2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

Would this type of charger be legal?? I believe its still a single stage turbo :

http://turbo.honeywell.com/whats-new-in ... opup=video

It has axial flow turbine. And double sided compressor wheel. The double sided compressor wheel is what makes me question its legality?? Though they are not two different sizes which I guess would make it single stage.

The design of the intake on this turbo reminds me of the wired round intake on the Renault engine pictures. It has this round shape right in front of the compressor housing :
http://www.f1-fansite.com/wp-content/up ... ne-top.jpg


More on the honywell turbo :
http://turbo.honeywell.com/our-technolo ... ochargers/

Yes, it is still a single stage compressor and single stage turbine.

A two stage compressor would have the output of one impeller feed into the intake of the other.

May be a problem if it has to be manufactured as two separate items, and then joined together on the shaft. Will have to lok at the rules about that. I think you're only allowed one impeller.

The Renault only has a single sided impeller. The shape and position of its intake is due to the fact that they have the MGUH mounted off the end of the drive shaft, and the air has to be drawn in through an annulus, rather than directly axially, as normal.

The other clue to it being single sided is that there is only one outlet, though these could be merged on the outlet.

[WhiteBlue]

I also think that both compressor and turbine will be qualified as single stage.

[pgfpro]

Here's how I'm coming up with around 40 Hp recover after the compressor takes its amount.

Look at Borg Warner's Match Bot on plot 6 at 10500 rpm with the correct fuel limit entered.
Compressor Drive HP is 38.69 HP with a compressor efficiency of 76%. At this point the Calculated Percent Wastegating is 50.88% My simplistic mind tells me that it takes 38.69 HP to drive the compressor(exhaust going through the turbine). If 50.88% of the exhaust is being dump out the gate and you decided to use all of it and run it through the turbine then it would be another 38.69 HP???

http://www.turbodriven.com//performance ... rsin=92044&

They gave a waste gate area, i think the waste gating % has to do with how much it is open? 100% would be fully open.

Nope that's mass flow Calculated Percent Wastegating Fraction.

[ringo]

Here's how I'm coming up with around 40 Hp recover after the compressor takes its amount.

Look at Borg Warner's Match Bot on plot 6 at 10500 rpm with the correct fuel limit entered.
Compressor Drive HP is 38.69 HP with a compressor efficiency of 76%. At this point the Calculated Percent Wastegating is 50.88% My simplistic mind tells me that it takes 38.69 HP to drive the compressor(exhaust going through the turbine). If 50.88% of the exhaust is being dump out the gate and you decided to use all of it and run it through the turbine then it would be another 38.69 HP???

http://www.turbodriven.com//performance ... rsin=92044&

They gave a waste gate area, i think the waste gating % has to do with how much it is open? 100% would be fully open.

Nope that's mass flow Calculated Percent Wastegating Fraction.

Where have you seen this explanation?

[pgfpro]

Where have you seen this explanation?

On the Borg Warner turbine tutorial, and the Borg Warner EFR turbine series explanation, and one phone call to BW to confirm.

[ringo]

what is it saying exactly?

If 50lb/hr of air goes through the exhaust system and 25lb goes through the waste gate then the % is 50?

The only thing i find weird with the calculator is the manipulation of the expansion ratio. It doesn't need to manipulated. It can be found if you know the flame temps and pressure.

i guess the % is dependent on the turbine used and yes the expansion ratio as this determines how much power is available. The temps as crucial.
The turbo expansion ratio is the ratio of the turbine inlet pressure to the outlet, which may be atmospheric plus the back pressures of the exhaust system.
For the F1 engines in 2014, they will exhaust to atmosphere or less. I think they will create shrouded body work that will pull vacuum over the exhaust pipe when the car is going at high speeds.

A turbine that can gates 50% is pretty good, i'm using one with an 85% efficiency in my calculations and i'm exhausting to atmosphere, no tail pipe or muffler system. My manifold pressure is also higher. If i found out how much would be gated after MGUH harvest it would be higher than that turbine.

In theory the MGUH can load the turbine through out the rev range, if the turbine is sized to have 0% wastegated flow for varying compressor and MGUH load ranges over the range of engine speeds. However i don't think things will be this flexible in real life. I'm still betting on seeing waste gates.
I'll try and put together that side of things on a graph to better understand how the MGUH will draw power over a range of engine speeds.

[WhiteBlue]

Pgfpro assumed a turbine efficiency of 70% and a back pressure of 2 psi compared to 85% and 0 or negative pressure by ringo. There you have some difference. There could be also some difference in the compressor and particularly in the temperature assumption making another big chunk of difference in energy budget. I have always thought that F1 will come up with something special in terms of turbine efficiency. The old aero engine had axial turbines with higher efficiency than your across the counter turbo. I was at some stage expecting multiple stages and variable nozzles, but someone put a spanner into the idea. Nevertheless the engineers will do their best to make as much power as they can. For instance Renault reported they will shroud the exhaust headers to stop temp losses between valves and the turbine. It shows that some serious effort is on the way to maximize the potential that Ringo explained.

I'm also asking myself if we will se higher temps due to the direct injection method and spray guided combustion. The old port injected engines will have produced a rich mixture with a lower temperature. Burning stoichiometric or even under stoichiometric will have an impact on temps.

One thing that got me thinking is the news that Ferrari was reducing the size of the spark plug. That makes sense because the cylinder diameter gets smaller. But it may not be the only explanation. If you want to combust spray guided you need space in the middle of your head for the injector and you need space for the spark plug at an angle to it. A smaller spark plug helps with the penalty on valve size that you may have to incurr. If you can make a big step in combustion efficiency you might accept more pumping losses in a force induced engine by getting the spark plug between the intake valves.

http://www.atzonline.com/Article/2895/S ... ction.html

The picture in this source shows how the injection comes from the centre and the ignition comes from the side into the hollow cone of stratified mixture where you usually have the valves.

