2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

...From my point of view it could be also difficult for the designers when the regs change several times.

There is usually a lively exchange of technical directives and in the working groups that we don't realize. So to the development engineers such changes do not come as a surprise. They simply reflect what they already heard before.

[xpensive]

...From my point of view it could be also difficult for the designers when the regs change several times.

There is usually a lively exchange of technical directives and in the working groups that we don't realize. So to the development engineers such changes do not come as a surprise. They simply reflect what they already heard before.

Good Lord WB, this you know how?

[lio007]

...From my point of view it could be also difficult for the designers when the regs change several times.

There is usually a lively exchange of technical directives and in the working groups that we don't realize. So to the development engineers such changes do not come as a surprise. They simply reflect what they already heard before.

ah...ok, that makes sense. Thanks for this info!

[WhiteBlue]

@x
That is the way regulations evolve. It is easy to know it if you follow the publications. Particularly the in season rule changes are extensively covered and by reading the specialized press you learn about the mechanisms. Have a look at Scarbs' blog or tweets and you can learn a lot of things that he picked up from the technical directors or development engineers ahead of the official FiA publication.

One thing that comes to mind was the low nose regulation he reported long before the 2014 first tech reg version came out. Some of the discussions around the 100 kg race fuel cap were known years before the sporting regulations were published last week.

[xpensive]

What can I say, blessed are those who follow the specialized press and believe that people like Scarbs or Saward has the inside lane on what's really going on, I'm sure that Dieter Rencken knew that the Brawn fraud with he DDD would be given a pass?

[WhiteBlue]

I would not count Saward into that circle of bloggers and journalists. His interest is more political than technical. Michael Schmidt comes to mind and certainly Dieter Rencken.

I'm sure that Dieter Rencken knew that the Brawn fraud with he DDD would be given a pass?

I'm not familiar with that story. I always assumed that the DDD decision was unplanned and technically not justified. It appeared to me more like a way to punish Ferrari for their stance in the budget cap debate. One of the little stunts Max did to stroke his considerable ego. Montezemolo secretly claimed Ferrari's right to veto any decision by the FiA and Max saw it fit to show him what he thought of that. At least that is my private view of the 2009 scandal.

[xpensive]

...
I'm not familiar with that story.
...

Perhaps you do not follow the specialized press close enough then?

[WhiteBlue]

Perhaps you are comparing apples and bananas here. Tech regulation and FiA jurisdiction was a different animal under Mosley than they are under Todt lately.

Please remember that my original comment was aimed at the issue of waste gate design for the 2014 formula and that the question poster was quite satisfied with my explanation.

[monsi]

5.8.2 Engine exhaust systems must have only a single tailpipe exit which must be rearward facing and through which all exhaust gases must pass.

.

Any potential advantage in sucking in air from elsewhere into the exhaust ?

[ringo]

About the wastegate,
Did the rules say that they are illegal?
I feel teams will still implement a wastegate, it would be quite wise to have it for safety purposes.
Also it acts as another means of control.
We don't know what can go wrong with the complication of the TERS, and maybe a wastegate can act as a means of mitigating damge, or a means to allow a car with a problematic energy system to finish a race.
Having it as redundancy is cheap insurance. It wont take up much space under the engine cover either.
Also it's also a much more precise, simpler and quicker reacting form of boost control i'd imagine.

5.8.2 Engine exhaust systems must have only a single tailpipe exit which must be rearward facing and through which all exhaust gases must pass.

The bolded text is new in V3 of the 2014 regulations. At the same time all references to waste gates have been deleted from the regs. Unless you rejoin the waste gate to the single exhaust pipe it will be illegal. In any case you would have to set the waste gate very high to make sure you harvest all available energy by the MGU-H.

Well there can be waste gates as long as it;s plumbed back into the single exit. It doesn't explicitly state they are banned.
I guess the teams will be testing their engines with and without. But it's not super critical, as i'm sure teams have always been free to modify and update exhaust systems; the waste gate wont be an exception to that.
If for some reason they feel the need to implement it, then i suppose it can be added.

