2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Edis]

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!

Typical gasoline is about 740 kg/m3 (gasoline stadards specify 720-775 kg/m3) and about 43 MJ/kg (lower heating value, as used for engine calculations). Different hydrocarbons found in crude oil is often in the 39-46 MJ/kg range, hydrocarbons above 46 MJ are typically gases. The racefuel used by Honda during the eighties was 41 MJ/kg and the highest figure for a liquid race fuel I've heard is 46 MJ/kg, which was a NASCAR fuel. Generally, hydrocarbons with a lower density have a lower boiling point and a higher energy density (on a mass basis).

But what will have the largest impact on boost pressure requirement isn't the energy content of the fuel, but the air/fuel ratio. Going from say lambda 0.9 to 1.1 at full load will have a big impact. If the engines are indeed capable to operate with stratified mixtures at full load the difference could be huge, as production engines using stratified combustion use air fuel ratios as high as lambda 2.5.

[ringo]

I don't the stratified mixtures will be used under full load. If by stratified you mean extreme a:f ratios.
When doing these calculations it's best to use the lower heating value.

[Edis]

I don't the stratified mixtures will be used under full load. If by stratified you mean extreme a:f ratios.
When doing these calculations it's best to use the lower heating value.

Normal gasoline engines operate with homogeneous mixtures, that is, there is an air/fuel mixture distributed evenly in the whole cylinder. A homogeneous mixture can be lean or rich, but go too lean and the mixture will ignite poorly, burn slowly or don't burn at all. This will limit how lean you can go with homogeneous mixtures.

A stratified mixture is an air/fuel mixture that is limited to a part of the volume in the combustion chamber, normally around the spark plug. Around this "volume" of air/fuel mixture, there is only air. As such, the air fuel ratio in this limited volume can be for instance lambda 1 while the lambda for the cylinder as a whole can be for instance lambda 2.5.

If it could be used at full load, it could provide an efficiency gain. No unburned fuel due to air excess, no fuel wasted as cooling (cooling is provided by the excess air) and lower heat losses to the cylinders due to the insulating layer of air and lower temperatures. Of course, achieving a good stratified charge at full load and high speed is not easy, perhaps not even possible. So far, no racing engine have used it, probably not even at low loads.

[WhiteBlue]

A very interesting post Edis! I have thought for a long time that we are going to have higher combustion efficiency than we ever had before in F1. But it was hard to find specifics about that. I'm glad that someone acknowledges the chance that it will happen.

[Tommy Cookers]

I don't the stratified mixtures will be used under full load. If by stratified you mean extreme a:f ratios.

This will limit how lean you can go with homogeneous mixtures.

A stratified mixture is an air/fuel mixture that is limited to a part of the volume in the combustion chamber, normally around the spark plug. Around this "volume" of air/fuel mixture, there is only air. As such, the air fuel ratio in this limited volume can be for instance lambda 1 while the lambda for the cylinder as a whole can be for instance lambda 2.5.

If it could be used at full load, it could provide an efficiency gain. No unburned fuel due to air excess, no fuel wasted as cooling (cooling is provided by the excess air) and lower heat losses to the cylinders due to the insulating layer of air and lower temperatures. Of course, achieving a good stratified charge at full load and high speed is not easy, perhaps not even possible. So far, no racing engine have used it, probably not even at low loads.

@Edis
thanks for your recent posts ........ but ......
stratified charge is surely of value only at partial powers (to reduce power without the (two types of) losses due to throttling)
at full power SC is wastefully pumping, and compressing/heating excess air that is not necessary and not used for combustion
surely this outweighs all the factors as mentioned above ?
(and an afr of 1.01 lambda would give essentially complete combustion without excess pumping of air)

the pressing need IMO is usefully to control cylinder charging over the 16% working rpm range (10500-12200 rpm)
generator load control allows some independence of induction pressure and scavenge .... eg

we could control turbo rpm (via generator load) to reduce VE as engine rpm increases (fixed massflow matching fixed fuel rate)
(with (the right) fixed generator load, the turbo rpm wouldn't tend to increase with engine rpm above 10500 anyway ?)
we could control turbo rpm (via generator load) to maintain VE as engine rpm increases (so progressing mixture to 16% leaner)

or even increase the 'VE'/charge mass as engine rpm increases ?
(the leaning or dilution with increased engine rpm gives a detonation margin that should be used, to improve TE)
the real aim is to maintain/increase charge pressure (rather than massflow) with rpm, ie without compressing unnecessary air

so it may be better to allow dilution with exhaust gas, via exhaust valve opening later than otherwise
(ie '100% air at 10500 rpm, could be allowed to progress to '86% air/14% exhaust mix' at 12200 rpm)
this would allow more in-cylinder expansion (than otherwise)

