2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

I would think the logical way would be to keep the working-range, between gearhifts, somewhere between 10 and 13k then?

[PhillipM]

Yeah, could well be lower than that as the tech improves and through the race to keep the friction/losses down.

[strad]

You choose to forget ..Why do high performance engines run rich?

[ringo]

I've gone for a slightly optimistic guess at the absolute torque value - given DI should improve it over the current figures (about 110-115lb ft per litre IIRC), and the reduced rpm range should lead to slightly better cylinder filling low down, but I'd imagine it'd end up closer to this myself:




Although they'll probably around ~30lbft lower initially.

Ok i see the adjustments. The turbo efficiency at lower engine speeds was ingored in my pediction, as it's purely theoretical. However your power curve is very optimistic, as mine is maximum theoretical. It's the right shape, but the power may be a bit high bellow 10,000 rpm.

[ringo]

The power curve lookes ok for me. Power should peak at 10.500 rpm and go down from there very slightly.

I very much doubt that drivers will regularly use the rev band up to 15.000.

The power wont go down you know. The torque will.
Chances are it could increase slightly.

[PhillipM]

I was assuming they'd optimise the turbo's for around 9-11krpm, as they're limited by fuel flow after that anyway, so I guessed at the efficiency dropping off from the turbo as well as extra internal friction/heat.

I know the power + torque are a little optimistic, I went for the top end of what we could expect, like I say, I'd expect most units to be 30lbft or so lower than that initially.

[Pieoter]

The power graphs are way too linear. A 2l WRC engine does mot spool a TR30R until around RK RPM, unrestricted these are 450-500hp turbos a 1.6l wont spool a 600hp until 6-7k rpm.

Currently each gear change drops rpm by around 4k rpm so you will go from 15 down to 11 which is fine as you are fuel restricted. I can see the major development being in keeping efficiency up right until 15.

[xpensive]

I think the point here is that a 1.6 turbo at 10.5 kRpm shouldn't need more than 1.0 Bar boost, less at higher Rpm,
to burn 38 cc of gasoline per second and produce some 580 Hp (420 kW) with an efficiency of 33%.

When such a low boost should be rather easy to achieve, could one bank be enough to feed the turbo charger?

What if the turbo then is located on the side of the engine, beneath the cylinders, only fed from one cylinder bank,
like the Saab V6, while the xhaust from the other bank feeds the heat-recovery system?

[WhiteBlue]

The power graphs are way too linear.

You seem to forget that they can electrically spool up the turbo by the MGUH.

When such a low boost should be rather easy to achieve, could one bank be enough to feed the turbo charger?

What if the turbo then is located on the side of the engine, beneath the cylinders, only fed from one cylinder bank, like the Saab V6, while the xhaust from the other bank feeds the heat-recovery system?

The heat recovery system and the turbo are one and the same thing. They can only have one turbine and one compressor sitting on one shaft. So the only way to extract the heat is taking excess torque off the turbine by the MGUH which is not neeeded to drive the compressor.

The only way I see they can build these systems is to have the turbine, the compressor and the MGU on one shaft and maximise the turbine efficiency by perhaps doing an axial design. The MGUH will augment the turbine power in the spool up and take all excess power as soon as the turbine starts to over produce the compressor demand.

There is no way you can avoid to pipe all the exhaust into the turbine and still extract maximum power from the exhaust.

[Pieoter]

Saddly Whiteblue with the way the regulation are set up now (5.2.9). If you use the MGUH in the way you describe you will be unable to use KERS thus giving up an extra 120kw of motive power.

[noname]

The only way I see they can build these systems is to have the turbine, the compressor and the MGU on one shaft and maximise the turbine efficiency by perhaps doing an axial design. The MGUH will augment the turbine power in the spool up and take all excess power as soon as the turbine starts to over produce the compressor demand.

Axial turbine of this size will rather not be more efficient due high tip clearance.
It will not work with the single stage compressor as well, as it would spin much to fast.

[WhiteBlue]

Saddly Whiteblue with the way the regulation are set up now (5.2.9). If you use the MGUH in the way you describe you will be unable to use KERS thus giving up an extra 120kw of motive power.

There is no such thing as KERS in the 2014 regulations. There will be a MGUH and an MGUK. You can use the MGUH to generate 120 kW electric power and run it to the MGUK which will apply it in motor mode directly. Perfectly legal. I just doubt that they will get the full 120 kW from the MGUH, but they entitled to do so if they can engineer it.

[bill shoe]

Can anybody help me understanding this article?

5.3.5 The entire power unit (with the exception of the items listed in Article 5.3.8 ) must be installed between two vertical planes normal to the car centre line separated by 700mm or in a box 150mm long, 250mm wide and 800mm high which lies symmetrically about the car centre line immediately ahead of the front vertical plane.

I can understand from the first part of the sentence that the power unit has to be not longer than 700mm.
But what does the secon part with the box mean?

Others have mentioned turbo or KERS in that space. I think the oil tank would also be logical there.

[Pieoter]

There is no such thing as KERS in the 2014 regulations. There will be a MGUH and an MGUK. You can use the MGUH to generate 120 kW electric power and run it to the MGUK which will apply it in motor mode directly. Perfectly legal. I just doubt that they will get the full 120 kW from the MGUH, but they entitled to do so if they can engineer it.

Their is still KERS but it is called MGUK.

Yes what you have said this time is correct but your previosu statement that they can "electrically spool up the turbo by the MGUH." will result in them not being able to use the energy to power the MGUK unit.

[FW17]

Can a turbocharger be made out of pyrosic glass-ceramic matrix composite?

If possible will the car still require a intercooler as the thermal transmittance from turbine side to compressor side will be negligible.