2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Torque does not happen by dividing by revs but by building up combustion pressure or BMEP. This is why blown engines typically have more torque. They work on higher compression and have higher pressure by blowing to start with. When they are combined with highly efficient combustion they generate more power from limited fuel than any other engine. You can observe a similar effect with the Le Mans racing diesels. They only rev 6,000 rpm but they are twice as fuel efficient than the current F1 cars. On top they last for a whole F1 season. This is what I call impressive engineering.

[rjsa]

Torque does not happen by dividing by revs but by building up combustion pressure or BMEP. This is why blown engines typically have more torque. They work on higher compression and have higher pressure by blowing to start with. When they are combined with highly efficient combustion they generate more power from limited fuel than any other engine. You can observe a similar effect with the Le Mans racing diesels. They only rev 6,000 rpm but they are twice as fuel efficient than the current F1 cars. On top they last for a whole F1 season. This is what I call impressive engineering.

Like I said, you can do the math in the order that suits you, but a given fuel flow will yield a given amount of energy over time, part of that converted into power at the axle. No matter what happen in the process, you provide power to the engine in the form of fuel flow and it delivers usable power on the other end. At what revs and what torque results are function of the engine characteristics.

EDIT: One more thing, the diesels only rev 6000, but they do reach the uppermost range of a diesel's working envelope. Why do they won't settle for less?

[Formula None]

I was looking forward to turbo-compounded 4 bangers. Oh well. Will be interesting to see where they go with compact mid-bank turbo layouts & central exhausts.

I assume the water radiators will shrink in size some, since we're burning less fuel to make similar power, but in this age of efficient packaging and slim bodywork, where are they going to stuff the intercooler(s) and associated plumbing? Hard to imagine seeing something as svelte as the RB5/6/7 again, when the engine is going to get shorter & more stuff will have to be crammed into the sidepods.

To that point: will large air-to-air intercoolers still be used, or might we see air-to-water intercoolers, or some interesting uses of heat pumps? For example, evaporator near the turbo or intake, to minimize intake plumbing complexity & the volume of the working fluid (air vs water/refrigerant). Condenser would be smaller, more like a water radiator. Not sure if this is feasible or remotely efficient relative to air-air cooling, but it seems like the flexibility you could gain with component placement & heat exchanger size would be valuable.

No thoughts on what might be the next generation of intercooling?

Moving on, what's the feeling on cylinder bank angle? 60, 90, 120 deg? My knowledge of V6s is limited, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it:

-60 & 90 deg banks require split crank pins to maintain an even firing order (one cylinder firing every 120 deg). Would split pins be an issue for a 15k RPM V6 or will this be overcome in the interest of maintaining a more compact engine layout?

-120 deg banks allow for shared crank pins between opposing cylinders, making the crankshaft design more similar to the current flat plane V8 design.

-What's more beneficial for the engine designer, maintaining similar crankshaft designs, or maintaining existing cylinder bank angle/block design (90 deg)?

What were common bank angles, firing orders & crankshaft designs use back in the 80s turbo 6s? The last crop of DTM V6s from the 90s might also be a good benchmark to look at for this discussion. 747heavy, I know that's your area.

[strad]

If we didn't have strict engine rules, the big teams would be running parallel engine programs to find the best solution.

.
Gee...How awful.

[747heavy]

What were common bank angles, firing orders & crankshaft designs use back in the 80s turbo 6s? The last crop of DTM V6s from the 90s might also be a good benchmark to look at for this discussion. 747heavy, I know that's your area.

DTM/ITC bank angle:

Mercedes 90°
Opel 75°
Alfa Romeo 60°

keep in mind, that this is mainly due to homologation requirements, as there
need to be a base engine in the portfolio of the manufacturer.
These where not blank sheet of paper, do what you like race engines.

old F1 turbo era:
Honda 80°
Ferrari comprex/turbo 120°
Ferrari tipo 033E 90°
Renault:90°
TAG-Porsche: 80°

[Formula None]

Thanks 747. The 2.8L HPD LMP2 twin-turbo V6 may also be a good point of reference, which has a narrow bank (not sure what, guessing 60deg) and compact, sidepod-friendly unequal length manifolds (vs equal length). But if the exhausts exit mid bank, maybe equal length manifolds won't be such a packaging problem.