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zTrNSsZvhL ... TrNSsZvhLw[/youtube]

Some features of spray guided combustion, saying that higher temperatures will be reached due to the compression and injection method.

[wuzak]

For the F1 engines in 2014, they will exhaust to atmosphere or less. I think they will create shrouded body work that will pull vacuum over the exhaust pipe when the car is going at high speeds.

They can't - the rules prohibit bodywork in the vacinity of the exhaust outlet, which has to be 200mm behind the rear axle line and of circular cross section, with a maximum outlet size.

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/wp-content/up ... _draft.jpg

[WhiteBlue]

For the F1 engines in 2014, they will exhaust to atmosphere or less. I think they will create shrouded body work that will pull vacuum over the exhaust pipe when the car is going at high speeds.

They can't - the rules prohibit bodywork in the vacinity of the exhaust outlet, which has to be 200mm behind the rear axle line and of circular cross section, with a maximum outlet size.

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/wp-content/up ... _draft.jpg

That is relative. The body work restriction is very close to the tail pipe and cylindrical around it. If you can do clever things with the central wing support/ monkey seat, you can also create an area of under pressure if that would be essential to getting more power.

[ringo]

Maybe i'm not a well organised guy, but i've been running through my simmulator sheet and made a few corrections.
Now I admit, i have't been sober or fully rested when i work on it, and sometimes i'm just plain sloppy; notwithstanding i have made some changes and noticed a few things.
The engines by themselves will be very aneamic from what i'm seeing. I thought i had made some error somewhere after the changes, but i have to accept after going through the thing over and over that the numbers i'm now getting are simply what it will be.

Ok folks, the engine is much weaker than expected. I made an error with the flame pressure during combustion on my posts here months ago. This flattered the power output of the engines. However i also increased the detail on the turbine side of things.

The engine is now a measly 534 bHp. yes that's assuming 85% mechanical efficiency. Now you may be wondering wtf?
This peaks at max engine speed. The teams will be using full revs. The power may grow up to 15000rpm and it will look quite linear. The torque shape is very flat.
Sorry for the erred data over the months.
But it was still in ball park any how, and it was rational.

However on the MGUH side, i realize that teams need to run it!! and if it fails it will be a major power loss!!
Since the engine is now weaker, the portion of the MGUH contribution is bigger.

Now a third point ....
When the engine and MGUH are working together it will generate about 776 Hp This i feel is where the rumored 800hp number is coming from the journalists.

yes the MGUH can slap on over 200hp on top of that 534hp... if it the MGUK were unlimited!!

Now, to kill the excitement. Unfortunately the MGUH to MGUK to the engine is restricted to 120kW, so instead of 534Hp + 240Hp from MGUH. We're only going to see 534+ 160Hp = 694Hp.
This 120kW will be fully developed by a little over 7000 rpm and will remain this way to redline as it's the limit. The excess will go to the energy store. The batteries can supply the MGUK the 120kW when the MGUH is not up to power. And they can also speed up the MGUH if need be.

That 534 is debatable still, it may be higher, but this whole post is to demonstrate that the MGUH will be vital and the power it can harvest is not to be ignored.
I don't trust the 534 too much, but that's what my calculation spit out. Blame it on the fuel limits o guess.

[Tommy Cookers]

I don't want to seem unappreciative or negative, but .....

are your calculations saying that the engine can give 534 crankshaft hp (wastegated) with the turbine unloaded
and 534 crankshaft hp when the generator load is pulling 240 mechanical hp from the turbine to give maybe 220 electrical hp ?
at the same fuel rate

isn't that saying that lots of engine companies (by ignoring this) have been dropping the ball for many decades ?

NOTE TO SELF
Wuzak's Allison T-C was most efficient (not most powerful) when run with exhaust 'backpressure' equal to induction pressure
there is of course no data regarding seperate crankshaft power and recovered power
maximum power was obtained with the exhaust boosted by adding air and burning the fuel surplus from rich mixture operation
the turbocharged comparison used only the formerly mechanically driven 1st stage supercharger ? (CHK)
so the real 'free power' % is not clear ??

[xpensive]

@ringo;

534 Hp from the engine would indicate a total efficiency of a disappointing 30%, I hope indeed that you are wrong.

As for the potential 240 Hp from the MGU-H, I doubt this number very much, besides a 175 kW generator would be of a serious size, even at 120 kW a cumbersome piece to package.

My conclusion from the posts above, speculating from 40 to 240 Hp, is that we have no idea of how much the MGU-H will yield.

[WhiteBlue]

Ringo, there is obviously something wrong with your engine calculation. There is almost universal agreement from all sources that the compounded output will match or exceed 760 hp. The rules allow only 120 electric kW power. So I suggest you use that figure to calibrate those things that are most shaky in your engine computation. I suspect it is the combustion process which will impact on thermal efficiency.

[ringo]

No it's not really far off.
Compare to the borg warner power output.

As for the MGUH power i know there will be descrepancies, as mentioned before these are purely theoretical.
The calculations aren't off.
Indeed the limitations will be with the physical size of the MGUH and also intertia of the whole system and turbine.

However i'm sure the engine power will be low. The borg worner calculator is using an interesting A:F ratio, when i increase that number from 11.5 the powers goes down, maybe adjustments need to be made on the selection of turbine and also the boost to get it back in the feul flow rate ball park. But i see good correlation with what i have and the Borg Warner site.

[xpensive]

No offense, but I think you're off by a mile or two, I guess we will see 620 engine Hp and 40-50 kW of MGU-H recovery.