2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[pgfpro]

Interesting stuff, though I have problem with the imperial units, but I can read 650 Hp from the engine and the turbo-shaft power to fall from 67 to 50 Hp, how much will be left for the MGU-H then. Please xplain where I lost it?

OK on your first plot on input #6 you have 49.7 HP that is used to drive the compressor with a Calculated Percentage of Wastegating of 48.86% . So the MGUH would have 47.4 HP usable if it wasn't dumped out the waste gate.

Now once again this is how I'm seeing things.

[WhiteBlue]

As you will notice this is a much smaller turbine. Any larger it will error because its a invalid match turbine to compressor. The reason is the starting point of 4000 rpm. You have to run a very small turbine for the turbo to match at this low 1.64 turbine expansion ratio with a 0.32 calculated percent of waste gating fraction. In fact I should make the turbine even smaller but then you are fighting the high flow high rpm later on.

Thanks pgfpro for the effort. I think that the inherent program conditions will not allow us to get a proper simulation of the 2014 F1 conditions. But it provided a good idea what commercial programs do.

[pgfpro]

As you will notice this is a much smaller turbine. Any larger it will error because its a invalid match turbine to compressor. The reason is the starting point of 4000 rpm. You have to run a very small turbine for the turbo to match at this low 1.64 turbine expansion ratio with a 0.32 calculated percent of waste gating fraction. In fact I should make the turbine even smaller but then you are fighting the high flow high rpm later on.

Thanks pgfpro for the effort. I think that the inherent program conditions will not allow us to get a proper simulation of the 2014 F1 conditions. But it provided a good idea what commercial programs do.

WB I 100% agree!!!

This is all based on the radial turbo's of today. Match Bot is a great tool to kind of see what happens when changes are made with today's turbo's. As you can see the phi curve plots go backwards when rpm increases due to the fuel rule. This is because usually turbos aren't limited to fuel as rpm increases and most the time boost will increase with rpm.

I also believe the MGUH will act as a boost controller. If I were designing these new engines I would want all the exhaust energy to pass through the turbine.

From my own compounding stage turbo systems I have built you learn real quick that no exhaust can be wasted until it gets past the primary turbo (one that sees the exhaust last). You also see that exhaust energy is pretty much unchanged as it passes through the secondary turbo and large gates. It still amazes me.

So with what these brilliant engineers that build F1 engines I'm sure they will extract a lot of energy from the turbine. =D>

[ringo]

I'm not sure how the thing updates, could you try it for 15,000rpm?

For my model, i made changes on the turbine and combustion front. This is why i moved my prediction from 640hp to that lower value of 540hp. It's all homemade, i will review it, but after looking at the thermal efficiency it's about right.
I'll check for any other errors still.

As for efficiency no race engine on it's own will give 38% . Whiteblue i think you are looking at engines running with stratified charge and egr operation most of the running time and other fuel efficiency technologies, and even in this modern day Toyota, who is probably the leading name in that department, have yet to create a production engine that can see this kind of thermal efficiency in the real world conditions.
They probably have a one cylinder model doing this in a certain state, but i doubt there is a production engine on the road with 38% efficiency.

[xpensive]

Interesting stuff, though I have problem with the imperial units, but I can read 650 Hp from the engine and the turbo-shaft power to fall from 67 to 50 Hp, how much will be left for the MGU-H then. Please xplain where I lost it?

OK on your first plot on input #6 you have 49.7 HP that is used to drive the compressor with a Calculated Percentage of Wastegating of 48.86% . So the MGUH would have 47.4 HP usable if it wasn't dumped out the waste gate.

Now once again this is how I'm seeing things.

Makes a lot of sense to me, an MGU-H generator of 40 or 50 kW sounds about right.

[ringo]

Is the horsepower figure brake horse power or indicated power ignoring friction?

If the mechanical efficiency of 85% is to be applied you are looking at 0.85*650 = 552hp.

Which is where i'm at roughly with 534hp. In fact that could be where i went wrong earlier, maybe i was quoting indicated power ignoring friction and not brake power.
It would be nice to know what the value is, we need the friction and pumping losses to get a true idea of what the engine will put out.
650hp is arbitrary without that borg warner thing giving us an input for mechanical efficiency.

[pgfpro]

I'm not sure how the thing updates, could you try it for 15,000rpm?

For my model, i made changes on the turbine and combustion front. This is why i moved my prediction from 640hp to that lower value of 540hp. It's all homemade, i will review it, but after looking at the thermal efficiency it's about right.
I'll check for any other errors still.

As for efficiency no race engine on it's own will give 38% . Whiteblue i think you are looking at engines running with stratified charge and egr operation most of the running time and other fuel efficiency technologies, and even in this modern day Toyota, who is probably the leading name in that department, have yet to create a production engine that can see this kind of thermal efficiency in the real world conditions.
They probably have a one cylinder model doing this in a certain state, but i doubt there is a production engine on the road with 38% efficiency.

Here ya go. I just reused ringo's first plot and change the last #6 rpm input to 15000 rpm.

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

[pgfpro]

Is the horsepower figure brake horse power or indicated power ignoring friction?

