2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

What I'm talking about is todays 2014 rules based on fuel limit. The MGUH will be the boost controller and always control boost pressure by turbine load. The EMS will probably be reading fuel flow in turn this will dictate how much load to put on the turbine to control turbo wheel speed instead of todays boost reference waste-gate control turbo charger's.

Pressure in the intake cannot drop, but should be maintained as a constant by the MGUH. I am not sure how this is works (as i know jack about electicals), as when MGUH is in Generator mode and connected to the 120 KW MGUK in motor mode how is the pressure on the intake maintained?

In generator mode a permanent magnet electric servo machine is controlled by the same induction mechanism, pretty much as in motor mode. By the SW you control the electric magnet side in frequency and amplitude. So it is all SW driven.

[Tommy Cookers]

QUESTION ! do the rules make this clear
is the electric propulsion action (total from all sources of electricity) limited to 4 MJ/lap ?
or is just propulsion action of electrical energy from storage that's limited to 4MJ/lap ?
there's a big difference
EDIT I thank you, WilliamsF1

[FW17]

QUESTION ! do the rules make this clear
is the electric propulsion action (total from all sources of electricity) limited to 4 MJ/lap ?
or is just propulsion action of electrical energy from storage that's limited to 4MJ/lap ?
there's a big difference

Here is the schematic to answer some of it

[FW17]

Are cars allowed to carry a compressed air cylinder to feed into the intercooler?

[Tommy Cookers]

presumably then 2014 engines could run eg on combinations of 6 and 5 cylinders, as preferred
one way to reconcile the fixed fuel rate with the greater rev range required with the severe limits on whole-season overall ratios(down in 2014 from 30 to 8, so requiring a rev range typical of a 6 speed gearbox)

I cannot see any advantage in cylinder shut down. Controlling the engine power by variable boost will be much smarter. The 2014 engines will have massive torque and drivability. Why would anybody bother with switching off cylinders? If you want less power at a given engine rpm you simply jack up the torque demand from the MGUH and the boost goes down to meet the torque demand. You can still use the electric power from the MGUH for some purposes. Much nicer than messing with cut off.

ideas of driveability are based on 99.99% of our time using a rising or flattish torque curve and a correspondingly rising power curve
the 2014 engines driveability is not good (relative to the task required by the rules on gearing)
generally the engine will operate at 10500-12300 rpm
because of the fixed fuelling rate over 10500 rpm we can only hope for a flat power curve, ie a falling torque curve
but in reality, engine efficiency is best at 10500 and falls with rpm, so we have a falling power curve and a worse torque curve
that is, power drops with rpm above 10500
this power drop happens whatever we do with the engine (because we cannot increase fuelling with rpm)
eg maintaining boost with rpm compresses 17% more air uselessly (wasting piston and supercharger power) and slows combustion due to weaker mixture
dropping boost with rpm avoids these but degrades TE
both give less exhaust energy and recovery (relative to massflow)

modulated displacement (a blend of 6 and 5 cylinder running by zero fuelling and port closure) gives the least total power drop
(MD has good exhaust energy and recovery)
MD adjusts the engine displacement to match rpm increase to fixed fuel rate
so maintaining optimal mixture strength and optimal use of CR
controlling electrical loading/driving of the turbo applies equally to MD operation

such loading/driving can never cure the basic problem of power drop over 10500
power drop is inherent with purist interpretation of fuelling rules, if a less purist interpretation is intended, all the problems disappear

[dren]

A closed port would fall under a variable geometry port, which is banned until 2015. How would the switch from 6 to 5 cylinders affect vibration?

[Holm86]

A closed port would fall under a variable geometry port, which is banned until 2015. How would the switch from 6 to 5 cylinders affect vibration?

Is variable geometry legal from 2015?? Or is the regulations for 2015 just not defined yet??

[Tommy Cookers]

flow through (inlet) ports is frequently closed off , or very nearly so, with a throttle
that's the sort of thing that I had in mind
nothing involving variation of valve motion

[matt21]

5.9.3 Variable valve timing and variable valve lift systems are not permitted.

But there is nothing which allows the throttles to be operated differently, if you find a way to do this with one actuator for all throttles.

