2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[hollus]

There are also suggestions that Bernie Ecclestone may be pushing for an equivalency formula between the new generation engines and the current old machinery, to help the smaller teams pay for engines in in 2014. The key question with such an idea would be to work out how best to equalise the engines so that the backmarkers and old technology does not outperform the new machinery.

Dear manufacturers: You must make your new powertrains kind of affordable for small teams, or else...
Kind regards, B.E.

[WhiteBlue]

The perfect equivalence formula is a very complicated one, it is almost impossible.
And which teams should be equipped with the V8? Only the backmarkers Caterham, Marussia, HRT or more "small teams"

I don't think it is too difficult to set up. You simply reduce the fuel allowance until all V6 turbo cars are having a higher performance. If they pull ahead again or fall back you simply go up and down with the fuel flow. Piece of cake really.
The question who should have them is simple again. Everybody who cannot afford to pay a decent price like €6-8m for the V6 engines. If past experience with the V10 engines is any guidance the old V8s will be gone by 2015.

Interview with HM at Formula1.com

So far we have developed the current car down to the very last race. We have also pushed the parallel development of next year’s car. That has served us well so we will stick to it. Sure 2014 is in our focus as there will be fundamental changes. But the main point will be cooperation with the engine supplier, as it is there where the biggest change will happen. We are waiting on the final rules for the 2014 cars and my guess is they will immediately follow the signing of the Concorde Agreement. We have a very close cooperation with Renault and are in the loop with everything that is happening there.

Marko confirms that there will be updates to the regulations soon.

[WhiteBlue]

Someone giving up?

We’re used to these (V8) engines. Maybe we’ll get used to the new ones (too).

[Raptor22]

No its just the usual Bernie "let me take you on an emotional journey" routine

[WhiteBlue]

I think it is a done deal that the 2014 formula will come.

2014 will be cost-wise - unfortunately - a new dimension. It is very annoying to see that we are spending huge money on new developments when the world is collapsing around us. But these decisions have been made; the door has been closed behind us and now we have to find the most reasonable way.

Di Montezemolo is not happy, but they say we have spent all this money.

The questions now are:

• will there be an equivalence formula for the small teams to keep the V8s and how will it look like?
• will they agree to a separate limited budget for power train development from 2014?
• will there be more technical liberations in the years to come?
• will we see sales price caps for engines?
• will there be more manufacturers like Honda and Porsche?
• how much power will be available from the compounding function?
• how lean are the new engines going to be on fuel air ratio?

[Tommy Cookers]

REPLACED

[WhiteBlue]

The Honda 1.5L V6T from 1988 had 98% without direct injection.

[Tommy Cookers]

fuel: air or air:fuel ?

[WhiteBlue]

Gruntguru on Autosport forums
AFR =98% he said. I have not checked that against original sources. I trust the guy to know his stuff. So your prediction is 2% higher?

[Tommy Cookers]

if the AFR is 98% of stoichiometric the FAR (as per your post that I quoted) is 102% of stoichiometric
which is what I understood for the Honda ie marginally rich

I guessed with the better atomisation 101% would do in 2014 what 102% did in 1988

[Tommy Cookers]

[*]will there be an equivalence formula for the small teams to keep the V8s and how will it look like?
[*]how much power will be available from the compounding function?
[*]how lean are the new engines going to be on fuel air ratio?[/list]

1 equivalence should be offered via a 10% higher fuel rate

2 compounding power is an artificial concept
(all such schemes cost some crankshaft power (by increasing exhaust pressure upstream ofthe turbine), and conceal that cost)

IMO mentally adjusting the recovery of the Wright 'Tubo-Compound' for our very different CR, boost pressure and compressor load suggests genuinely free recovered power of 10% ie 65 bhp
(improving efficiency in-cylinder eg from 2014 injection reduces scope for turbine recovery)

more recovery is possible, but is only 'free' to the extent that it outweighs its cost (in crankshaft power)
rule changes could force this
such recovery would be done by heavier loading (than in 3) of the GUH to give EGR effect with rising rpm
(to maintain both constant (before-ignition) cylinder pressure and constant massflow over the normal rpm band)
this is thermodynamically better than loading as in 3 below (because it uses optimum CR throughout the rpm range)


