What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

In the meantime I had a look into our old friend Richard van Basshuysen's book "Gasoline Engine with Direct Injection: Processes, Systems, Development, Potential". You find big parts of it at:

http://books.google.de/books?id=xWDAxyBx45IC

Basshuysen was part of the development team for the Audi R8 FSI racing engine ten years ago. So you have to consider that direct injection technology has moved on considerably from that time. The FSI engines used wall guided combustion with injectors capable of an average operating time of 5 ms. Spray guided processes now use injection times of 0.2 ms. So the injection has become 25 times faster from the times of the R8 until today. From 8,000 rpm to 11,000 rpm the new F1 engine would exceed the capability of the injectors to support spray guided injection. Fuel would hit the piston and effectively change the process to wall guided. One should keep that in mind.



Nevertheless there is a bit of interesting information in this picture. It says that direct injection regardless of the process being used has a minimum of 5% fuel saving over port injection in full power mode. It also shows that the spray guided process is hugely more efficient under part load conditions than the wall guided process.



The next picture would help us with our quest for average power. It shows 17% overrun time where the engine does not produce any useful power. It also shows 71% full load for a Le Mans lap. The 12% part load is half in the stratified and half in the lean homogenous mode. It is a pitty that we do not have this picture for a typical F1 lap and a more modern spray guided injection process. In the light of the opposing suggestions by riff_raff and xpensive which puts base line efficiency to 26% in 2009 and 34% in 2010 I feel justified to stick with my estimate of 29.3%. It is nicely bracketed by the inconsistent expert estimates.

Regarding 747heavy's question on lambdas there is also some interesting info. The old engines were slightly under stoichiometric in full load and had a useful part load band that was using lambdas from 1.0 to >1.4. My estimate for the average lambda in the 12% part load operating time would be 1.15.

Regarding fuel saving Basshuysen quotes -9% for the R8 engine compared to a base line achieved with port injection of the same engine.



We know that direct injection at full load saves at least 5%. So the residual 4% fuel savings must have been achieved in the 12% part load time that is spend in stratified or lean homogenous mode. That seems quite an impressive figure which will hopefully be achieved by the F1 engine as well. One should also remember that the R8 Le Mans had a top end rpm of 7,200 while the new F1 engine is supposed to go up to 11,000 rpm. Considering all the different factors one hopes that the F1 engine can exceed the R8 by several percentage points. I don't think that 11% is a bad assumption on my part. And btw, it is not coming from my ass as you can see. The estimate is based on previous similar engine projects and is considering that we have new fuel saving technologies now in several areas compared to 1999 when the R8 3.6L V8 was developed.

[747heavy]

thanks for the info WB,

it is similar to what I had in the back of my mind, which is that the technology is more efficient (higher possible savings) at part load/throttle, and that at full power mode, it is not that much better (now we can argue if ~5% is much, but that is not my point).
I was wondering, why the FIA would want to reduce engine power (ICE) output, when the technology they want to promote is more efficient, at part load/throttle?
One of the assumtions you have made, in your former post is a bit flawed - IMHO.
You used the same throttle percentage estimates for the less powerful engine. If all other things will remain equal, this will not be the case. The less powerfull engine will spend more time at full throttle, if the traction limit stays the same.
You can see this very clearly when F1 switched from V10 to V8 engines. The V8 engine (while less powerful) will operate longer at higher throttle.

IMHO-You would need to base a meaningful estimate around the power output and the available traction limit, as the only reason, why a F1 (any race) car is using part throttle is the fact that power produced exceeds the available traction at the time.
If taken to the extreme (for illustration purpose), if you put an F3 engine in a current F1 car, it would opperate ~90% at WOT, because there is to much traction available for the power it can produce.
Therefore it seems a bit counterpoductive to me, to push the technology, the want to promote into an operation window (high rpm <9000 rpm, high percentage of WOT) where it does not has it´s best efficiency.

