2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[subcritical71]

A harvesting pathway (K > H > ES) does not exist in harvesting regulations.

But it absolutely does. It’s even in picture form to help (although they did neglect to properly update it in their last round of changes this week).

[henry]

I’m puzzled by the new part throttle regulations. I can’t make the numbers add up. Can anyone explain it to me?

The regulation:

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

If I set Q to 100kg/h the maximum part throttle power comes out at 300kW. Given that with 100kg/hr at 10500m they probably make around 500kW that’s a big jump from part throttle to full throttle.

I’m also puzzled that the lower bound is MINUS 50kW

Lockdown must have frazzled my brain.

[trinidefender]

Haven't really been keeping up with the updated regs for this season. Has the number of allocated PU components changed for the shortened season or are teams going to be running their PU's balls to the wall in every race since each PU is going to be subjected to much lower mileage?

[sosic2121]

If I set Q to 100kg/h the maximum part throttle power comes out at 300kW. Given that with 100kg/hr at 10500m they probably make around 500kW that’s a big jump from part throttle to full throttle.

I think you are looking at the equation from the wrong side.
I think rule says if you produce this amount of power, then you are allowed to flow this amount of fuel. Of course, 100kg/h being the hard limit.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I’m puzzled by the new part throttle regulations. I can’t make the numbers add up. Can anyone explain it to me?

The regulation:

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

If I set Q to 100kg/h the maximum part throttle power comes out at 300kW. Given that with 100kg/hr at 10500m they probably make around 500kW that’s a big jump from part throttle to full throttle.

I’m also puzzled that the lower bound is MINUS 50kW

Lockdown must have frazzled my brain.

I haven't looked at this in detail but does engine power refer to PU power or ICE power ?
PU power = ICE + MGUK power so when the MGUK is harvesting at part throttle (hence producing negative power) the PU power is lower than ICE power.

-50 kW could be full MGUK harvest (-120 kw) offset by 70 kw ICE power or any combination really.

[Jolle]

I’m puzzled by the new part throttle regulations. I can’t make the numbers add up. Can anyone explain it to me?

The regulation:

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

If I set Q to 100kg/h the maximum part throttle power comes out at 300kW. Given that with 100kg/hr at 10500m they probably make around 500kW that’s a big jump from part throttle to full throttle.

I’m also puzzled that the lower bound is MINUS 50kW

Lockdown must have frazzled my brain.

The minus 50 comes from recharging when off throttle I think. These new regs look like to limit the amount of recharge when not on full throttle by injecting more fuel then asked for the amount of power. (driver asks for 50% of power, ICE gives 50%+120KW to recharge the ES, etc etc)

[henry]

If I set Q to 100kg/h the maximum part throttle power comes out at 300kW. Given that with 100kg/hr at 10500m they probably make around 500kW that’s a big jump from part throttle to full throttle.

I think you are looking at the equation from the wrong side.
I think rule says if you produce this amount of power, then you are allowed to flow this amount of fuel. Of course, 100kg/h being the hard limit.

I think you can look at any equation from both sides so
Engine Power= (100 - 22.5)/0.257 = 300

However I think @Mudflap is right and to get ICE power you add 120kW coming to 420kW.

[henry]

I’m puzzled by the new part throttle regulations. I can’t make the numbers add up. Can anyone explain it to me?

The regulation:

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
5.1.6 At partial load, the fuel mass flow must not exceed the limit curve defined below:
- Q (kg/h) = 10 when the engine power is below -50kW
- Q (kg/h) = 0.257 x engine power (kW) + 22.85 when the engine power is above -50kW

If I set Q to 100kg/h the maximum part throttle power comes out at 300kW. Given that with 100kg/hr at 10500m they probably make around 500kW that’s a big jump from part throttle to full throttle.

I’m also puzzled that the lower bound is MINUS 50kW

Lockdown must have frazzled my brain.

I haven't looked at this in detail but does engine power refer to PU power or ICE power ?
PU power = ICE + MGUK power so when the MGUK is harvesting at part throttle (hence producing negative power) the PU power is lower than ICE power.

-50 kW could be full MGUK harvest (-120 kw) offset by 70 kw ICE power or any combination really.

