2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[machin]

I think I said this before. The area under the power curve.
Machin, can you produce graphs showing how much energy is transfered to the ground by integrating the power curve? One shifting at peak power and another maximizing it?

You're right, I missed your post, sorry. Although its not the area under the curve, but the average power in the RPM operating range, which is important.

At the moment we don't actually know what the shape of the power curve is.. we're just guessing....

If we take Ringo's power curve its obvious that the average power from 10500 to 15000 (constant 690-ish bhp) is higher than the average between say 6000 and 10500rpm (about 540bhp ish?), (that's assuming the cars need 4500rpm between gear changes -it's probably less).....

However, we don't know how the power will drop off above 10500rpm... I suspect its less than the fuel allowance drop off below 10,500rpm, but I don't know....

[rjsa]

Although its not the area under the curve, but the average power in the RPM operating range, which is important.

Those things are linearly dependant, right?

EDIT: let me re-phrase it.

And how do you get average power? You take the area under the poer curve and divide it by the RPM range, right?

[machin]

Although its not the area under the curve, but the average power in the RPM operating range, which is important.

Those things are linearly dependant, right?

Yeah, you're right, but "average power" means more than "bhp x rpm"; no point making things more complicated than necessary.

[Pierce89]

And it follows logically that the power will fall beyond 10,500 rpm. The teams only asked for it to appease the noise lovers and traditionalists who think that racing engines must rev high. If you have max power at 10,500 then 12,000 is plenty enough to have head room for your gearing.

The question is; will the efficiency drop above 10500rpm faster than the fuel quantity allowance drops below 10,500rpm? If the efficiency drop-off is low then the teams will gear the cars to use the engine above 10500rpm, if the efficiency drop off is higher than the fuel allowance drops off below 10500rpm then they'll gear the cars to use the revs probably at some point around the 10500rpm level.

My personal view is that the efficiency drop-off above 10500rpm will be lower than the fuel allowance drop off below 10500rpm, so they will use the engines above 10500rpm because that will give them the widest power band.

WB is making the assumtion that at 10,500 RPMs the engine has enough boost to burn the full alotmnet. If the engine does not get enough air at 10500 rpm to burn the full alotment the the peak power will be above 10500 rpm. What I'm saying is that there is a possibility that the regulations somehow don't allow enough airflow(boost) into the combustion chamber at 10,500 rpm to burn the full 38cc/sec allotment. Also, who's to say we won't see some sort of clever fuel accumulator

[ringo]

I think I said this before. The area under the power curve.
Machin, can you produce graphs showing how much energy is transfered to the ground by integrating the power curve? One shifting at peak power and another maximizing it?

You're right, I missed your post, sorry. Although its not the area under the curve, but the average power in the RPM operating range, which is important.

At the moment we don't actually know what the shape of the power curve is.. we're just guessing....

If we take Ringo's power curve its obvious that the average power from 10500 to 15000 (constant 690-ish bhp) is higher than the average between say 6000 and 10500rpm (about 540bhp ish?), (that's assuming the cars need 4500rpm between gear changes -it's probably less).....

However, we don't know how the power will drop off above 10500rpm... I suspect its less than the fuel allowance drop off below 10,500rpm, but I don't know....

That is the thing, the friction, the turbo efficiency, and volumetric efficiency will determine that. But i don't see much of a power drop off above 10,500 if the turbo can deliver the air to match the fuel.
Keeping in mind these are turbo charged there may be a plateau of power right up to redline i guess.

The turbo design is most interesting to me at the moment.

[WhiteBlue]

With the 100l/hr rule for the engines, the so called power circuits such as Monza and Silverstone will have lesser power available than in places like Monaco.

It is 100kg/h!

[WhiteBlue]

The question is; will the efficiency drop above 10500rpm faster than the fuel quantity allowance drops below 10,500rpm? If the efficiency drop-off is low then the teams will gear the cars to use the engine above 10500rpm, if the efficiency drop off is higher than the fuel allowance drops off below 10500rpm then they'll gear the cars to use the revs probably at some point around the 10500rpm level.

