2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[henry]

I was clumsily trying to indicate that the crank power from the ICE has gone up considerably from around 30% to over 40% of fuel energy content. .....
So if the %age of fuel burned hasn’t changed what is it that has increased the crank ITE by 14 %age points? Crank work from the compressor, more complete combustion....

imo
the % fuel burned (in-cylinder anyway) hasn't changed
conventional engines were/are designed to a leaning limit that gives about 95% combustion efficiency
ie even these F1 engines have their leaning limited this way (though their leaning is significantly more than conventional)
below 95% combustion efficiency there is a sharp increase in combustion intermittency

these F1 engines (designed for running unconventionally lean) dilute the in-cylinder heat (far more than conventional lean)
ie the mean in-cylinder temperature is lower
so the heat taken by coolant is disproportionately lower
(generally engines can still work even with heat rate lowered enough for no cooling to be needed)
the reduction in cylinder heat taken by coolant is an increase in available heat and so in heat converted to work
that's a big source of the great increase in the crank ITE and BTE
(the very high geometric compression/expansion ratio and reduction/elimination of CO2/CO dissociation also help)

I’ve brought this over from the TERS thread since it seems more appropriate here.

This is the first time I have understood what you mean by heat dilution increasing output. If I understand it your explanation of the increased BTE, which I suggest is around 14%age points, is made up of:

Increased heat retained in the working fluid because of the excess air, reducing cooling with a side effect of reducing the vehicle cooling requirements
Increased heat retained because at the lower combustion temperatures unproductive chemical reactions, endothermic?, are reduced.
The higher energy content working fluid expands for longer because of the higher expansion ratio. I guess as well as the compression ratio, valve timings come into play here.

Thanks for this insight, it’s taken a long time for the penny to drop.

[gruntguru]

I have brought this across from the TERS thread for the same reason.

The improvement in ITE has a number of sources IMO.
- I believe there is a worthwhile improvement in % fuel burned. Most obviously, previous engines were running on the rich side of stoichiometric at full load and every 1% decrease in lambda is at least 1% more fuel that cannot be burned.
- Agree with Tommy on ultra lean -> high dilution -> low heat rejection to the cylinder.
- Stratified charge to isolate the hottest gases from the cylinder walls)
- Rapid combustion to concentrate pressure rise near TDC. The result is more expansion work on the piston and lower gas temperature at EVO -> lower exhaust temperature. (The biggest challenge is achieving this at very lean AFR - overcome by the advent of TJI)
- Recovery of exhaust heat - not only to the MGUH but also to the compressor which then adds work to the pistons during the intake stroke.
- Operation closer to peak thermal efficiency at part load conditions. There are a number of techniques used including cylinder skipping, Ultra lean burn unthrottled, MGUK braking to operate the ICE at a higher load than required while storing surplus energy.

[Tommy Cookers]

.....
- Recovery of exhaust heat - not only to the MGUH but also to the compressor which then adds work to the pistons during the intake stroke......

this occurs with conventional turbocharged engines (those with low boost anyway)
at high boost MGU-H recovery would be impossible without modern levels of single-stage compressor and turbine efficiency
high boost enables the extreme downsizing of these engines

the turbo F1 age was harshly truncated in the 1980s
if it had been capped only in fuel quantity (not boost) its engine evolution would have been very interesting

[NL_Fer]

The question is do we need further exploring of this technology?

Or should we clamp it down with a limit on MGU-H?

[Zynerji]

Can we combine the 3?

MguK/MguH/Turbo => MguK/Centrifugal Supercharger

Make it a single unit like the MguH/Turbo, or leave separate as the K is actually built into the block currently IIRC.
Make it only hit Max boost @ 14000rpm.
Get back exhaust noise, retain 99% of the current engine technology.

[JordanMugen]

Can we combine the 3?

MguK/MguH/Turbo => MguK/Centrifugal Supercharger

Make it a single unit like the MguH/Turbo, or leave separate as the K is actually built into the block currently IIRC.
Make it only hit Max boost @ 14000rpm.
Get back exhaust noise, retain 99% of the current engine technology.

It is a great idea which I am in favour of...

but...

How are you going to harvest energy from the exhaust?

Do you propose to abandon the whole idea of a MGUH altogether?

the turbo F1 age was harshly truncated in the 1980s
if it had been capped only in fuel quantity (not boost) its engine evolution would have been very interesting

But the resultant V8, V10 and V12 age was much loved by many fans --- surely that counts for something?

The manufacturers didn't seem to mind either, as none of them quit (apart from BMW and Alfa Romeo who were no longer serious about being competitive anyway). To the contrary, many new manufacturers were attracted.

Perhaps, instead a more realistic equivalence like 750cc Supercharged (assuming 4.5 bar being crammed into it!) is "equal" to 3500cc Naturally Aspirated, would have done the trick?

[Zynerji]

Can we combine the 3?

MguK/MguH/Turbo => MguK/Centrifugal Supercharger

Make it a single unit like the MguH/Turbo, or leave separate as the K is actually built into the block currently IIRC.
Make it only hit Max boost @ 14000rpm.
Get back exhaust noise, retain 99% of the current engine technology.

It is a great idea which I am in favour of...

but...

How are you going to harvest energy from the exhaust?

Do you propose to abandon the whole idea of a MGUH altogether?