[FW17]

Magneti Marelli unviels new hardware for new 2014 rules


Auto123.com
R Fagnan,
Monday, September 10, 2012

Italian electronic company Magneti Marelli used the paddock of Autodromo di Monza last weekend to reveal some of their new hardware destined to run the new 1600cm3, V6 turbo engines in 2014.


Photo: WRI2
Magneti Marelli engineers started by showing their new ERS system -- an engine boost coming from the recovery of kinetic energy during braking associated with the energy coming from exhaust gases, both aimed at feeding the electrical motor-generators hooked up to the engine shaft).


Heat exhaust recovery system (Photo: WRI2)
Then, they unviled their new fuel systems (injectors and pumps for GDI engines with fuel pressure of up to 500 bar) as well as their two-way WI-FI systems for data transmission from vehicle to infrastructure (i.e., exchange of a much larger set of data and of different types of signals between machine and pit).


Different KERS components (Photo: WRI2)
In their press release, Magneti Marelli writes that the technology and methods used in developing the KERS system are a source of solutions and technological spin-offs for systems and components aimed at mass-produced hybrid and electric engines (moto-generators, electronic control systems, inverters, battery control, etc.).

After seeing that turbo, this previous configuration discussed here before looks all the more possible.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 4&start=45

[WhiteBlue]

The turbine definitely looks twin scroll to me and all the MGUs and power electronics are liquid cooled.

[ringo]

Just rambling here...

I predicted 120 kW can come from the generator, based on available energy from the turbos for a 640hp engine.
see here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=120
There is an unlimited amount of energy that can come from it to the energy control and to the storage.

However, the difference between the lowest energy state and the highest cannot be more than 4MJ.

Hypothetically the stores can house 8MJ of energy max, but It cannot expend more than 4MJ of that 8MJ.

So 4MJ may be used to power other things like electronincs, hydraulics; anything that uses power that is not on the engine. Which isn't really much if you think about it. I don't know if this energy is worth its weight in wires and connectors.

Whatever the case if KERS and TERS are charging, let's say at 2MJ each to give the max of 4MJ.
120kW TERS will charge it's 2MJ share in 33.33s. If it's charging and KERS is not for some reason, it will take 1:04 minutes.
The question is, How powerfull is KERS and how long does it take to give 2MJ?

[Tommy Cookers]

Just rambling here...
I predicted 120 kW can come from the generator, based on available energy from the turbos for a 640hp engine.
see here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=120
There is an unlimited amount of energy that can come from it to the energy control and to the storage.
However, the difference between the lowest energy state and the highest cannot be more than 4MJ.
Hypothetically the stores can house 8MJ of energy max, but It cannot expend more than 4MJ of that 8MJ
Whatever the case if KERS and TERS are charging, let's say at 2MJ each to give the max of 4MJ.
120kW TERS will charge it's 2MJ share in 33.33s. If it's charging and KERS is not for some reason, it will take 1:04 minutes.
The question is, How powerfull is KERS and how long does it take to give 2MJ?

120 kW will deliver 2MJ in 16.7 sec, not 33.3
the 2 MJ entitlement from the GUK can be traded for a correspondingly greater allowance from the GUT/storage route
in principle the GUK power is the MUK power ie 120 kW nominally
FWIW IMO they have no problem currently recovering by KERS at the current max ie 60 kW (anyone have the broadcast data ?)
similarly they will be able to 'recover' with GUK at 120 kW
(this is mostly direct transfer from artificially high engine power on the overrun as stated by the Renault man describing torque maps in the recent article, the engine accessing 'free' fuel, ie fuel that the engine cannot otherwise use or save)

[ringo]

I was referring to if the Generator was charging 4MJ with the KERS doing nothing.

The KERS recovery rate i'm not so sure, guess it depends on the track's braking sections.

But for tracks like Monza or Canada the Generator can take over the charging mostly.

[WhiteBlue]

I was referring to if the Generator was charging 4MJ with the KERS doing nothing.

The KERS recovery rate i'm not so sure, guess it depends on the track's braking sections.

But for tracks like Monza or Canada the Generator can take over the charging mostly.

Ringo & TC, could you please use the correct terminology! The MGU that replaces the KERS is called MGUK. We can improve the understanding for all readers if we are consistent in the the regulation terminology. I find it very confusing to read all kind of different names all the time. So please entertain my little folly here.