[Tommy Cookers]

Typical gasoline is about 740 kg/m3 (gasoline stadards specify 720-775 kg/m3) and about 43 MJ/kg (lower heating value, as used for engine calculations). Different hydrocarbons found in crude oil is often in the 39-46 MJ/kg range, hydrocarbons above 46 MJ are typically gases. The racefuel used by Honda during the eighties was 41 MJ/kg and the highest figure for a liquid race fuel I've heard is 46 MJ/kg, which was a NASCAR fuel. Generally, hydrocarbons with a lower density have a lower boiling point and a higher energy density (on a mass basis).

'hydrocarbons above 46 MJ/kg lower heating value are typically gases'

would these be soluble in liquid fuel ?

[ringo]

Going lean does not necessarily improve thermal efficiency.
Maybe the break specific fuel consumption. Thermal efficiency is directly related to the temperature differences.

The thing about stratified charge, with the little pocket in the piston, as you say Tommy, it's possibly dissonant with what a race engine is designed to accomplish. Pumping losses and what not.
All that Friction for such considerably lower energy content, which is dictated by the fuel mas in the cylinder. Stratified charge is more of an improved combustion efficiency than overall efficiency.
Maybe it can apply in the pit lane or on safety car laps.

[WhiteBlue]

Talking about stratified charge is not particularly helpful IMO unless you also discuss the combustion method. Do you employ air or wall guided combustion or are you going for spray guided combustion? The latter will give you a kind of stratified charge without multiple injections and will not have fancy piston geometries to help internal air flow. I would be interested to know what kind of method we are going to see in the 2014 engines. By far the leanest combustion is the spray guided type but it is unclear from my POV whether they will be able to manage ignition consistently in all kind of engine regimes.

The spray guided injector produces a hollow cone of fuel spray and the spark plug is located near that spray cloud. This arrangement produces a naturally stratified charge without multiple injection events at the very end of the compression stroke. So by design it is the fastest fuel deployment and vaporization process known. Rpm is known to be a limiting factor primarily because it imposes very high speed injection requirements that could not be met by the 200 bar piezo injectors that became available in 2008. But one has to assume that the cutting edge has moved forward and 500 bar systems are being developed or already tested for the F1 engines. One also needs to consider that the total injection system including the high pressure pump will be FiA specified standardized parts. So nobody will give much away by telling us now what they will use.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5
5.8.1 The pressure of the fuel supplied to the injectors may not exceed 500bar. Only those injectors
and fuel high pressure pumps specified by the FIA may be used.
5.8.2 Over 80% of the maximum permitted fuel flow rate, at least 75% of the fuel flow must be
injected directly into the cylinders.
There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted downstream
of the exhaust valves.

80% of the permitted fuel flow rate or 80 kg/h will apply at 8,333 rpm. So from 8,333-16,000 rpm the rule requires you to inject at least 75% of the fuel flow by one single direct injector. 25% may be injected by port injection. Under 8,333 you are totally free to use available equipment as you like. What is the purpose of this regulation? I have not found a reason for those particular figures. Unless of course it was an advantage to compress a very lean mixture that is massively under stoichiometric and make it combustible by late direct injection of the residual 75% fuel flow. And what kind of combustion system would profit from such a strategy? I suspect the biggest advantage would be created for the spray guided system because you would have a better stratification from having a base mixture in place. The other combustion systems inject the fuel in the intake and early compression phase. IMO they would not benefit much by the use of port injectors. Unfortunately we do not read anything about such design considerations in the Renault story in racecar engineering.

[ringo]

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5

Remeber that discussion about constant power from zero rpm by increasing the boost at lower rpm to allow that?
This rule prevents that. Basically it will make the power curve very linear all the way up to 10,500 rpm, then the constant power games can ensue.
FIA simply dont want to see which engine makers will come up with some fancy turbo system that gives full power off idle.
And that is very possible. Once you deliver the maximum fuel flow and you can provide the air for it, your gonna get the full power, and a truck load of torque!
The curve will look like this to prevent a constant power engine:

5.8.2 Over 80% of the maximum permitted fuel flow rate, at least 75% of the fuel flow must be
injected directly into the cylinders.