Sure. It's no longer needed to spool the impeller, and I don't believe they would lose all that much power. Maybe 100HP. Since the CSupercharger is belt driven from the crank, it would be spooled at low RPM by the current MGU-K.


The teams claim that the MGU-H is super expensive, and where a ton of power differentiation between engines exist.

I would even go as far as a Standardized ProCharger unit, then its up to the manufacturer to do its best with the specified boost/flow.

[NL_Fer]

Losing MGU-H recovery would lose much power and efficiency. Cars need more kg of fuel to start the race and drivers will save more fuel during the race.

That is why i am in favour of just limit the amount of recovery. That way less development will be in turbo size and mixture dillution.

Add to that a manual deployment button/paddle and we would see some fun.

[Zynerji]

Losing MGU-H recovery would lose much power and efficiency. Cars need more kg of fuel to start the race and drivers will save more fuel during the race.

That is why i am in favour of just limit the amount of recovery. That way less development will be in turbo size and mixture dillution.

Add to that a manual deployment button/paddle and we would see some fun.

I'd be in favor of refueling coming back to offset this point. As we saw with Kimi's wheel man's broken leg, non- fuel, 2 second pit stops might be even more dangerous than slower, fuel-delivery limited stops. Not to mention the sheer amount of DNF's/penalties caused by incorrect wheel attachment.

Refuelling
CentSupercharger (30 psi @ 14000rpm)ish.
Add variable valve timing.
MGU-K with manual deployment, and no Joule Limit.
Twin exhaust pipe exits.
5 engine limit (added RPM wear compensation)

Fast and Loud!

[Cold Fussion]

I would like to see refueling return but make the pitstops more sportscar like in that refueling must be done first and only once it's completed can any other work be done on the car. We've seen way too many dangerous situations in the past to go back to the way it was.

[Zynerji]

I would like to see refueling return but make the pitstops more sportscar like in that refueling must be done first and only once it's completed can any other work be done on the car. We've seen way too many dangerous situations in the past to go back to the way it was.

I don't understand why we don't have a type of pod (fire extinguisher size-ish) that can pop out at a pit stop, and a new, full pod be slid back in.
CNG would be more appropriate of a fuel (I'd assume) due to compressibility.

[roon]

Regarding the traction control discussion currently in the TERS thread:

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via
a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by
the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing
for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map
must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
5.6 Power unit control :
5.6.1 The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective signals as recorded by the ADR or
ECU, between the accelerator pedal position input signal and the corresponding output
demands being achieved is 50ms.
5.6.2 Teams may be required to demonstrate the accuracy of the power unit configurations used by
the ECU.
5.6.3 Power unit control must not be influenced by clutch position, movement or operation.
5.6.4 The idle speed control target may not exceed 4,000rpm.
5.6.5 A number of power unit protections are available in the ECU.
A minimum of nine seconds hold time should be configured for the power unit protections
enabled during qualifying and race. The configuration of the air tray fire detection and throttle
failsafe are exceptionally unrestricted in order to allow each team to achieve the best level of
safety.
5.6.6 The power unit must achieve the torque demanded by the FIA standard software.
5.6.7 Homologated sensors must be fitted which measure the torque generated at the power unit
output shaft and the torques supplied to each driveshaft. These signals must be provided to

[roon]

Change to 6.1.2 for 2020. Maximum permissible volume of fuel kept outside of the safety cell reduced from 2 L to 250cc.

2019:

6.1.2 When viewed in lateral projection, all the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the forward‐most of the two vertical planes referred to in Article 5.3.7 and the line a‐b‐c in Drawing 2.

Furthermore, no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of point c) in Drawing 2. However, a maximum of 2 litres of fuel may be kept outside the survival cell, but only that which is necessary for the normal running of the engine.

2020:

6.1.2 When viewed in lateral projection, all the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the forward-most of the two vertical planes referred to in Article 5.3.7 and the line a-b-c in Drawing 2.
Furthermore, no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of point c) in Drawing 2. However, a maximum of 0.25 litres of fuel may be kept outside the survival cell, but only that which is necessary for the normal running of the engine.

Also, the addition of an AOT section (auxiliary oil tank):

7.9 AOT
7.9.1 Only one AOT may be fitted to the car.
7.9.2 The total volume of the AOT and its connections to the engine must not be greater than 2.5l. The transfer of oil between the AOT and the engine must be controlled by a solenoid.

Also, a bunch of new clutch paddle and clutch operation guidelines. Anyone want to tackle those?

[ENGINE TUNER]

I would like to see refueling return but make the pitstops more sportscar like in that refueling must be done first and only once it's completed can any other work be done on the car. We've seen way too many dangerous situations in the past to go back to the way it was.

There is no reason for refueling when they are completing races having used around 30 gallons of fuel. And it has been proven that refueling is detrimental to the on track product.

[roon]

Here...that isn't allowed.

I'm having trouble parsing that. It's proven on this forum but its contents must not be detailed in this thread?

https://www.racefans.net/2018/02/23 ... titive/

Given identical physical components, and at the time different fuel, oil, and perhaps software, how could a works team operate their engine differently?

Fuel chemistry for superior combustion properties
Oil either as it pertains to a combustion aid or sliding friction reduction
Software may have and may still require the capabilities of a works team to fully exploit

A flaw in this regulation: capability of similar operation does not guarantee similar operation.

How else might the factories operate their engines differently?