2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[63l8qrrfy6]

Hmm the MGUH appears slightly underpowered compared to what I would have expected.
Based on a lambda of 1.6 (0.655 kg/s air mass flow rate) and pressure ratio of 4 I get 123 kW compressor power required assuming 80% isentropic efficiency and 100% mechanical efficiency.

Accounting for some real world mechanical efficiency and the additional power required to accelerate the turbo inertia it looks like the MGUH would struggle to deliver half of the required compressor power.

I appreciate the turbine wheel is still providing significant power even with open wastegates but wouldn't it be more efficient to increase MGUH power and increase turbine by-pass for corner exit/start of straight deployment ?

Some other interesting turbo results I thought I would share:
With the values previously mentioned and a power input factor of 1.04 and a slip factor of 0.9 the compressor wheel diameter should be about:

• 78 mm for a design speed of 110000 rpm

• 85 mm for a design speed of 100000 rpm

Compressor outlet temperature is around 210°C

Does this sound about right ?

[godlameroso]

Hmm the MGUH appears slightly underpowered compared to what I would have expected.
Based on a lambda of 1.6 (0.655 kg/s air mass flow rate) and pressure ratio of 4 I get 123 kW compressor power required assuming 80% isentropic efficiency and 100% mechanical efficiency.

Accounting for some real world mechanical efficiency and the additional power required to accelerate the turbo inertia it looks like the MGUH would struggle to deliver half of the required compressor power.

I appreciate the turbine wheel is still providing significant power even with open wastegates but wouldn't it be more efficient to increase MGUH power and increase turbine by-pass for corner exit/start of straight deployment ?

Some other interesting turbo results I thought I would share:
With the values previously mentioned and a power input factor of 1.04 and a slip factor of 0.9 the compressor wheel diameter should be about:

• 78 mm for a design speed of 110000 rpm

• 85 mm for a design speed of 100000 rpm

Compressor outlet temperature is around 210°C

Does this sound about right ?

I was thinking somewhere along those lines, 88mm compressor wheel. Given the MGU-H and wastegate control you could probably get away with using an oversized compressor relative to the turbine.

[saviour stivala]

Hmm the MGUH appears slightly underpowered compared to what I would have expected.
Based on a lambda of 1.6 (0.655 kg/s air mass flow rate) and pressure ratio of 4 I get 123 kW compressor power required assuming 80% isentropic efficiency and 100% mechanical efficiency.

Accounting for some real world mechanical efficiency and the additional power required to accelerate the turbo inertia it looks like the MGUH would struggle to deliver half of the required compressor power.

I appreciate the turbine wheel is still providing significant power even with open wastegates but wouldn't it be more efficient to increase MGUH power and increase turbine by-pass for corner exit/start of straight deployment ?

Some other interesting turbo results I thought I would share:
With the values previously mentioned and a power input factor of 1.04 and a slip factor of 0.9 the compressor wheel diameter should be about:

• 78 mm for a design speed of 110000 rpm

• 85 mm for a design speed of 100000 rpm

Compressor outlet temperature is around 210°C

Does this sound about right ?

“The waste-gates are essentially unused due to their poor energy efficiency during a race”.
But on a qualifying lap or a race situation like that and if and when the extra fuel can be used they are made use-off as much as possible (open position) as much as on the straight as well out of corners.
During a race and in maximum efficiency mode waste-gates are used in a slightly cracked-open position accelerating out of a corner, because the ‘H’ will spool the compressor faster with less back pressure.
These modes of use were arrived at much before the 2014 hybrid even ran on track. Refer to “Optimal control theory and FERRARI’s turbo-electric hybrid.
Other than that with waste-gates closed the ‘H’ controls the turbo, it spools-it-up, slows-it-down, harvest energy as well as run the compressor in electric supercharging mode with waste-gates open.

