2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

But what about this, what are you supposed to do with the remaining 25% of fuel?

Accumulate somehow during off-throttle periods to gain extra fuel when high power is needed again.

Don't think that will be legal. I was thinking more if you could inject it before the turbo to keep temperatures down?

[WhiteBlue]

The 20% obviously can be injected upstream of the cylinder into a port injector. You can't inject it downstream legally. So port injection is the only option if you do not use the full 100% for direct injection.

[Pierce89]

Fact is you have 38 cc per second to deal with, end of story. What Cosworth can do with that is doubtful, but BMW or toyota?

Cossie were pretty much bullet priif when they ran the 2.65 in CART and Champ car, one of the best engines ever built, if i were the other's i'd be worried about Cosworth 2014 due to the success of thier past turbos

The champ car turbo engines ran extremely low boost( 0.4 bar or 5.9 psi)as the spec motor. Even worse, during Champ Car's multiple engine builder era, the rules limited them to like 0.15 bar or 2 psi. So, even though they were turbo motors I'd say they were virtually irrelevant in F1 , but it did give them experience revving a turbo motor over 16k rpm.

[Holm86]

The 20% obviously can be injected upstream of the cylinder into a port injector. You can't inject it downstream legally. So port injection is the only option if you do not use the full 100% for direct injection.

But what is the point of this?? Why not allow 100% on the main injector?

[cossie]

Fact is you have 38 cc per second to deal with, end of story. What Cosworth can do with that is doubtful, but BMW or toyota?

Cossie were pretty much bullet priif when they ran the 2.65 in CART and Champ car, one of the best engines ever built, if i were the other's i'd be worried about Cosworth 2014 due to the success of thier past turbos

The champ car turbo engines ran extremely low boost( 0.4 bar or 5.9 psi)as the spec motor. Even worse, during Champ Car's multiple engine builder era, the rules limited them to like 0.15 bar or 2 psi. So, even though they were turbo motors I'd say they were virtually irrelevant in F1 , but it did give them experience revving a turbo motor over 16k rpm.

Honda, Toyota, , Merc, and Cosworth were cranking out aboyt 900 to 1000 Bhp, with penski having merc build him the "stock block " turbo enginethat wa well over 1000bhp
Mercedes-Benz 500I
The Penske PC-23 at the 1994 Indianapolis 500
Much to the surprise of competitors, media, and fans, Marlboro Team Penske arrived at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway with a brand new, secretly-built 209 cid Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine, which was capable of a reported 1000 horsepower.[10] Despite reliability issues with the engine[10] and handling difficulties with the chassis,[11] the three-car Penske team (Unser, Emerson Fittipaldi and Paul Tracy) dominated most of the month, and nearly the entire race. This engine used a provision in the rules intended for stock block pushrod engines such as the V-6 Buick engines that allowed an extra 650 cm³ and 10 inches (4.9 psi/33.8 kPa) of boost. This extra power (at least 900 horsepower, and rumored to be in excess of 1000 hp, which was up a 150-200 hp advantage over the conventional V-8s.[11])

[rjsa]

The 20% obviously can be injected upstream of the cylinder into a port injector. You can't inject it downstream legally. So port injection is the only option if you do not use the full 100% for direct injection.

But what is the point of this?? Why not allow 100% on the main injector?

The rule says at least 75% thru direct injectors, so you can go 100% direct.

[Holm86]

The 20% obviously can be injected upstream of the cylinder into a port injector. You can't inject it downstream legally. So port injection is the only option if you do not use the full 100% for direct injection.

But what is the point of this?? Why not allow 100% on the main injector?

The rule says at least 75% thru direct injectors, so you can go 100% direct.

Sorry my fault.

[PlatinumZealot]

The 20% obviously can be injected upstream of the cylinder into a port injector. You can't inject it downstream legally. So port injection is the only option if you do not use the full 100% for direct injection.

But what is the point of this?? Why not allow 100% on the main injector?

This is because the port or "mist" style injection is more forgiving at high rpms. So I guess it is to ease tuning.

Toyota does both types of Injection on the Lexus ISF... both direct and port injection. I think the new turbo engines will be similar excepting the port injector further away from the opening.

[xpensive]

Most interesting and enlightning smikle, thanks.

[autogyro]

Is it done because of the limitations of the current direct head injector technology?

[Holm86]

The 20% obviously can be injected upstream of the cylinder into a port injector. You can't inject it downstream legally. So port injection is the only option if you do not use the full 100% for direct injection.

But what is the point of this?? Why not allow 100% on the main injector?

This is because the port or "mist" style injection is more forgiving at high rpms. So I guess it is to ease tuning.

Toyota does both types of Injection on the Lexus ISF... both direct and port injection. I think the new turbo engines will be similar excepting the port injector further away from the opening.

Okay didnt think of that. But i know that direct injection can have problems keeping up in high revs. Remember reading a article on the Porsche Spyder LMP2 car a few years back where the biggest challenge was getting the direct injection system to work at 12.000 rpm.

But i believe that will be one of the areas that can be developed in F1. A few years and they should be able to run max revs on direct injection alone.

[xpensive]

What escapes me is the following; If direct injection has all these advantages, why did the FIA have to mandate it in the rules?

What, if any, disadvantages are there with DI and would the manufacturers bother with it if it wasn't mandated?

[Ian P.]

The rules requiring injection into the ports or directly into the cylinder with the further exclusion of injection into the exhaust,.... all for image and cost control.
The designer can not inject after the inlet compressor (or before it) to take advantage of the cooling effect of evaporation and they can not inject downstream of the exhaust as a means of driving the turbo up to speed faster (throttle response).
It doesn't matter if anyone wants to do these (yep....I bet they would) but it stops a team trying to gain an advantage by doing it.
I'm just disapointed that they didn't allow ceramic components. This engine design is all about thermodynamic efficiency and ceramics are likely one way to gain it.

[ringo]

Ceramic internals aren't a bad idea, but the cylinder head would have to be ceramic as well to prevent it from melting away. So will the piston crown and the valves.

All the surfaces in contact with the heat would have to ceramic. Ceramics absorb heat well, but they also retain it well. Given enough time it can reach a point where rejecting accumulated heat will be a problem.

[riff_raff]

I'm just disapointed that they didn't allow ceramic components. This engine design is all about thermodynamic efficiency and ceramics are likely one way to gain it.

Ian P.,

I would disagree about the actual benefits of pure "ceramic" engine components. While there are a few individual components in a turbocharged, recip. piston engine that would benefit from pure ceramic materials (ie. SiC turbo ball bearings and turbine wheels), for the most part metallic materials or MMC's are still preferable.

Ceramic valves are too brittle for the typical dynamic loading environment in an F1 engine. And the thermal isolation created by low-conductivity ceramic surfaces in a turbocharged, SI combustion chamber, would simply result in a greater tendency to detonate, and an increased thermal load into the compression ring.

As for thermodynamic efficiency, BTE is all about extracting as much useful net work as possible from the combustion of the fuel mass. The turbocharger is a useful device for maximizing BTE, since it extracts additional work from the exhaust gas by effectively increasing the engine cycle's expansion ratio.

riff_raff