change the legend of your graph from "ICE brake thermal efficiency" to "Piston Engine BTE" it makes more sense.

The red line is in the right area - 40%+, the blue line is too low - for 2 reasons.

1. State-of-the-art piston engines are better than that. Prius 38.5%, 26 years old Honda 32.2%
2. There is not that much surplus power available in the exhaust. At 3 bar back-pressure there is 125 kW, at 4 bar back-pressure there is 177 kW and the compressor takes all but 45-47 kW of that.

[ringo]

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.

No it is not. Besides, the heated fuel improved BSFC by only 2% so TE would still have been 31.5% without fuel heating

Ok since you say this. Isnt this almost exactly what i have in my calculations and on my graph?

[gruntguru]

Yes. You are only 27 years behind the times

[Sasha]

If I remember right,the fuel of the late 80's turbo era had more energy content than diesel fuel.To get around the max fuel amount allowed rule,Elf and Shell made the fuel so dense,it had to be pre-heated so it could flow and be vaporized.

[gruntguru]

The Honda RA-168e used 84% Toluene, 16% N-Heptane. No viscosity problems there.
http://www.k20a.org/upload/HondaRA168EEngine.pdf (Last page)

[Sasha]

The Honda RA-168e used 84% Toluene, 16% N-Heptane. No viscosity problems there.
http://www.k20a.org/upload/HondaRA168EEngine.pdf (Last page)

So as a person who was there who has seen and touch,why was the fuel like napalm?

Hint...a way around the less fuel allowed in 88.

[gruntguru]

There is nothing remarkable about the fuel described in Honda's paper. Viscosity similar to gasoline. I did experience some Elf "F1 turbo fuel" some time later and I recall the smell as being strange. It was at a dyno session and there were expectations of a magical power improvement in a straight back to back test. Funny in retrospect.

The blend was selected for its volumetric energy density (race fuel limit was 150L) and its antiknock properties. N-heptane added to reduce the MON to the FIA limit (102), however its anti-knock properties in the RA 168e were considerably superior to more conventional blends of the same MON. (Up to 12 deg more ignition advance than blends substituting iso-octane for the toluene)

[J.A.W.]

G-G, by "Up to 12` more ignition advance..."
Do you actually mean 12` closer to TDC - was achievable?

[gruntguru]

http://www.k20a.org/upload/HondaRA168EEngine.pdf Info is on page 7 and 8. The high toluene fuel allowed ignition timing 38* BTDC without detonation. The low toluene alternative (same MON) allowed only 26*.

[J.A.W.]

Thanks for that link G-G, those graphs showing the inter-relationship..
.. of fuel-type/boost/static comp'/ign' advance/inlet air temp' & BSFC.. are still revealing..

Like-wise the cessation of TEL in GP motorcycling fuel cruelled outputs..
..but that included loss of friction control ( micro-welding) as well as fuel burn/ignition advance issues....

[PlatinumZealot]

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.

Yes I am aware of the bolded part, from years ago as a car fan. I said it in my post.
These grocery getter prius engines certainly CANNOT under any circumstances be used to inference formula 1 engines which operating neary 60% of the time at full throttle and ridiculous rpms. The prius engines are tuned to be very anemic on the intake stroke and very whimpy on the power stroke.. they are not tuned for explosive power and response. The formula 1 engine has no variable valve timing or lift so the engine designers will never ever compromise their tune for max power and driveability across the range. While Formula 1 engines are very efficient mechanically - they do have very smooth surfaces between sliding parts and such, and high compression ratios - there are not tuned for driving around town at 1500 rpm. There is no way the normal operating mode of an F1 engine will come close to the Atkinson cycled Prius.

With that said, for the sake of conversation, I think the Mazda sky active engine is worth examining. It has a high compression ratio with a relatively high engine speed.

[PlatinumZealot]

James Allen reporting that the 2014 engines have 900hp all things combined.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/01/e ... a-on-2015/

[Blackout]

900hp ---> 740hp witout KERS ---> if fuel heat content is 43,2MJ/kg then efficiency = 45% !?

[Blanchimont]

From the comments:

grifle: "James, I am interested in where you heard the 900hp figure. We are having a heated discussion on f1technical over the horsepower output of the ICE and ERS systems."

James Allen: "A good source, it’s a rough figure for the best performing engine in the field of course"

[Vary]

Also Benzing says that they have a bit under 900 hp http://www.formula1benzing.eu/ungheria2014.html (italian) from test bench data... I think he also use drag to estimate power