This seems to be saying that above a certain rpm, assuming full load, most fuel must be injected into the cylinders.
Where else can it be injected?

Well i think this has a loop hole...:

There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted downstream
of the exhaust valves.

It says only one direct injector , meaning if you have other kinds of fuel injector you can place those anywhere in any number.

May be a safety measure with regulation 5.8.2, are there any existing cars that use both ordinary fuel injectors and direct injection?

[WhiteBlue]

5.8.2 Over 80% of the maximum permitted fuel flow rate, at least 75% of the fuel flow must be
injected directly into the cylinders.

This seems to be saying that above a certain rpm, assuming full load, most fuel must be injected into the cylinders.
Where else can it be injected?

If you look further up you see that I have already posted the certain rpm limit which is 8,333 rpm. There are no restrictions how you inject below 8,333 rpm.
Above 8,333 rpm you must inject 75% of the fuel flow by one direct injector per cylinders. Obviously the other 25% may be port injected, that being the only other method known.

Well i think this has a loop hole...:

There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted downstream
of the exhaust valves.

It says only one direct injector , meaning if you have other kinds of fuel injector you can place those anywhere in any number.
May be a safety measure with regulation 5.8.2, are there any existing cars that use both ordinary fuel injectors and direct injection?

The question is what kind of technology would benefit from partial port injection at high rpm?
My guess was that spray guided combustion would reach a better stratification with only one injection event if you allow a 25% port injection. If that is true it could be understood as an incentive to use use spray guided combustion.

[WhiteBlue]

Toro Rosso will switch to Renault power for the start of F1's new V6 engine era in 2014. And also according to Auto Motor und Sport, "there are rumours Force India will in 2014 change from Mercedes to Ferrari engines". The report by journalist Michael Schmidt said the Silverstone based team's denials so far have "not been energetic enough to make you believe them". Reportedly, the reason for Toro Rosso and Force India's decisions could be price, with engine costs rising from about EUR 8 million at present to in some cases over EUR 20m in 2014. But in Toro Rosso's case, there is probably a more practical consideration, with parent team Red Bull then able to supply its Faenza based satellite with Renault-compatible gearboxes, KERS and hydraulics from 2014.

Something to keep in mind.

[rjsa]

I just keep wondering how teams like Williams, renting one seat for 40MM/yr and the other for around 10MM/yr, will deal with the extra 12MM/yr bill not accounting the extra ancillary equipment.

I say they won't

[WhiteBlue]

All the talk about prices is pure speculation at this time. The engine prices will largely depend of the success of the cost control talks. At the moment here are endless combinations how that could pan out. If there is no cost control and no price limiting the manufacturers could be asking $30 or 40m. If there is successful cost control and a price cap the price could be well below $8m. If you look at the pure manufacturing and service cost you can supply engines to a team at two million per year. In 2006 some engine manufacturers were spending $260m for three teams. If they were supplying equal specifications to all teams they could have been asking $80m. Of course such pricing is absurd but it shows how ridiculous the development cost race could become unless it is taken under control.

[rjsa]

Never, in my whole life, I've seen anything cost less than expected. And how something new, under development and full of gadgets is going to cost less than the proven and frozen is a mistery to me.

For now let's not get into the cost control debate.

Still, even with all the later talking, I thing the gadget loaded V6T is a dud.

[bhall]

All the talk about prices is pure speculation at this time. The engine prices will largely depend of the success of the cost control talks. At the moment here are endless combinations how that could pan out. If there is no cost control and no price limiting the manufacturers could be asking $30 or 40m. If there is successful cost control and a price cap the price could be well below $8m. If you look at the pure manufacturing and service cost you can supply engines to a team at two million per year. In 2006 some engine manufacturers were spending $260m for three teams. If they were supplying equal specifications to all teams they could have been asking $80m. Of course such pricing is absurd but it shows how ridiculous the development cost race could become unless it is taken under control.

"All the talk about prices is pure speculation at this time. So, wthout further ado, here's my contribution..."

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you have any sources?

And why would any manufacturer even consider for one second not passing along development costs to its customers when the whole idea behind supplying customer engines is to defray those very costs as much as possible?

Expense happens. One must accept that as fact or accept stagnant technology. Until the Development Fairy materializes, there's no other way.