2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Ringo's and pgfpro's posts suggest to me that about 75 hp would be delivered (costing about 5 hp in crankshaft power) ie 70 free hp

clearly further recovery would cost weight, the level of min weight limit implies a corresponding targeted level of recovery

the minimum weight now seems much higher than was expected, will recovery be correspondingly higher ?

We can speculate but my view is that the assumptions for Ringo's analysis did not change. So the physics should be the same. On the other hand you do not know what kind of loop holes the engineers are exploiting. We will see.

[turbof1]

A simple question: with the MUK, engine and turbo combined (and with the fuel consumption limit), will cars have more power output then the current V8+KERS?

[WhiteBlue]

aussigman, I'm not in the mood to split hairs wit you. For my purposes the legislation is good enough. I don't think anybody in his right mind would use anything but direct injection in a fuel flow regulated formula. Do you think that the FiA would allow extra fuel flow for the fuel you propose to add at the compressor inlet? The way fuel flow is monitored I would very much doubt that.

So the net effect is that we will see engines with 100% DI. Anything else and I will be very surprised and will certainly acknowledge your talent for loop hole finding.

Regarding the waste gates I have made the caveat that I feel is appropriate. I may be right or wrong. We will see. I have no desire to argue over it.

[Dragonfly]

Waste gates and EGR are explicitly mentioned as devices in the regs. Particularly I don't see how they would ban waste gates on a turbo engine. If the MGU-H fails and there's no load on the shaft, the rpm of the turbine will go self destructive.Or that would mean that a car capable of racing, albeit with worse performance, must drop out in such a case.

[aussiegman]

So, you MUST have one DI per cylinder and use no other injectors. There is nothing about any non-pulsed fuel delivery system such as a non pulsed fuel atomizer spray which would in theory be allowable without 8.5.1 in the pre intake valve area where there is the requirement for only fluids entering the compressor inlet to exit the exhaust system.

Wouldn't a simple fuel atomizer also be considered as a kind of injector?

I would argue it is not as there is no definition of injector and it is neither a standard low pressure injector or a DI injector unit but a fuel atomizer system.

A fuel atomizer set up such that it resembles an intercooler water spray with a fine mist and high pressure that does not contain a pulsed solenoid (but could be controlled by one or another method separately) would not be banned.

Without a definition of injector under the regulations, you simply look for what is not there or banned. IMO they are simply expecting that the inefficiency of the system woudl preclude its use, however it is currently not specifically banned.

[aussiegman]

aussigman, I'm not in the mood to split hairs wit you.

Geez, condescending much!! Others can and do have differing opinions and this is not your private fiefdom!

Firstly it is not splitting hairs its looking at the regulations( definitively not legislation) and the exact wording contained therein and finding the advantages others might not think of. If there is 10hp, 20hp or 50hp in it then you think the teams wouldn't use it??

WB, you can and do come up with some very good information and it makes very interesting reading. However at times you seem to Lord over this thread and are closed off to others opinions and discussions.

IMO and in this instance you have misinterpreted the regulations and have also been incorrect in a few areas of your assumptions thus far. That is all I have said. You then seem to have proceeded to stomp on your keyboard in indignant rage.

For my purposes the legislation is good enough.

Umm, OK two (2) points:

1) This is an open forum for open discussion and not somewhere you can act as "Lord of the Thread" and wave people off with a swipe of the keyboard. It is my opinion that you have not read the regulations carefully enough and looked for the advantages therein. If you want to have an open discussion and convince me otherwise I am all eyes (ears are no good on a forum liker this )

You seem closed to any and all interpretations but your own. You still have not acknowledged that you were seriously misguided or plainly incorrect in you assumption on the prohibition of wastegates for example, preferring to wave it off as "splitting hairs" and hiding behind non-existent caveats seemingly unable to form an defensible argument. PLEASE, try an convince me otherwise. I would gladly acquiesce and admit I was wrong and/or even that you were right. However throwing your toys out of the pram and getting all "moody" makes you look like a spoilt two year old.

2) This is actually important. The 2014 F1 Regulations are not a form of legislation or statutory law promulgated by a parliament, caucus or congress. F1 is governed by regulations, those being promulgated by the FIA for the purposes of creating limits, boundaries, enforceable monitoring, limits of duties and an allocation of responsibility for the purposes of governing F1.

I don't think anybody in his right mind would use anything but direct injection in a fuel flow regulated formula.

Why not?!?!? With that type of non-creative thinking every 2014 car would look the same with the same power and same aero. The creative detail is what makes F1 interesting!!!!

Perhaps you are simply not looking at this with the right "frame" of mind, from the right point of reference or simply an open mind to interpret the F1 regulations?? The devil is in the detail and the interpretation of the regulations. If you can't see that then you have misunderstood the last 20 years of F1 and how it has operated.