My personal view is that the efficiency drop-off above 10500rpm will be lower than the fuel allowance drop off below 10500rpm, so they will use the engines above 10500rpm because that will give them the widest power band.

WB is making the assumtion that at 10,500 RPMs the engine has enough boost to burn the full alotmnet. If the engine does not get enough air at 10500 rpm to burn the full alotment the the peak power will be above 10500 rpm. What I'm saying is that there is a possibility that the regulations somehow don't allow enough airflow(boost) into the combustion chamber at 10,500 rpm to burn the full 38cc/sec allotment. Also, who's to say we won't see some sort of clever fuel accumulator

I agree with the view that power will drop faster under 10,500 than over. So the revs above 10,500 will get use. The question is how much? With more gears and potentially electric torque at the start there could be a much smaller rev band to use.

[Pierce89]

the turbo will be purposely sized by the rules. so they have to use high revs. It will be large enough to kill efficiency at lower revs and force the engines above 10,500 rpm. At that rpm it won't even get full boost yet. This is part of the reason for outlawing variably geometry turbines and variable geometry nozzles. In fact i've read they're leaning towards a spec turbo. I don't remember where though.

[ringo]

I agree with the view that power will drop faster under 10,500 than over. So the revs above 10,500 will get use. The question is how much? With more gears and potentially electric torque at the start there could be a much smaller rev band to use.

You want to use all, as the turbine needs to spin fast if it is to charge the HERS quickly.
Also you get more out of the gears, as if you change you want to drop back somewhere in the power band.
More revs are good for eigth gear too.
The eight gears are probably there to compensate for the drop in power.

The power is more like 80% of what that chart is showing. About 560 bhp.

[WhiteBlue]

the turbo will be purposely sized by the rules. so they have to use high revs. It will be large enough to kill efficiency at lower revs and force the engines above 10,500 rpm. At that rpm it won't even get full boost yet. This is part of the reason for outlawing variably geometry turbines and variable geometry nozzles. In fact i've read they're leaning towards a spec turbo. I don't remember where though.

We know the rules now. You just have to read them. There is nothing in there about the size of the turbo. So the engine designers can fit the size of the thing to make optimum use of the available exhaust energy.

[noname]

You want to use all, as the turbine needs to spin fast if it is to charge the HERS quickly.

If it will spin too fast designing the coupling could be an issue.
Or MGU if you decide to put it on the same shaft.

Or both if 1:1 ratio would be used.

[machin]

With more gears and potentially electric torque at the start there could be a much smaller rev band to use.

Doing some real quick calcs it looks like 1st gear could be relatively long -(upshifting at about 70mph -requiring a bit of clutch slip off the line or electric augmentation to raise the motive force to use all the grip available). If we then assume that the 8th gear allows 210mph (drag permitting), then in the 7 gears above 1st (assuming they're equally spaced) the required rev range length is about 2000rpm. So your earlier guess was pretty good I'd say

[WhiteBlue]

With more gears and potentially electric torque at the start there could be a much smaller rev band to use.

Doing some real quick calcs it looks like 1st gear could be relatively long -(upshifting at about 70mph -requiring a bit of clutch slip off the line or electric augmentation to raise the motive force to use all the grip available). If we then assume that the 8th gear allows 210mph (drag permitting), then in the 7 gears above 1st (assuming they're equally spaced) the required rev range length is about 2000rpm. So your earlier guess was pretty good I'd say

So we may see a rev band from 10,500 to 12,500.

http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/07/28/gill ... programme/

In the news we learn that Gilles Simon has completed his job of the 2014 rules and is on the way to join P.U.R.E.

This may be the reason why the FiA "hastily" published the 2014 rules, which created some grumbling from the teams about authoritarian rule making.

[autogyro]

Hmmm, looks like the French connection continues to dominate for the moment.
I wish there was some movement on investment for development in the UK.
It will be a wasted opertunity if the British Motorsport Industry does nothing.

[bhall]

Will manufacturers be permitted to further develop these engines after they are introduced?