[Tommy Cookers]

Hmm the MGUH appears slightly underpowered compared to what I would have expected.
Based on a lambda of 1.6 (0.655 kg/s air mass flow rate) and pressure ratio of 4 I get 123 kW compressor power required assuming 80% isentropic efficiency and 100% mechanical efficiency.....

the NA engines charged their cylinders (assuming PR=1) as if their atmospheric air was at 1.25 - 1.3 bar
mainly because of inlet and exhaust system 'tuned length' effects - so-called 'free supercharging'
these effects were used in previous F1 turbocharged engines and presumably are used currently to a substantial extent

so isn't the real required today PR less than 4 ?
(and the compressor power will be less than proportionate to the real PR)

the amount of compressor work relative to turbine work is crucial to the current engine concept
very high efficiency is required from both compressor and turbine
unlike the turbocharger

[mzso]

perhaps the fuel rate limit should now be waived ?

some of the H energy recovery is free of fuel cost
some is beneficial only in defeating the fuel rate limit by converting fuel into electricity and expediently accumulating that

waiving the fuel rate limit would show how much benefit the H really is

This is the purpose of this formula, to promote fuel efficiency and electric power.
The MGU-s purpose specifically is to recover, store and utilize energy, so there's nothing unexpected about this.

Removing the rate limit would totally defeat this. If anything they should remove the quantity limit to prevent the now universal coasting much of the time, and bring some actual on-track racing. (This would also require durable tires...)

[godlameroso]

They are allowing 110kg of fuel for 2019, that's 40kg less than the V8 era, mind you hardly anyone needed all 150kg to do the race distance then, and some races in the modern era don't require a full tank either.

[lio007]

They are allowing 110kg of fuel for 2019, that's 40kg less than the V8 era, mind you hardly anyone needed all 150kg to do the race distance then, and some races in the modern era don't require a full tank either.

As recently stated by Paddy Lowe:
http://m.speedweek.com/formel1/news/137 ... -2019.html

[Tommy Cookers]

This is the purpose of this formula, to promote fuel efficiency and electric power.
The MGU-s purpose specifically is to recover, store and utilize energy, so there's nothing unexpected about this.
Removing the rate limit would totally defeat this. If anything they should remove the quantity limit to prevent the now universal coasting much of the time, and bring some actual on-track racing. (This would also require durable tires...)

originally the FIA wrote of its plan to reduce the fuel quantity below 100 kg (year-on-year)
it has now done the exact opposite

increasing bogus fuel burn (accumulating electrical energy for use when tracktime-efficient) but limiting direct fuel burn then
punishing those PUs that were better designed under the original and officially-forecast rules
by reducing the deficiency of (worse-design) PUs of poorer fuel efficiency

actual fuel efficiency is rather disincentivised by the raised fuel quantity limit with current fuel rate limit
but would not be disincentivised by a raised fuel rate limit with current (original really) fuel quantity limit

[henry]

This is the purpose of this formula, to promote fuel efficiency and electric power.
The MGU-s purpose specifically is to recover, store and utilize energy, so there's nothing unexpected about this.
Removing the rate limit would totally defeat this. If anything they should remove the quantity limit to prevent the now universal coasting much of the time, and bring some actual on-track racing. (This would also require durable tires...)

originally the FIA wrote of its plan to reduce the fuel quantity below 100 kg (year-on-year)
it has now done the exact opposite

increasing bogus fuel burn (accumulating electrical energy for use when tracktime-efficient) but limiting direct fuel burn then
punishing those PUs that were better designed under the original and officially-forecast rules
by reducing the deficiency of (worse-design) PUs of poorer fuel efficiency

actual fuel efficiency is rather disincentivised by the raised fuel quantity limit with current fuel rate limit
but would not be disincentivised by a raised fuel rate limit with current fuel quantity limit

Track-time efficiency is all that matters in a racing series. Any other efficiencies are a means to an end.

The increased fuel quantity is, I suggest, more to do with the aero/tyre changes than any desire to reward duff PU design. Back when they suggested the aero/tyre changes it seemed likely they would need an extra 10kg or so of fuel to race in the way the fans had become accustomed to, they tried 5, and now they are going to try 10.

[mzso]

The increased fuel quantity is, I suggest, more to do with the aero/tyre changes than any desire to reward duff PU design. Back when they suggested the aero/tyre changes it seemed likely they would need an extra 10kg or so of fuel to race in the way the fans had become accustomed to, they tried 5, and now they are going to try 10.

Besides the more inefficient designs wouldn't have an advantage while the fuel flow limit remains. They'd have less power.

