2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Just from the top of my head I think your input is a bit off in terms of fuel density and specific heat. Petrol as F1 uses it is commonly calculated at .73-.78 kg/L and 46-48 MJ/kg. You are deviating considerably. I suggest you check these!

[Tommy Cookers]

IMO the spread of views on boost values is due to the modern tendency to call any supercharging pressure 'boost'
the UK concept of boost pressure meant gauge pressure (hence even minus pressures were sometimes declared)
the USA used absolute pressure, called it 'manifold pressure' and never used the word boost'
too often journalists and others eg call the 1988 2.5 bar limit F1 rules the 2.5 bar boost limit
it was actually 2.5 bar absolute (conceptually, anyway)

the rpm range could be eg 10500-12200 or 13100-15000
the 13100-15000 should need less supercharging power (lower boost) and allow a higher CR, but have more friction

presumably the fuel war has already started (the octane limit having been waived wef this year)
higher calorific value/kg is the key for 2014


@ringo .. is 'your' fuel endurance race fuel ?
you have 'used' 8% rich mixture, Honda mostly used 2% rich in 1988 F1
near-stoichiometric mixture would give about 3% better BTE than 8% rich ?
also the mechanical efficiency would be better than 80% for 2014 engine rules ?

[mzivtins]

Hi Guys, sorry to jump to a new question, i didn't want to create a new post in regards to this subject!

Why v6 and not v8 in 1.6l format? is it purely down to fuel consumption?

The only reason i ask is that i was looking at the Ilmor X3, figured 800cc x2 = v8 (yeah i know its not that simple )

Can we weigh up the pros and cons? Might seem futile as these are the rules, but it still helps me learn more about the dynamics of an engine.

In basic terms i would guess:

V8 Pros:
Less vibration?
More cylinders to play with using ecu cylinder-cuts?

V8 cons:
Increased fuel consumption?
size?

[ringo]

Oh white blue don't mind the fuel density figure.
You just give me what you want to change and i'll punch it in. But it wont make such a big difference.

About the boost pressure. I am working with gauge pressure. This is typical.

[ringo]

IMO the spread of views on boost values is due to the modern tendency to call any supercharging pressure 'boost'
the UK concept of boost pressure meant gauge pressure (hence even minus pressures were sometimes declared)
the USA used absolute pressure, called it 'manifold pressure' and never used the word boost'
too often journalists and others eg call the 1988 2.5 bar limit F1 rules the 2.5 bar boost limit
it was actually 2.5 bar absolute (conceptually, anyway)

the rpm range could be eg 10500-12200 or 13100-15000
the 13100-15000 should need less supercharging power (lower boost) and allow a higher CR, but have more friction

presumably the fuel war has already started (the octane limit having been waived wef this year)
higher calorific value/kg is the key for 2014


@ringo .. is 'your' fuel endurance race fuel ?
you have 'used' 8% rich mixture, Honda mostly used 2% rich in 1988 F1
near-stoichiometric mixture would give about 3% better BTE than 8% rich ?
also the mechanical efficiency would be better than 80% for 2014 engine rules ?

The fuel value i'm using is just typical gasoline. But it's changeable. It must be input in separate program to get the adiabatic flame temperatures and the pressure, ie at combustion. These calculations deal with the states of different properties in the cycle, the fuel properties come in at the combustion stage.
I can vary the mixture, theoretically you get higher combustion temperatures and pressures at stoichometry; which is better since engines efficiency depends on temperature difference, the bigger the better.
Mechanical efficiency is very complicated with engines. It's either empirical or semi-empirical. No once can know this, i'm just using 80% as reasonable ball park, but it can be even lower, especially at the engine speeds we have in F1.
I've read some papers on it, and the contributions the different parts make to the friction of the total engine, but it's easier to work with a percentage i suppose. In truth i should be working with friction mean effective pressure, which is a function of the engine speed and the fricition coeffiecnt of the parts in contact.

I would like to have a general idea of what the mech efficiency of a modern F1 engine is.

[pgfpro]

Ringo loving the engine calculator, is this something you built?

Whats the difference between the
"turbine available power kW"???
and
"use full power kW"???

[Tommy Cookers]

@ringo ..
you have 'used' 8% rich mixture, Honda mostly used 2% rich in 1988 F1
near-stoichiometric mixture would give about 3% better BTE than 8% rich ?

I can vary the mixture, theoretically you get higher combustion temperatures and pressures at stoichometry; which is better since engines efficiency depends on temperature difference, the bigger the better.

IMO the main reason real engines have max power with rich mixture is that this chemistry causes less dissociation
(dissocation steals heat early in the combustion phase and returns it later, so reducing real-cycle TE)
but BTE always seems worse with richness (the Honda paper shows this , they used 2% rich for response reasons)

[Tommy Cookers]

Why v6 and not v8 in 1.6l format?
In basic terms i would guess:

V8 Pros:
Less vibration?
More cylinders to play with using ecu cylinder-cuts?

V8 cons:
Increased fuel consumption?
size?

the V6 is more road related, has a bit less friction, and less heat loss to coolant
has a naturally good angle 60deg angle, and naturally good exhaust system layout for single turbine
and less vibration than the V8 F1 engines (because they have a 'flat (aka single-plane) crank')

I don't think cylinder cutout would be allowed (it would be pointless unless running a lot at partial power)

[ringo]

Ringo loving the engine calculator, is this something you built?