As for the rest, I don´t have any problem with any direction the FIA/FOTA wants to take, but let´s be very clear about one thing.
Everybody on this (or any other) working group is going to push it´s on agenda. This has nothing to do with their competence, it just comes with who is going to pay their wages. So, I would not read to much into that. If the FIA wants to promote a "greener" F1, fine, I can see why, but there are manyys to skin a cat and the GRE fomat is (while sensible) not the be all/end all, it´s just a different agenda from a different group of players.
How you can go wrong by listening too much to the manufacturers involved is proven by the whole KERS farce IMHO (I have nothing against the technology).
The guys who, where the most vocal about it and wanted it the most, where one of the first to ditch it, and where the once running for the door, decpite the fact, that it was the very technology, they wanted to see in F1.

There is just a too many conflicts of interests, so letting FOTA run with it, it´s like making the goat the gardner. If push comes to shove, there shirt will be close then there pants, whoever is in charge of any woking group.

[WhiteBlue]

Thx 747heavy for your input. I really enjoyed it. And I agree with pretty much all of your comments.

There is the dilemma that changing engine technology will also significantly change the drivability of the engine and will probably result to more time spent on part load. The biggest problem is the multi parameter change that we are going to see. It makes it so difficult to do estimations with very few raw data and napkin style computations.

If the boost is indeed to a total of 3 bars we could possibly see the engines substantially more on part load than the current F1 engines. Perhaps the designers referring to 650 bhp were not using the top power but an already limited power by the fuel available. We cannot know these details.

There is also a huge uncertainty in the KERS spec they are going to use. Nevertheless my very crude figuring shows that the reduced drag chassis would have to make a significant contribution to reduce power demand which is of the same order of magnitude of the AWKERS system.

I agree that those issues are completely out of the hands of the engine experts and I hope that the teams will show some wisdom in their aerodynamic decisions. Unfortunately they have not done that in the past.

[xpensive]

There are plenty of unknowns with the 2013 regulations gentlemen, but one thing is for certain, a 2.0 Bar boosted
(3.0 absolute) 1.6 would yield far more than 650 Hp at 12 kRpm if fuelflow would allow for it. This is why I have amused myself with a highly un-sophisticated "lazy-dog", based on 551 kW (750 Hp) from 2.4 liters atmospheric at 18 000 Rpm;

Power (Hp) equals 17.4 Hp per liter and Bar of absolute pressure and 1000 Rpm.

With this sad xcuse for science, a 1.6 liter, 2.0 Bar boosted engine at 12 kRpm would deliver;
17.4 * 1.6 * 3.0 * 12 = 1000 Hp.

However, with a fuelflow limit of 50 cc/sec and a total efficiency of 30%, no more than 700 Hp can be xtracted anyway,
0.050 liter/sec * 34.2 MJ/liter * 0.30 = 513 kW, limiting the useful absolute pressure to 700/1000 * 3 = 2.1 Bar.

Now, as WB so wisely suggests, with 50 cc/sec, you can have 700 Hp already at a far lower Rpm, but with a higher boost;
700/(17.4 * 1.6 * 3.0)= 8380 Rpm.

[WhiteBlue]

I guess the fluel flow allowance will be augmented by a clear race fuel target, which is supposed to be 115 kg/race. Perhaps the max. fuel reservoir is simply specified. Or alternatively if the teams do not hit the target with the fuel flow the limit can be reduced for the next race by the FiA. There would be many ways to skin the cat. IMO the important thing is that the teams cannot take the piss out of the governing body by keeping the effective consumption close to 2010 levels.

[strad]

My head is spinning

[xpensive]

Power (Hp) equals 17.4 Hp per liter and Bar of absolute pressure and 1000 Rpm.

Trying my "lazy-dog" on the 1988 2.5 Bar 1.5 turbos at 10 500 Rpm, you will get 17.4 * 1.5 * 2.5 * 10.5 = 685 Hp

Not bad, shouldn't be that far off the mark, should it now WB?

Moreover, 115 kg of fuel means an average fuelflow of 32 cc/sec over an 80 minute race, which with an efficiency of 30%
in turn results in an average of 328 kW (447 Hp). If the average is 70% of max power, you've got 640 Hp. Not bad, eh?

[WhiteBlue]

I will check the absolute reduction of drag energy in my earlier developed model.