If there is/was an advantage to it the teams will/would use and exploit it. With that type of thinking you are saying that no one in their right mind would have ever designed a mid-engined car, put a wing on the rear, used a fan to pull air out from under it, put six wheels on it, used the gearbox case as a stressed member of the chassis, tried a turbo, used a toluene based fuel, designed a flexible front wing that passes the load test then flexes once the load is surpassed, installed a deformable nose structure, programmed variable torque maps, tried an exhaust blown diffusers, designed a coanda exhausts, a double DRS system, used a double diffuser, worked with a slot gap in the rear body work, used starter holes as aerodynamic devices for advantage, designed an F-ducts that requires the driver to use the back of their hands/knee or other body part at 300+KPH to seal a small orifice in the cockpit body, designed a CVT transmission, used active suspension systems, tried pull rod over traditional push rod suspension, the list is almost endless!! Most of these were deemed "out of their mind" but they ALL WORKED and some were banned because they worked too well!!!

EVERY major advantage in F1 has come from people thinking "outside the box" and bringing innovation to F1 for an advantage!!

Do you think that the FiA would allow extra fuel flow for the fuel you propose to add at the compressor inlet?

They already have under the current 2014 regulations. Only proactive (now) or retrospective (later) amendment would prohibit it use.

The way fuel flow is monitored I would very much doubt that.

I think you are simply incorrect and you can doubt all you like. It is currently possible. What you are arguing is "will the FIA like it"? Who cares, if the regulations allow it they can do it. IF the FIA do not like it then they have to amend the regulations. In either case it does not change the fact you have IMO interpreted the regulations incorrectly and instead of having a rational discussion you can't see you might have been wrong and wave it away as splitting hairs.

So the net effect is that we will see engines with 100% DI. Anything else and I will be very surprised and will certainly acknowledge your talent for loop hole finding.

NO, just no. The effect is YOU think we will see 100% DI. Unless you have some insight into the engine manufacturers or skills akin to Nostrodamus then you cannot possibly know what we WILL SEE!!!

As for loophole finding, that's how BrawnGP won in 2009, RBR have dominated ever since. Ferrari, McLaren, and William back in the 80's & 90's all won their titles. Perhaps you should look at quantity surveying if you want something without loopholes and perfectly definitive.

Regarding the waste gates I have made the caveat that I feel is appropriate. I may be right or wrong. We will see. I have no desire to argue over it.

What caveat where?? You simply stated that:

3. No fluids bypassing the exhaust turbine can be fed back into the exhaust system. I guess that kills waste gates as you cannot exhaust them legally by any other means as the designated exhaust system.

Which you then tried to wiggle out of with this gem when it was pointed out that perhaps you may have misinterpreted the regulation:

Technically gases are regarded as fluids hence the abbreviation CFD (computational fluid dynamics) for aerodynamic computations.

You obviously hadn't read or understood the regulations when they clear state:

ARTICLE 15 : CAR CONSTRUCTION even details "3) Fluids (e.g. water, oils)"

5.8.1 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system), all (and only) the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system.

5.8.2 Engine exhaust systems may incorporate no more than two exits, both of which must be rearward facing tailpipes, through which all exhaust gases must pass.

Sure if you don't want to defend your position then I have no problem with that, our choice.

HOWEVER, if you do so during a public discussion you SHOULD expect to be called out on it if you throw a hissy fit when someone disagrees with you.

[steve12345]

a fuel atomizer, as aussiegman described, sounds like fuel injection to me. How you control it wouldn't change the fact that you sprayed the fuel into the system under pressure - injected it?
doubt that carbies wil be used in addition to direct injection - I don't know enough to argue that there isn't some reason why they would be.

[aussiegman]

a fuel atomizer, as aussiegman described, sounds like fuel injection to me. How you control it wouldn't change the fact that you sprayed the fuel into the system under pressure - injected it?
doubt that carbies wil be used in addition to direct injection - I don't know enough to argue that there isn't some reason why they would be.

Hey, I ABSOLUTELY know what you are saying, BUT it depends on the determination of "what is an injector"??

You do not have to inject 100% via DI, fluids can enter the compressor inlet and you can spray fuel into the inlet charge. All of these things the regulations allow.

I personally think it is poor wording from the FIA that should read with something more akin to "not fuel delivery devices" rather than no injectors to achieve what WB and I think the FIA are trying to achieve.

However without more definitive wording it allows you to use a non-injector fuel delivery device pre-compressor.

The question then becomes is there enough of an advantage and can you get it to work efficiently??

[matt21]

However without more definitive wording it allows you to use a non-injector fuel delivery device pre-compressor.

The question then becomes is there enough of an advantage and can you get it to work efficiently??

What about using a carburettor?

[Tommy Cookers]

the question of where best to introduce fuel into the induction air stream was a red-hot topic 70 years ago, in WW2 aircraft engines
it was never settled, each side of the argument was supported by huge production quantities

here for 2014 we are every second introducing maybe 10 billion molecules of fuel, each molecule will evaporatively cool only once
do we improve the supercharging compression process, or the in-cylinder compression process, or make some compromise ?

