2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[PlatinumZealot]

It's kinda crazy. The number of people who keep coming out saying that the engines are around the 900 Hp range, or around the 40% range for the ICE... These are the numbers that keep getting repeated again and again by all kinds of F1 engineers. Yet so many of the forum's members keep trying to assert "no, they're only 550/700hp because I don't believe them".

I don't believe them is not a reason it's wrong.

No f1 engineer as far as i have read has come out with a 900hp figure, Moose. The closest official figure we have is from Renault who released and info-graphic saying the engine is around 600hp.

- 600 hp was a very early figure - published before the start of 2014 season. Renault may even have "lowballed" this number.
- It was for crankshaft only.
- It was only Renault (not Mercedes Benz)

The self-sustaining (continuous) power rating will include extra power generated by the MGUH. This could be as much as 100 hp.

The "almost 900 hp" figure would definitely include 160 hp from the MGUK so perhaps 720 from the crankshaft for a total of 880. This could possibly be an "emergency power" mode where the battery is drained at 160 hp to the MGUK and say 100 hp to the MGUH to drive the supercharger, allowing the wastegate to be wide open for zero exhaust BP. This could reduce pumping MEP by 1.5 - 2 bar - with a corresponding increase in BMEP - about 5% power increase.

So you are saying that these engines are only just 30hp to 40hp down from the old V8's? Highly unlikely. The Old V8's consumed 170kg/hr of fuel. These new V6's are limited to 100kg/hr. I don't think these new V6's are that more thermodynamically efficient from a V8 to make 96% of the V8 power on 59% of the fuel. If we factor in exhaust blowing the fuel percentage will be a bit higher but still the gap is too large. By my simple old fashioned common sense I don't think the engines are making anywhere near that 720hp as you say.

[Tommy Cookers]

afaik the NA V8s used about 135 kg of fuel in a race (tankage 190 litres ?), and ran up to about 20% rich (for combustion consistency)
and the FIA stated their intent, that the 2014 F1 would use 35% less fuel

[gruntguru]

- 600 hp was a very early figure - published before the start of 2014 season. Renault may even have "lowballed" this number.
- It was for crankshaft only.
- It was only Renault (not Mercedes Benz)

The self-sustaining (continuous) power rating will include extra power generated by the MGUH. This could be as much as 100 hp.

The "almost 900 hp" figure would definitely include 160 hp from the MGUK so perhaps 720 from the crankshaft for a total of 880. This could possibly be an "emergency power" mode where the battery is drained at 160 hp to the MGUK and say 100 hp to the MGUH to drive the supercharger, allowing the wastegate to be wide open for zero exhaust BP. This could reduce pumping MEP by 1.5 - 2 bar - with a corresponding increase in BMEP - about 5% power increase.

So you are saying that these engines are only just 30hp to 40hp down from the old V8's? Highly unlikely. The Old V8's consumed 170kg/hr of fuel. These new V6's are limited to 100kg/hr. I don't think these new V6's are that more thermodynamically efficient from a V8 to make 96% of the V8 power on 59% of the fuel. If we factor in exhaust blowing the fuel percentage will be a bit higher but still the gap is too large. By my simple old fashioned common sense I don't think the engines are making anywhere near that 720hp as you say.

So you didn't expect a "fuel flow limited" formula to produce a significant improvement in BSFC?

Under the new rules there is no longer any power to be gained with a richer mixture. That alone means that by running say 10% lean instead of 15% rich, about 15% more power is obtained for the same fuel flow and conversely 15% less fuel is used for a given power output. That is just the beginning - everything to do with the thermodynamic design of these engines is focused on TE (BSFC). The result is that TE has gone from less than 30% to over 40%.

[wuzak]

afaik the NA V8s used about 135 kg of fuel in a race (tankage 190 litres ?), and ran up to about 20% rich (for combustion consistency)
and the FIA stated their intent, that the 2014 F1 would use 35% less fuel

Most races they used 150-160kg and were deliberately under-fuelled.

[wuzak]

Interesting. While your ES to MGUH is unlimited, you are limited by the max change in energy in your ES to 4MJ over one lap. It isn't max used, it's max change in charge. So you can add whatever you are able to recover over the lap through the MGUK to that 4MJ. A max but unlikely limit of 6MJ for 194KW is 31s of WOT assuming you are using all of the power you estimate (160+100 for the compressor) during WOT.

I don't think this mode would be sustainable for an entire lap, but for straights I'd think so.

I wonder if you could just switch to this mode down a straight for a brief peak power increase.

The restrictions are 4MJ from ES to MGUK per lap, and a difference between maximum and minimum charge in the ES of 4MJ.

This means that only 4MJ can be stored at any one time. But energy will be flowing in and out constantly, so this shouldn't be too big a restriction.

The amount of electrical energy used could be >6 MJ per lap, if the systems are sufficiently capable. That would mean that the full 2MJ is stored from braking energy(why the cars "lift and coast" now) with the rest coming from the MGUH.

It is unlikely, however, unless a driver chooses to not use his 2MJ braking charge on one lap so he can fully charge the ES for the next.

[langwadt]

afaik the NA V8s used about 135 kg of fuel in a race (tankage 190 litres ?), and ran up to about 20% rich (for combustion consistency)
and the FIA stated their intent, that the 2014 F1 would use 35% less fuel

Most races they used 150-160kg and were deliberately under-fuelled.

sounds high compared to this: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 86#p474686

[ringo]

I find we like to bend things into reality whenever a journalist bleats out some figures. We throw away all logic and fudge percentages to make the arbitrary figure somehow acceptable.
I wont go down that road. I'm still going to stick with my original figures.