The current V8 figures:

• race fuel 150 kg
• specific energy 46 MJ/kg
• race time 80 min
• top engine power 750 bhp
• full power time percentage is 65%, providing 488 bhp (65% of 750 bhp) to the average power
• no power time percentage is 15%, providing no power to the average power
• part load power time percentage is 20%, providing 75 bhp (20% of 375 bhp) to the average power
• average engine power 563 bhp or 420 kW = 75% of peak power
• race fuel energy 6.9 GJ
• engine power * race time = engine work = 2.02 GJ
• V8 efficiency = 29.3%
• kinetic energy is defined by accelerating 700 kg five times from 110 kph (30.6 m/s) to 310 kph (86.1 m/s)
• acceleration energy is 2.267 MJ *5(per lap) * 60 (# of laps)= 0.680 GJ
• dissipated energy by working the tyres is neglected
• drag energy is race work - acceleration energy = 2.02 GJ - 0.680 GJ = 1.34 GJ

Replacing it with an equally strong 750 bhp L4 turbo engine with 11% better fuel economy changes the efficiency:

• race fuel 133.5 kg
• race fuel energy 6.14 GJ
• L4 efficiency 32.9%

Looking at the 650 bhp engine proposed by the working group (with32.9% efficiency) we get:

• engine peak power down by 13.3% to 650 bhp or 485 kW.
• average power 75% of peak power = 363.7 kW (questionable but used for simplification)
• engine work of 1.746 GJ
• KERS system supplies 2.2 MJ/lap producing 0.132 GJ race work over 60 laps
• total race work including KERS is 1.88 GJ
• acceleration energy remains 0.68 GJ
• available drag energy is 1.88 - 0.68 = 1.2 GJ
• drag energy reduction 1.34 - 1.2 = 0.14 GJ
• relative reduction of drag = 10.5% of 2010 chassis

It means the chassis designers have to reduce the average drag of the chassis by 10.5% .
The engine engineers decrease max engine power by 13.3% and increase total engine efficiency by 3.6% respective 11% specific fuel consumption.
The electric engineers need to increase KERS (most likely AWKERS) to 2.2 MJ/lap or 0.132 GJ per race.

This would mean the performance would possibly take a small hit because the power for acceleration goes down and the cars reach terminal speed on the strait later. The performance deficit could be be partially compensated by the high use of KERS in acceleration due to the plan to keep the KERS button. Nevertheless I would increase the drag reduction target from 10.5 to 12% to be on the safe side for performance. With much more ground effect and adaptive wings that target appears absolutely feasible. This way we can drop absolute fuel consumption by 25% to 115kg in 2013 and keep the lap times. The plan hinges on forcing a lower power use by the aerodynamicists. This is the thing I'm a bit concerned about.

Today the aerodynamicists use 66.3% of the fuel to overcome the huge drag. The drag is generated in order to produce downforce which essentially makes the car faster through corners. This year we are achieving and exceeding 5G lateral acceleration in some corners. I wonder if that is really an appropriate ratio of downforce to acceleration. Perhaps the cars could be designed for more mechanical grip in slow corners and more top speed on the straits with a lateral acceleration limit of 3.5G.

[DaveKillens]

McLaren as well as many other teams support the future introduction of 1.6 liter, four cylinder turbo engines.

Ferrari would like a 1.8 liter V-6 because that configuration would be easier to develop.

What would be the engine requirements by the time these new concepts were put into practice? So far each team is expected to have 8 engines per season, but I fear that will be tightened up even more. Who knows, with an entirely new engine design it may have to be ultra-reliable.

[djos]

McLaren as well as many other teams support the future introduction of 1.6 liter, four cylinder turbo engines.

Ferrari would like a 1.8 liter V-6 because that configuration would be easier to develop.

What would be the engine requirements by the time these new concepts were put into practice? So far each team is expected to have 8 engines per season, but I fear that will be tightened up even more. Who knows, with an entirely new engine design it may have to be ultra-reliable.

Reliability is sooo boring, I want an engine bill of materials ceiling (eg manufacturing cost max of $200,000 each = $4 million for an entire 20 race season) including turbos, 1 engine per weekend and development freedom within an overall development budget cap of say $10 or $20 million per year regardless of how many customers an Engine maker has.

The only other condition I would apply aside from capacity (1.6ltr or 1.8ltr doesn't bother me), is a smallish maximum size fuel tank that forces the teams down a path of maximum efficiency at the same time.

The engine companies would have to be setup independently of the teams and run under strict financial supervision but imo it's workable.