[Dr. Acula]

The increased fuel quantity is, I suggest, more to do with the aero/tyre changes than any desire to reward duff PU design. Back when they suggested the aero/tyre changes it seemed likely they would need an extra 10kg or so of fuel to race in the way the fans had become accustomed to, they tried 5, and now they are going to try 10.

Besides the more inefficient designs wouldn't have an advantage while the fuel flow limit remains. They'd have less power.

Well in some cases it's probably even better to simply start the race with less fuel so you gain a weight advantage if you have a more efficient engine. In Melbourne for instance a 10kg weight advantage is worth about 0.3 seconds per lap.

[Tommy Cookers]

Track-time efficiency is all that matters in a racing series. Any other efficiencies are a means to an end.

my point was that fuel burning is prevented from fairly competing for track-time efficiency (by the fuel-rate limit)

no previous fuel quantity rules have ever limited fuel rate
the logic of a fuel quantity limit is that the designer chooses his fuel spend at rates he feels is best for track-time efficiency

the rules give an unfair benefit to the electrical side and this is now increased
when I predicted this years ago some denied this and said 'the K only recovers waste (kinetic) energy'
now they say ' it's the rules !'

[henry]

Track-time efficiency is all that matters in a racing series. Any other efficiencies are a means to an end.

my point was that fuel burning is prevented from fairly competing for track-time efficiency (by the fuel-rate limit)

no previous fuel quantity rules have ever limited fuel rate
the logic of a fuel quantity limit is that the designer chooses his fuel spend at rates he feels is best for track-time efficiency

the rules give an unfair benefit to the electrical side and this is now increased
when I predicted this years ago some denied this and said 'the K only recovers waste (kinetic) energy'
now they say ' it's the rules !'

OK I think I see your point now.

I think the fuel rate rule is there to limit maximum power. In the same way that max power was restricted in the past by capacity limits, rev limits or boost limits. I don’t have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules but I think the last time a fuel quantity restriction was applied it was in conjunction with a boost limit.

If the fuel rate limit were removed, leaving only a race quantity limit, I can see that they might, during the race, to choose to burn extra fuel at the beginning of straights and that this might be overall more efficient than burning at other points and storing the energy for the same use.

What would then happpen in qualifying is open to question. With no fuel quantity restriction I guess they might continue to use fuel inefficient electrical routes as well as more powerful, and not necessarily efficient, modes in direct fuel usage. Result much higher power outputs, higher speeds and an even bigger lap time discrepancy between qualifying and race lap times.

So there might be a better demonstration of fuel efficiency in the race but there’d need to be a new constraint on qualifying and who knows what engineering discipline that might favour.

[Tommy Cookers]

we might think for 1984-1985 the FIA reduced and limited fuel quantity (to 220 litres) without other power-limiting rules
ie 1500cc if forced induction but eg 12 cylinders allowed and unlimited rpm and unlimited 'boost'
for 1986 the was a 195 fuel quantity litre limit - as higher-density fuels had frustrated the intent of the 220 litre limit
the effective fuel rate was apparently not (eg at Mansell's Brands Hatch) dictated by the fuel quantity limit
so the seasons 1984-1986 rewarded efficiency by allowing design scope for high fuel rates when most beneficial

limiting 'boost' starting in 1987 (4 bar abs) gave less efficiency incentive (for established V6s at their established rpm anyway)
more so 1988 with 2.5 bar and 150 litres
presumably the boost limiting was to force power reduction and disincentive any further development of the 'road' fuel

[63l8qrrfy6]

Hmm the MGUH appears slightly underpowered compared to what I would have expected.
Based on a lambda of 1.6 (0.655 kg/s air mass flow rate) and pressure ratio of 4 I get 123 kW compressor power required assuming 80% isentropic efficiency and 100% mechanical efficiency.....

the NA engines charged their cylinders (assuming PR=1) as if their atmospheric air was at 1.25 - 1.3 bar
mainly because of inlet and exhaust system 'tuned length' effects - so-called 'free supercharging'
these effects were used in previous F1 turbocharged engines and presumably are used currently to a substantial extent

so isn't the real required today PR less than 4 ?
(and the compressor power will be less than proportionate to the real PR)

The PR I refer to is strictly across the compressor - I have no real basis for the exact number, I think it was something that was guesstimated on this forum.