The section the regulation is in is, 5.1 Engine specification, this deals exclusively with details of the ICE.

However, I think you’re right. This new snippet of Regulation is referring to PU. So the new max part throttle power from the ICE is 420kW. This still seems low.

At least there is one less step for them to control this since they need only compare the PU torque sensor output to the fuel flow.

[henry]

It looks like a constraint has been placed on part throttle fuel usage not to prevent energy collection via the K but to prevent fuel accumulation at part throttle to be used at full throttle.

So now we have two fuel sensors, a reduced volume of fuel outside the fuel cell, and control of part throttle flow rates. Belt, braces and a piece of string.

[henry]

Here’s a little snippet in the 2021 regs that caught my eye.

5.8.2 Engine exhaust systems must have only a single turbine tailpipe exit and, if a wastegate is present, either one or two wastegate tailpipe exits which must all be rearward facing and through which all exhaust gases must pass. All and only the turbine exit exhaust gases must pass through the turbine tailpipe and all and only the wastegate exhaust gases must pass through the wastegate tailpipe(s). None of the tailpipes may be contained within any of the other tailpipes.

Does this suggest that one or more engine suppliers don’t see the need for a wastegate?

[3jawchuck]

Here’s a little snippet in the 2021 regs that caught my eye.

5.8.2 Engine exhaust systems must have only a single turbine tailpipe exit and, if a wastegate is present, either one or two wastegate tailpipe exits which must all be rearward facing and through which all exhaust gases must pass. All and only the turbine exit exhaust gases must pass through the turbine tailpipe and all and only the wastegate exhaust gases must pass through the wastegate tailpipe(s). None of the tailpipes may be contained within any of the other tailpipes.

Does this suggest that one or more engine suppliers don’t see the need for a wastegate?

At least that will be easy to spot. Or would they take a weight penalty to add a pair of vestigial wastegate pipes?

[subcritical71]

Here’s a little snippet in the 2021 regs that caught my eye.

5.8.2 Engine exhaust systems must have only a single turbine tailpipe exit and, if a wastegate is present, either one or two wastegate tailpipe exits which must all be rearward facing and through which all exhaust gases must pass. All and only the turbine exit exhaust gases must pass through the turbine tailpipe and all and only the wastegate exhaust gases must pass through the wastegate tailpipe(s). None of the tailpipes may be contained within any of the other tailpipes.

Does this suggest that one or more engine suppliers don’t see the need for a wastegate?

I spotted this also 2 days ago when looking for the part load fuel flow. I thought it strange it hasn't been discussed yet. Although I do believe we may have inadvertently discussed it over a year ago... MGU-H clutches, freewheeling turbines, exhaust 'assist' using the motoring turbine (somebody mentioned it at some point)... Is there a possibility that while the MGU-H is motoring the turbine is freewheeling enough that the back pressure is negligible or have some manufacturers decided to clutch the turbine?

[JordanMugen]

Does this suggest that one or more engine suppliers don’t see the need for a wastegate?

At least that will be easy to spot. Or would they take a weight penalty to add a pair of vestigial wastegate pipes?

None of the power units use the wastegate during the race anyway, do they?

It's only used occasionally during practice:

[saviour stivala]

Does this suggest that one or more engine suppliers don’t see the need for a wastegate?

At least that will be easy to spot. Or would they take a weight penalty to add a pair of vestigial wastegate pipes?

None of the power units use the wastegate during the race anyway, do they?

It's only used occasionally during practice:

All PU's use the waste-gates during the race,

[saviour stivala]

‘Freewheeling turbine’. The rules does not allow for a ‘freewheeling turbine between the compressor and turbine. But the rules allows for the ‘H’ to be clutched to the turbine (MGU-H might be clutched to turbine). But that discussion about the ‘H might be clutched to the turbine’ was ‘killed’ by the usual grandiloquence behaviour of some. The one that pushed-out the Honda ‘secondary’ combustion system told us with some sort of authority that the ‘H’ is not clutched. Are we now also doubting him?.
In my opinion the rules saying the ‘H’ might be clutched to the turbo shaft means an engaged/disengaged clutch and not a sprag-type of a ‘one-way’ of freewheeling clutch.