I know I'm dreaming but I just wish the F1 teams could be more creative in their approach - I miss the excitement of turbo motors on the absolute edge with huge horsepower as they where in the 80's!

[xpensive]

...
Looking at the 650 bhp engine proposed by the working group (with32.9% efficiency) we get:

• engine peak power down by 13.3% to 650 bhp or 485 kW.
• average power 75% of peak power = 363.7 kW (questionable but used for simplification)
• engine work of 1.746 GJ
• KERS system supplies 2.2 MJ/lap producing 0.132 GJ race work over 60 laps
• total race work including KERS is 1.88 GJ
• acceleration energy remains 0.68 GJ
• available drag energy is 1.88 - 0.68 = 1.2 GJ
• drag energy reduction 1.34 - 1.2 = 0.14 GJ
• relative reduction of drag = 10.5% of 2010 chassis

It means the chassis designers have to reduce the average drag of the chassis by 10.5%. The engine engineers decrease max engine power by 13.3% and increase total engine efficiency by 3.6% respective 11% specific fuel consumption. The electric engineers need to increase KERS (most likely AWKERS) to 2.2 MJ/lap or 0.132 GJ per race.
...

In their own way your calc's seems accurate WB, just a few comments however. "Drag" is a function of speed squared, why 10.5% less energy to overcome drag would only reduce speed by (1.2/1.34)^0.5 - 1 = -0.054, or 5.4%, as energy is force times distance, to get by with the same aerodynamics. Question is how much time you spend on the straights vs time in the corners, at Monza it would certainly reduce downfoce but hardly at Monaco. Equally, power is a function of speed cubed, why a 13.3% reduction in power would only reduce speed by 4.2% with the same aerodynamics.

[ahmedvortex]

McLaren as well as many other teams support the future introduction of 1.6 liter, four cylinder turbo engines.

Ferrari would like a 1.8 liter V-6 because that configuration would be easier to develop.

What would be the engine requirements by the time these new concepts were put into practice? So far each team is expected to have 8 engines per season, but I fear that will be tightened up even more. Who knows, with an entirely new engine design it may have to be ultra-reliable.

Reliability is sooo boring, I want an engine bill of materials ceiling (eg manufacturing cost max of $200,000 each = $4 million for an entire 20 race season) including turbos, 1 engine per weekend and development freedom within an overall development budget cap of say $10 or $20 million per year regardless of how many customers an Engine maker has.

The only other condition I would apply aside from capacity (1.6ltr or 1.8ltr doesn't bother me), is a smallish maximum size fuel tank that forces the teams down a path of maximum efficiency at the same time.

The engine companies would have to be setup independently of the teams and run under strict financial supervision but imo it's workable.

I know I'm dreaming but I just wish the F1 teams could be more creative in their approach - I miss the excitement of turbo motors on the absolute edge with huge horsepower as they where in the 80's!

for the huge horsepower forget the greeners will sleep on the race track .
your approach is the approach of a pure race-fan and its very plausible but impossible no more , in the arena of cash they will revive even Da vinci to compete.
i think that the better way to regulate the F1 is to limit the conception of each aspect in the car up to 60 % of a common design and the rest is for the engineer imagination ,to limit the cash-efforts gap .
still the hopes .

[WhiteBlue]

McLaren as well as many other teams support the future introduction of 1.6 liter, four cylinder turbo engines.

Ferrari would like a 1.8 liter V-6 because that configuration would be easier to develop.

What would be the engine requirements by the time these new concepts were put into practice? So far each team is expected to have 8 engines per season, but I fear that will be tightened up even more. Who knows, with an entirely new engine design it may have to be ultra-reliable.

The target of the engine working group is four engines per season according to Ferrari's Marmorini. Ferrrari's claim that a 1.8L V6 would be easier to develop has ben rejected by McLaren.

Reliability is sooo boring, I want an engine bill of materials ceiling (eg manufacturing cost max of $200,000 each = $4 million for an entire 20 race season) including turbos, 1 engine per weekend and development freedom within an overall development budget cap of say $10 or $20 million per year regardless of how many customers an Engine maker has.

The only other condition I would apply aside from capacity (1.6ltr or 1.8ltr doesn't bother me), is a smallish maximum size fuel tank that forces the teams down a path of maximum efficiency at the same time.