[WhiteBlue]

Well there can be waste gates as long as it;s plumbed back into the single exit. It doesn't explicitly state they are banned.
I guess the teams will be testing their engines with and without. But it's not super critical, as i'm sure teams have always been free to modify and update exhaust systems; the waste gate wont be an exception to that.
If for some reason they feel the need to implement it, then i suppose it can be added.

We seem to be singing from the same sheet here. The main point I wanted to make is that the waste gate is not going to be functional in terms of limiting the compressor pressure and leaking away all the excess exhaust gas. Regulating compressor pressure will be done by the MGU-H primarily with a potential waste gate only for safety feature.

Any potential advantage in sucking in air from elsewhere into the exhaust ?

I believe the single centrally placed exhaust regulation is aimed at making it difficult to use the exhaust gas for aerodynamically blowing any surface and particularly to seal the diffusor against wheel vortices as the teams are doing with the current cars. I'm not aware of any advantage of sucking air into the tail pipe.

[Holm86]

Is there even any idea in having a wastegate for safety reasons?? Wouldn't it be simpler to have some sort of bleed valve in the intake manifold that bleeds excess air when a boost limit is reached.

And this got me thinking a little bit. When using a wastegate you can only direct excess exhaust gasses into the main exhaust outlet.

But is there anything in the regulations about where you could direct excess boost if you bleed from the compressor side instead? What if you used the excess boost in a DRD device?? Or bleed it via a pipe to the underside of the rear wing etc.??

If you understand what I'm thinking about?

[ringo]

Yes a waste gate can control back pressure. A generator on a shaft cannot do so because it is just a load.
It is not a pressure relief.
In fact now that i think of it, waste gates will be used on all engines. The generator as i said is a load, it is not a governor in the pure sense.
A turbine can be governed by controlling flow of gases through it. And what is most important is the turbine torque.
the torque controls the speed, and the compressor performance operates off that speed.

The gases apply a torque to the turbine blades, and so can the generator. However in an over-boost condition, it would not be wise to artificially overload the generator to control the speed. Not only can it not cause instant pressure relief but It would generate too much heat.
Makes no sense fighting turbine torque with electrical torque to govern speed. For the life of the turbine it's best to have a waste gate. We don't want the blades to be overly stressed, especially if it's not needed.

A waste gate also allows more flexibility in turbine selection. you can use much smaller turbines, or much larger depending on what you are trying to accomplish.
This cannot be said for the generator, as it will require a power input or a load to create a torque so have some kind of speed control, this is additional programming and complication, and it wont be as instantaneous or bullet proof.


As for bleeding compressed air to astmosphere, teams would probably bleed this back to in front of the compressor to improve efficiency since that air represents energy that was used to compress it in the first place.

[WhiteBlue]

I cannot fully follow your train of thoughts here. What would create a dangerous back pressure in the first place? Perhaps if the bearing of the turbo shaft has gone wrong and is destroying the assembly? That would be a situation which is going to give us a catastrophically failure anyway. A safety waste gate could help to make it less dramatic. Under normal operating conditions an excess back pressure situation would be cleared by reducing the generator load so that the exhaust gas would stream over the turbine without an excess torque. Such a situation could only be created by a run away engine that produces to much exhaust gas or by a malfunction in the MGU-H control. Both situations are unlikely or fatal for a normal operation. Hence I maintain my view that a waste gate is not necessary under normal operating conditions. It will perhaps help with certain failure modes but the design engineers will have to decide if it is worth the weight and space to put the gate in there. It would be a trade off that does not make a big difference. Under standard operating conditions there would be no use of the waste gate and no loss of energy associated with it.

[wuzak]

If you use a wastegate there will be no extra torque on the turbine, and thus no recovered power.

I think the conversion of exhaust turbine energy into electrical power will be one of the main areas of development. Particularly since the amount of energy recovered is unlimited by the regulations. The maximum power is defined by whatthe MGUK can use (ie 120kW), but it is unlikely that anybody will ever approach that.