[747heavy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula ... 878359.stm

if true we will see:

* 1.6-litre, six-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and
fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s
* Fuel efficiency to increase by 35%
* Maximum revs of 15,000rpm
* Power of energy-recovery systems to double
* Overall power to remain at approx 750bhp
* Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across
all engines remains comparable
* Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92727

FiA WMSC approved the rules

[Giblet]

If we didn't have strict engine rules, the big teams would be running parallel engine programs to find the best solution.

.
Gee...How awful.

It is actually. Then the big teams will have the best engines, and the small teams (and some big) will AGAIN pull out of the sport due to costs spiralling out of control, or be stuck like Williams and spend a decade chasing engines and adapting cars to make them work.

Why is that good for anyone?

Cost is a serious issue, and companies like Renault have learned that they can't keep spending willy nilly.

We lost three manufacturers in short order, Renault is a shadow of its former operation, and what did we get? Mercedes, Team Lotus, and two useless teams, two years in a row?

I want to see crazy engines and all sorts of tech, but who's going to pay?

[flynfrog]

If we didn't have strict engine rules, the big teams would be running parallel engine programs to find the best solution.

.
Gee...How awful.

It is actually. Then the big teams will have the best engines, and the small teams (and some big) will AGAIN pull out of the sport due to costs spiralling out of control, or be stuck like Williams and spend a decade chasing engines and adapting cars to make them work.

Why is that good for anyone?

Cost is a serious issue, and companies like Renault have learned that they can't keep spending willy nilly.

We lost three manufacturers in short order, Renault is a shadow of its former operation, and what did we get? Mercedes, Team Lotus, and two useless teams, two years in a row?

I want to see crazy engines and all sorts of tech, but who's going to pay?

Ferarri Mercs and Cosworth the same that always have. Its either spend the money on engines or wings. I don't think the top teams are spending any less then they already did.

[ringo]

As part of their plan to make F1 more environmentally friendly, the FIA proposed to introduce 'greener' 1.6 litre four-cylinder engines in 2013 to replace the current 2.4-litre normally-aspirated V8 engines.

However, the move divided the sport's engine manufacturers and a compromise was made with the change delayed until 2014 and the plan modified to see V6s rather than four-cylinder engines replace the V8s.

While the new plan may have satisfied the engine manufacturers for the time being, track bosses are still up in arms about the move, insisting that the noise created by the V8s is a crucial part of the F1 experience.

"We are not going to have our customer base destroyed," Australian Grand Prix boss Ron Walker told pitpass.

"I told them that the circuits would not run it. The sound is part of the brand. It must be 18,000 revs and it must sound the same."

Walker added that "all hell will break loose" if the FIA and teams press ahead with the plans as many circuits would then consider switching to IndyCar.

"If the teams want to have a brawl over this they are going to get the biggest brawl of their life," he said.

"They won't be able to introduce the engine because we won't run the engine, we won't run the races.

"An IndyCar race costs about US$3.5million, compared to what we are paying and it is louder and noisy."

I agree.
You only get the sound with the same power leaving into the exhuasts.

I wanted the V10's to come back. Might as well we bring them back.

The v8 sounds bad already. Don't know if i can stand that Honda civic turbo sound coming from an F1 car.

And yes the old videos with the williams and mclaren sound like suped up honda turbo civics.
The gearbox noise is the only think that makes it sound like F1.

[jamsbong]

Here are some thoughts about changes in 2014. 1st of all, I think there are plenty of criticism simply because of change. I think people are always afraid of the unknown that comes out of changes, FIA should know this and should lead the way rather than just listen and obey to the fans.

In regards to the noise, the sound will be different and I'll admit that I4 engine will not sound good at all. It will sound like a motorbike or a WRC car. It will buzz a lot at high frequency but really not elegant or exciting noise.
V6 will be better and if Ferrari can agree to it, I am confident that it will sound exciting. We'll just have to wait and see.