There is a resource restriction in place in the RRA for engine companies and engine departments but I don't know the exact figures. I would expect that to carry over to the 2013 Concord Agreement.

The target price for engines is likely to be $5 mil or less. Cosworth have proposed a formula libre which is only restricted by fuel use but the teams seem to have cut that down in the engine working group in favor of the L4 concept.

In their own way your calc's seems accurate WB, just a few comments however. "Drag" is a function of speed squared, why 10.5% less energy to overcome drag would only reduce speed by (1.2/1.34)^0.5 - 1 = -0.054, or 5.4%, as energy is force times distance, to get by with the same aerodynamics. Question is how much time you spend on the straights vs time in the corners, at Monza it would certainly reduce downfoce but hardly at Monaco. Equally, power is a function of speed cubed, why a 13.3% reduction in power would only reduce speed by 4.2% with the same aerodynamics.

Your comment seems valid but it does not hit the nail on the head. Reducing speed would not be the target. The aerodynamicists have so many arbitrary regulatory restrictions that there must be a lot of efficiency potential available by reviewing them. Just take the plan to reduce downforce by wings and make more use of the floor by ground effect. Additionally wings and floors can be flexible and movable with todays technology without safety compromises. So the target must be for 12% energy reduction of aerodynamics without loss of performance. I would imagine that wings would only be deployed for mid range speeds and be retracted completely for high speed sections so that the car relies on the floor for downforce just like super sports cars do.

[xpensive]

My point was that even if you reduce available propulsion energy and power with 10.4 and 13.3% respectively,
the teams can still keep the current aerodynamic layout, while only losing 4-5% in speed.

It is difficult to follow your incentives from post to post WB, is it reducing energy with a "green"-agenda, which you
denied earlier, or is it reducing downforce? If the latter, eliminate the front wing, if the former, reduce fuelflow.

Anyway, my final predictions for 2013is the following;
A 1.6 liter turbo-V6 restricted to 12 kRpm, as well as a 2.0 Bar boost (3.0 absolute) and a fuelflow of 45 cc/second.

Remember the most outrageously un-scientific lazy-dog?
Power (Hp) equals 17.4 Hp per liter and Bar of absolute pressure and 1000 Rpm.

- My "lazy-dog" above would give you 1000 Hp without fuelflow restriction.
- 45 cc/sec of fuel will limit clutch-power to 650 Hp at a 31% total efficiency.
- 1.0 Bar boost (2.0 absolute) would be enough to yield 650 Hp at 12 kRpm.
- At 2.0 Bar boost (3.0 absolute) the power will be 650 Hp already at 7800 Rpm.

Conclusivey: An engine that should have full power from 7800 to 12000 Rpm, thanks to a degressive turbo-boost.

[djos]

Reliability is sooo boring, I want an engine bill of materials ceiling (eg manufacturing cost max of $200,000 each = $4 million for an entire 20 race season) including turbos, 1 engine per weekend and development freedom within an overall development budget cap of say $10 or $20 million per year regardless of how many customers an Engine maker has.

The only other condition I would apply aside from capacity (1.6ltr or 1.8ltr doesn't bother me), is a smallish maximum size fuel tank that forces the teams down a path of maximum efficiency at the same time.

The engine companies would have to be setup independently of the teams and run under strict financial supervision but imo it's workable.

I know I'm dreaming but I just wish the F1 teams could be more creative in their approach - I miss the excitement of turbo motors on the absolute edge with huge horsepower as they where in the 80's!

for the huge horsepower forget the greeners will sleep on the race track .
your approach is the approach of a pure race-fan and its very plausible but impossible no more , in the arena of cash they will revive even Da vinci to compete.

Not true, imo with my Engine Formula all you have to do to get the Greenies on-side is run them on 100% Bio-Ethanol made from waste products from for example Sugar production and they'll be holding F1 up as the bastion all things green and still Fun!

Here in Aus we've been running the V8 Supercar Series on E85 "Sucrogen" for nearly 2 years now and I have not heard one tree-hugger complain since despite the fact that they are 5.0ltr pushrod V8's under the hood (thankfully tuned port fuel-injection unlike NASCAR)!