3 FAR 99% - 101% stoichiometric generally

the GUH load will be increased as engine rpm rise, controlling the turbine rpm to give constant massflow matched to the constant fuel flow, giving compound power and maintaining 99-101% FAR (simpler strategies have less scope for energy recovery).

leaner running would only occur in the lower gears, when there would be a little part-throttle time and leaning is useful

[ringo]

Renault has revealed the first pictures
From what I see it is sporting a twin scroll turbine housing similar to the Audi LMP1 engine.
The light blue part at crankshaft height should be the MGUK and the MGUH lies in the vee.
The intercooler looks a little bit small in my eyes regarding the huge air flow. Also the placement between the tank and the engine makes no sense in my eyes from a mounting point of view and in the way cooling air has ro be ducted there.

IMO the layout will definitly change until 2014. The installation on the dyno may be a hint that the definite intercooler is in the side pod. But dyno and car a at this stage two different things.

If you read the interview in Racecar-engineering (as posted before by WhiteBlue and Scarbs) Rob White describes this picture as "very provisonal" model that shows the basic design guide lines of 2014 regulations, not the cad drawing of actual engine.

I think that article has its figures all wrong. The Boost pressure and the "mass flow will be less coming out the exhaust".
That is not going to be the case. There are some other things that are misleading.
The engines wont even need 1 bar of boost to produce the 720hp range. When the writer says they will have 2 to 3 bar and yet be less powerful, it's even more obvious he doesn't have a strong grasp of the subject.

I cant remember what was the fuel flow limit right now, but his boost pressures are way off. You are looking at over 1 thousand horsepower with 2 to 3 bars at 12000rpm, not to mention 15,000!

[WhiteBlue]

I think that article has its figures all wrong. The Boost pressure and the "mass flow will be less coming out the exhaust".
That is not going to be the case. There are some other things that are misleading.
The engines wont even need 1 bar of boost to produce the 720hp range. When the writer says they will have 2 to 3 bar and yet be less powerful, it's even more obvious he doesn't have a strong grasp of the subject.

I cant remember what was the fuel flow limit right now, but his boost pressures are way off. You are looking at over 1 thousand horsepower with 2 to 3 bars at 12000rpm, not to mention 15,000!

Ringo, we should calm down and have a look at the figures before we call Rob White all wrong. I think everybody agrees that the 2014 engines will not use the allowed rev band to 15,000 rpm. It makes no sense if the fuel flow is capped at 10,500.
There is also no question that the ICE will ever produce 720 bhp. It will be a lot less power from the ICE with some more augmentation from the heat exhaust energy recovery.
If you do a very basic guessing exercise about boosting you will find that capacity goes down by .66 and rpm goes down by .66. So it is not at all unreasonable that they would be looking at a boost factor of 2.3.
BTW, fuel flow cap at 10,500 is 100kg/h or 27.8 g/s. Below there is a bit of a run in from 9,000 rpm.

[ringo]

I'm not exactly guessing.
Remember that little ringo engine sim some time ago in this thread? It has it's basis in thermodynamic fundamentals.

After reading that the fuel flow limit is 100kg, i concur, the power wont be 720. In fact it will be around 640hp.

But this is produced with around 0.843 bar of boost, not 2 to 3 bars.

Common sense would say that with the air to fuel ration, 2 to 3 bar of air is stretching reality a bit. I could be wrong however. The only thing accurate is that he is right about the temperatures being around 140 degrees Celsius coming off the compressor with 2 to 3 bars of air being compressed.

I'm getting around 134 degrees C. I'll post a little snap shot. It's the same thing I've been working on since the thread started just a bit more detailed. Nothing new, but i guess we have some new users on here, so might as well. The new look of the site hurts my eyes, so i haven't been on in a while.





I'm open to any questions about this little "simulator" and any criticisms. I'm kinda using it as benchmark. I'd be surprised if the actual engines are in the ball park.

[ringo]

If you look close enough you can see the mass flow for the fuel cell. It's 100kg/hr
This is with 13.6 air to fuel.
I know the direct injection will play a big roll in the results. I forgot to adjust the combustion flame temp and pressure, but it wont change much, but there will be an effect on the power output. But this is just to give an idea with what i''m using in the background.