In terms of Turbo charging. I'm guessing FIA will use a restrictor to curb the power output. Otherwise, engineers can easily push Turbo to over 1000+ HP. If that is the case then I think it is clear that these engines will be torquey to overcome the restrictor.

In terms of turbo compounding. It is very new to the car industry. But not new in the world of aircraft engine and large diesel engine. I hope turbo compounding will be ported to real cars as this tech will result in less turbo lag and more efficient turbo-charging.

It is interesting to see there are no specs on bore/stroke or weight limits. Just lesser fuel consumption. Moreover, there appears to be no specs on intake/exhaust configuration or valve timing/lift limits. If this is the case, then engineers have a lot of freedom to build their dream F1 V6 turbo engine. Correct me I'm wrong about these...

[bill shoe]

The current proposal is for 750 hp overall (conventional plus energy-recovery). Energy recovery is to be double the current level, and I think current KERS systems are limited to ~ 80 hp, so this implies ~150 hp of non-conventional energy recovery. This implies 600 hp from the conventional part of the engine. Many people advocate an increase in the tentative rpm limit from 12,000 to 15,000 rpm, mostly for engine sound purposes.

A 1.6L turbo engine that revs to 15,000 rpm and makes only 600 hp is making well below its potential power (if there was no fuel flow limitation). This means the nature of the fuel flow limitation will dominate the nature of the engines.

If the fuel flow rate is limited as a linear function of rpm then the engines will be roughly constant torque devices that have increasing power all the way up to any redline that is specified. If the fuel flow rate is limited to a fixed amount regardless of rpm then the engines will be roughly constant power devices for a significant proportion of the rev range below the redline (this is similar to recent ralley car turbo engines which use air restrictors instead of fuel restrictors, but they have similar effects).

I think the main question for engine sound is not the maximum rpm limit but rather: do we use constant-power engines that reduce or eliminate multiple gears and the corresponding stepped-acceleration sound that we associate with performance cars?

The type of fuel flow restriction answers this question. It will dominate the nature of the engine sound. Until we know this we know little about the sound of the new engines. I haven't seen clear public information about the type of fuel flow restriction.

[WhiteBlue]

To me this specific noise obsession is unworthy of grown ups and looks rather puerile. Bernie should be tarred and feathered (symbolically speaking) for kicking up such a useless debate. Racing cars must be fast and good looking and perhaps have some noise, but to loose your heart over a certain engine sound is foolish, IMO.

I'm guessing FIA will use a restrictor to curb the power output. Otherwise, engineers can easily push Turbo to over 1000+ HP.

That would be a big surprise. People have to understand that we will be seeing a fundamental change. The turbo engines will be completely fuel restricted not air restricted as the engines used to be in the past. It is the departure from one principle and the turn to another new one. This is why the turbo engines need no air restrictors, no boost limit and technically no rev limit. All the FiA has to do if efficiency improvements produce too much power is taking away more fuel. It is an elegant system.

[WhiteBlue]

I haven't seen clear public information about the type of fuel flow restriction.

There will be a maximum fuel flow limit either in g/s or in cc/s which will be reinforced with a total fuel load cap of 65% of the 175kg of fuel the current engines uses. The flow limit will be designed so that cars will not run out of fuel. The FiA is keen to avoid the criticism that comes with such unpopular race deciders. I would be surprised if the fuel cap comes out at over 146L or 114kg per race. A maximum fuel flow limit that has been mentioned in the past (by Scarbs) is 100kg/h or 27.8g/s. I would be surprised if we come out substantially different from those figures.

If you multiply 27.g/s by 46MJ/kg (specific energy of petrol) and 43% power train efficiency you get 730 hp which incidentally is pretty much what the FiA is targeting the power train to. Minor deviations come from the conversion factors that may deviate a little. Looking at it both ways 27g/s look like the probable target. In cc/s that would be 37cc/s but not 45 cc/s as proposed by x.