(and everything depends on real-time measurement of gravimetric fuel rate for each fuel, to 0.01% accuracy throughout each race)

[pgfpro]

I'm not understanding the rules when it comes to waste-gates.

Exhaust rule # 5.6 Exhaust systems :
Engine exhaust systems may incorporate no more than two exits and the final 100mm of any
tailpipe must be cylindrical.

Are the exits through the body work or is it one exit tail pipe?

Exhaust rule # 5.3.8 When establishing conformity with Article 5.3.5 the power unit will not include :
- Energy store.
- Flywheel, main driveline clutch and the actuation system.
- Electronic Control Units or any associated devices containing programmable
semiconductors.
- Wiring between the ES and any Electronic Control Unit.
- Exhaust pipes beyond the turbine exit and beyond any waste gate exit.
- The intake system up to the compressor inlet.
- Heat shields.
2014 F1 Technical Regulations 23 / 77 14 July 2011
© 2011 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
- Studs used to mount the power unit to the chassis and gearbox.
- Water system accumulators.
- Heat exchangers and their associated hoses, pipes and other accessories.
- Hydraulic system.
- Fuel feed pumps and their associated accessories.
- Any ancillary equipment associated with the engine air valve system.

Why do they bring up waste gates?

So with the new revised rule it looks like no more waste gates? I'm wondering if after engine testing they have come to the conclusion that there isn't any need for the waste gate and they can control turbo wheel speed with the MGU?

EDIT It looks like 5.3.8 rule has been removed.
Exhaust pipes beyond the turbine exit and beyond any waste gate exit.

[WhiteBlue]

@aussiegman
You seem to be quite obsessive in the way you pursue you personal criticism of me. I' m not going to comment on that because I think it belongs into PM if a user feels the need to lecture other about their style. I'm just going to say that I have no intention to lecture anybody or insist on an opinion that turns out wrong. There are numerous examples of me doing retractions on opinions that turned out erroneous. My interest is exchange of technical information and enriching my own knowledge of the sport by exchange with others here. If someone has the impression that I consider myself "king" of this thread the impression is far from the reality. I do have a certain affection for this thread because it deals with a subject that has fascinated me for a long time.

So on topic I will say just three things.

1. I believe having read the latest regulation version that all fuel injection has to be direct into the cylinders and by one injector only per cylinder. This is a departure from the last draft which permitted port injection of 25% of the fuel. I'm not convinced by speculations that fuel might be introduced by any other means than injection.

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

The total fuel mass flow is fixed and adding other less efficient delivery methods of questionable legality will not increase the fuel an engine might use legally.

2. I admit that I don't understand what kind of fluids are supposed to enter the compressor inlet unless the regulation take air for a fluid. If it isn't air that is meant by the regulations then how are those fluids to get there? Injecting or quirting anything into the air intakes is prohibited and fuel isn't to added there either (compare 1). So what liquid can enter the the compressor legally? I would like to understand it.

3. Waste gate. From a design philosophy point of view I believe that the 2014 engines will not need a primary waste gate except for safety purposes, but not for regular use. In my first post I have actually misread the exhaust paragraphs and mixed compressor inlet with turbine inlet. So I better withdraw my guess on waste gates completely. My view is now that we will discover how engineers deal with this when the engines hit the tracks.

All of this is my personal opinion and other users are perfectly entitled to have their own deviating opinions.

[langwadt]

I may have a limited imagination, but I can't see how:

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

meaning anything but a single injector in each cylinder supplying 100% of the fuel

[aussiegman]

I may have a limited imagination, but I can't see how:

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

meaning anything but a single injector in each cylinder supplying 100% of the fuel

Mate not at all. It is just my opinion from my look at the other complimentary regulations. So in non-linear order:

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

So only one (1) DI per cylinder. That's the starting parameter.

5.8.1 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system), all (and only) the fluids entering the compressor inlet must exit from the engine exhaust system.

This allows that IF you were to introduce any fluid into the system other than through DI it must enter through the compressor inlet.

5.14.2 Other than engine sump breather gases, exhaust gas recirculation, and fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine, the spraying of any substance into the engine intake air is forbidden.

5.14.2 specifically ALLOWS you to spray fuel into the engine intake air for the normal purpose of combustion, yet it does not specify where that must take place.

So we are left with:

1) Under the above 5.10.2 allows you to do this via one (1) DI per cylinder.
and
2) Under 5.8.1 it allows you to do this pre-compressor inlet as long as you do not use an injector and the fuel is used for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine.

Nowhere in the revised 2014 regulations does it simply state that 100% of fuel must be injected via DI. That regulation simply is not there. Maybe its not there for a reason??

[thisisatest]

what means are there to get fuel in upstream of the turbo? like a carburator jet?