Whats the difference between the
"turbine available power kW"???
and
"use full power kW"???

It's an excell file with a bunch of thermo law equations.
The available power is what's left after the compressor takes off what it needs to compress the air. What's left will come out the exhaust.
The useful power is what a recovery system can take from the turbine after the compressor takes it's share.
If all the power from the turbine is used up the exhaust speed would be zero and temperature would be ambient, this is not possible however because of irreversibilities.

If i put the boost to zero, it would be as if the car is NA, no power to the compressor and all energy goes out the turbine to atmosphere, ie higher EGT and exhaust speeds.

[WhiteBlue]

Ringo is predicting 727 bhp from ICE and the electric turbo compounding. If you add another 10 kW (13.2 bhp) from the recovered braking energy you get to a peak power of 750 bhp. That sound just all right. The new engines will be approximately on the same level as the current V8 without KERS.

[pgfpro]

Ringo loving the engine calculator, is this something you built?

Whats the difference between the
"turbine available power kW"???
and
"use full power kW"???

It's an excell file with a bunch of thermo law equations.
The available power is what's left after the compressor takes off what it needs to compress the air. What's left will come out the exhaust.
The useful power is what a recovery system can take from the turbine after the compressor takes it's share.
If all the power from the turbine is used up the exhaust speed would be zero and temperature would be ambient, this is not possible however because of irreversibilities.

If i put the boost to zero, it would be as if the car is NA, no power to the compressor and all energy goes out the turbine to atmosphere, ie higher EGT and exhaust speeds.

OK now I'm more confused.lol

The available power is what's left after the compressor takes off what it needs to compress the air. What's left will come out the exhaust.

Should the "after" been a before the compressor takes off what it needs to compress the air. As in 124HP reaches the turbine and 40HP is the drive-pressure HP needed for the compressor. This leaves 84HP for the recovery system???

[WhiteBlue]

Should the "after" been a before the compressor takes off what it needs to compress the air. As in 124HP reaches the turbine and 40HP is the drive-pressure HP needed for the compressor. This leaves 84HP for the recovery system?

The concept we discussed some time ago was using the biggest and most efficient turbine available in order to extract as much kinetic and thermal energy as possible from the exhaust gas. The use of "after" probably refers to the control strategy. The exhaust turbine's primary purpose is to provide the power for the boost. Without that the power budget of the ICE will not work. So what is left "after" the compressor is satisfied can be diverted to the MGU-H and ultimately to the MGU-K to drive the car. This is indeed 84 hp.
Programming the electronic drive of the MGU-H will be massive. The control CPU will have to watch the engine status and the battery status all the time to balance the power requirement of the compressor. It needs to draw power from the battery in spool up mode to prevent lag. As soon as the turbine power exceeds the compressor demand the MGU-H must be switched from motor mode into generator mode to take up the excess power.
I can imagine that the engine management will become a huge task. Beside controlling the fuel pressurization, the direct injection, the ignition and the MGU-H you also have to provide total electric power management.
That is a massive task on its own if you consider that both accelerating and braking will be done in true dual torque mode. For braking the controller will have to split the rear wheel torque to the MGU-K in generator mode and to the brakes. During acceleration the torque to the gear box will have to be merged from the MGU-K in motor mode and the engine. There will be no push to pass button any more.
Managing the energy storing system will also be meshed into the total power management. Unless they change the rules you will have to provide "electric only" driving in the pit lane. So when the car comes into the pits for tyre changes you need an extra high level of battery load to cope with that. I wonder if they will be allowed to switch to a special program one lap before they enter the pits in order to conserve a higher battery loading status and reduce the amount of electric energy during acceleration. The cars could actually become slower before they box in order to charge the ES sufficiently.

[ringo]

That's a lot of considerations.
Imagine all that can go wrong with reliability. We are getting a glimpse of what goes wrong with KERS already, a pretty straight forward system compared to what we will have, and it's already shown to be critical to lap time. A KERS niggle can actually destroya team's race as we've seen with Webber and Maldonado in recent races.
Imagine what an MGU failure will do on these high tech engines?
Management alone is a task and whole strategy in itself. It's very likely some teams will have an advantage in energy strategy alone. And this is different for every track!
Things are gonna be pretty messy at the start of 2014.

[autogyro]

I think the main problem with KERS is cooling the batteries.
This was always going to be difficult but the limitations on available airflow forced by the needs of aero has compromised the technology and its development IMO.
For 2014 designers have a massive task in car design and they would do well to start changind their design priorities.

I also think that there should be an increase in testing including full race distances in 2013 to prepare the new technology.

[WhiteBlue]

That's a lot of considerations.
Imagine all that can go wrong with reliability. We are getting a glimpse of what goes wrong with KERS already, a pretty straight forward system compared to what we will have, and it's already shown to be critical to lap time. A KERS niggle can actually destroya team's race as we've seen with Webber and Maldonado in recent races.
Imagine what an MGU failure will do on these high tech engines?
Management alone is a task and whole strategy in itself. It's very likely some teams will have an advantage in energy strategy alone. And this is different for every track!
Things are gonna be pretty messy at the start of 2014.

But that is going to make things interesting. Simple things are not rewarding. Operational excellence paired with talent should be rewarded, also on the engineering side. Another question is whether McLaren will have another big advantage from engineering the standard ECU?