580 to 620bhp from the ICE. 387 hp/litre. To me that is quite impressive, and should be easily accepted. this 740hp from ICE thing is a bit silly on the limited fuel. It makes no sense thermodynamically.
Not only that, but the cars would be massively faster with that level of power, 8 gears, low down force, and better pirelli tyres than when pirelli first came to the sport.

[wuzak]

I find we like to bend things into reality whenever a journalist bleats out some figures. We throw away all logic and fudge percentages to make the arbitrary figure somehow acceptable.
I wont go down that road. I'm still going to stick with my original figures.

580 to 620bhp from the ICE. 387 hp/litre. To me that is quite impressive, and should be easily accepted. this 740hp from ICE thing is a bit silly on the limited fuel. It makes no sense thermodynamically.
Not only that, but the cars would be massively faster with that level of power, 8 gears, low down force, and better pirelli tyres than when pirelli first came to the sport.

I figure the engines (well, the Mercedes) are close to 800hp including 160hp MGUK. And possibly over, rather than under. So around 640-650hp for the ICE.

Based on comments made by Coulthard when he drove the Williams.

By the way, the Pirelli tyres were a step harder in 2014 than they were in 2013. In other words, the 2014 super soft was equivalent to the 2013 soft, 2014 soft = 2013 medium, 2014 medium = 2013 hard, 2014 hard = new compound.

[gruntguru]

Cars are heavier, less downforce, etc. Power is similar.

[Moose]

I figure the engines (well, the Mercedes) are close to 800hp including 160hp MGUK. And possibly over, rather than under. So around 640-650hp for the ICE.

Based on comments made by Coulthard when he drove the Williams.

That seems like a reasonably estimate to me. Somewhere around 820 for the renault, and 880 for the Merc is roughly what I'd expect.

[Juzh]

By the way, the Pirelli tyres were a step harder in 2014 than they were in 2013. In other words, the 2014 super soft was equivalent to the 2013 soft, 2014 soft = 2013 medium, 2014 medium = 2013 hard, 2014 hard = new compound.

Harder =/= slower. Bridgestones were much harder tires, yet much faster.
2014 soft is still much quicker than 2013 medium. Soft/medium difference in 2013 was on some occasions more than 2s and we have a few drivers on record saying 2014 range is only 0,5-0.8s slower. So soft in 2014 is still significantly faster than 2013 med despite apparently being of the same hardness.

[wuzak]

By the way, the Pirelli tyres were a step harder in 2014 than they were in 2013. In other words, the 2014 super soft was equivalent to the 2013 soft, 2014 soft = 2013 medium, 2014 medium = 2013 hard, 2014 hard = new compound.

Harder =/= slower. Bridgestones were much harder tires, yet much faster.
2014 soft is still much quicker than 2013 medium. Soft/medium difference in 2013 was on some occasions more than 2s and we have a few drivers on record saying 2014 range is only 0,5-0.8s slower. So soft in 2014 is still significantly faster than 2013 med despite apparently being of the same hardness.

The gap between compounds is very much track dependent.

Pirelli also went the conservative route and chose harder options (ie choosing Medium/Hard over Soft/Hard) than they did in 2013, particularly in the first half of the race.

Which Bridgestone tyres were harder? 2005 when they had one tyre set for a whole race? Certainly not in 2004.

Or are you talking about in recent years where they could do many races without a stop (if allowed)? Lack of degradation is not necessarily a sign of being harder. The Pirellis being designed specifically to degrade.

The last seasons of the Bridgeston tyre also had far more downforce to help them grip than the 2014 cars.

[Juzh]

2009, 2010. Yeah, those cars had tons more DF and still tires could cope with it. Utter lack of degradation points at least somewhat to a much harder tire.

Are you trying to say bridgstones were more durable because of more grip coming from the cars?
Pirelli's excuse for exploding and self-disolving tires mid 2013 was that the cars were faster than they anticipated. And 2013 cars were slow in terms of pure lateral load compared to 2010.

Bahrain had soft/med in 2014, med hard in 2013.

[triart3d]

I think the point is that regulations forbid injecting fuel into the cylinder. =D>

I think the same:

Code: Select all

5.8 Exhaust systems :
5.8.1
With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system), all (and only) the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system.

"ONLY the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system"

must add fuel to air BEFORE compresor

And can't use a injector..
"5.10.2 There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted upstream of
the intake valves or downstream of the exhaust valves. Only approved parts may be used and
the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the
Appendix to the Technical Regulations. "

[Blackout]

AFAIR, two or three manufacturers + the FIA said in the beginning of the season that 750bhp is a realistic number (so 590/600 for the ICE)
Lauda said 580hp...
If we use Blanchimont/Cowell heat content value, BTE would be around 38%. (590hp)
I remember Tafin and/or White saying that they want 35% efficency or 35% more effciency compared to the V8 (which was 30% efficient according to Cowell). In the second case, BTE would be 40,5%
In the first case, max BHP would be around 550
Cowell also said that heir aim is to reach 40% and White said that 40% is a minimum...
Do they include Kers? why would they?
40% would give 635hp approximately which is close to Marmorini's number (795 with Kers)
In fact White said late 2013 that max power will be comprised between 550 and 600...