If the mechanical efficiency of 85% is to be applied you are looking at 0.85*650 = 552hp.

Which is where i'm at roughly with 534hp. In fact that could be where i went wrong earlier, maybe i was quoting indicated power ignoring friction and not brake power.
It would be nice to know what the value is, we need the friction and pumping losses to get a true idea of what the engine will put out.
650hp is arbitrary without that borg warner thing giving us an input for mechanical efficiency.

The math behind the Match Bot HP is just the typical EFI standard based on Fuel use and BSFC. The same one I use that was taught to me by Ben Strader of EFI University.

Its very simple. 220 lbs/hr divided by 0.34 BSFC lb/hp-hr

220 / .34 = 647 HP

So its HP that you would be measuring at the flywheel.

Keep in mind these BSFC of .34 are my guess. You can change the BSFC numbers on the Match Bot.

[1158]

Those sources are sensationalists. Until we hear one of the engine makers give a figure, then we have a good source.

Look on any turbo 1.6 engine out there on the street, and see if they are going to make over 750hp on 100kg/hr of fuel.
As i said blame it on the fuel rate.

I'm not saying i'm correct, but i have a foundation. I'm just going to stick with it and see what happens.

Not sure how valid this comparison will be but I can add some known numbers to the discussion.

Not quite apples to apples, but WTH. My 1.8 is currently making 470 at the wheels (I estimate almost 550 at the flywheel) with 1000 cc/min (about 44kg/hr) injectors at about 90% duty cycle. I realize I have more displacement, but I'm not using direct injection (only about 70 psi at full boost vs 500 psi) and only reving to just over 8000. This is a Honda engine in a car not originally designed for FI running on US 93 octane. Not sure how that compares to the fuel the F1 teams will be running but I would bet it is inferior.

Just looking at hp/L that comes out to 305 at the flywheel. If we have the same efficiency in a 1.6 that would work out to just under 490 at the flywheel. I realize this is devoid of calculations and making a lot of assumptions but I can believe 600-650 with 100kg/hr based on this.

I also want to add that I feel I have to be missing something somewhere. It can't be that easy can it? Please feel free to pick this apart. I want to learn all I can.

Noet: Edited power (bolded) was a typo was thinking 600 but wrote 700...

[pgfpro]

Those sources are sensationalists. Until we hear one of the engine makers give a figure, then we have a good source.

Look on any turbo 1.6 engine out there on the street, and see if they are going to make over 750hp on 100kg/hr of fuel.
As i said blame it on the fuel rate.

I'm not saying i'm correct, but i have a foundation. I'm just going to stick with it and see what happens.

Not sure how valid this comparison will be but I can add some known numbers to the discussion.

Not quite apples to apples, but WTH. My 1.8 is currently making 470 at the wheels (I estimate almost 550 at the flywheel) with 1000 cc/min (about 44kg/hr) injectors at about 90% duty cycle. I realize I have more displacement, but I'm not using direct injection (only about 70 psi at full boost vs 500 psi) and only reving to just over 8000. This is a Honda engine in a car not originally designed for FI running on US 93 octane. Not sure how that compares to the fuel the F1 teams will be running but I would bet it is inferior.

Just looking at hp/L that comes out to 305 at the flywheel. If we have the same efficiency in a 1.6 that would work out to just under 490 at the flywheel. I realize this is devoid of calculations and making a lot of assumptions but I can believe 700-750 with 100kg/hr.

I had a Honda 1.6L about ten years ago that made 418whp. I was running a Haltech and figured around .40 BSFC. For that time was not to bad. Then I went to EFI 101 class and found out some of the 1.8L FI Honda engines were running around .38 BSFC (38 BTE) on engine dynos with very precise fuel flow equipment.

Now there is rumor that the big guns are running around .36 BSFC (40 BTE) on port injected engines. A lot of the improvement came from the port injectors of today.

[1158]

I had a Honda 1.6L about ten years ago that made 418whp. I was running a Haltech and figured around .40 BSFC. For that time was not to bad. Then I went to EFI 101 class and found out some of the 1.8L FI Honda engines were running around .38 BSFC (38 BTE) on engine dynos with very precise fuel flow equipment.

Now there is rumor that the big guns are running around .36 BSFC (40 BTE) on port injected engines. A lot of the improvement came from the port injectors of today.

What size injectors were you running? Just curious. When I started I only wanted 300whp lol that was about 8 years ago. The car is to the point where it is almost too much power for the street lol. I recently broke teeth off the ring gear and the countershaft so now I'm building the transmission.

Sorry for off topic post

[pgfpro]

I had a Honda 1.6L about ten years ago that made 418whp. I was running a Haltech and figured around .40 BSFC. For that time was not to bad. Then I went to EFI 101 class and found out some of the 1.8L FI Honda engines were running around .38 BSFC (38 BTE) on engine dynos with very precise fuel flow equipment.

Now there is rumor that the big guns are running around .36 BSFC (40 BTE) on port injected engines. A lot of the improvement came from the port injectors of today.

What size injectors were you running? Just curious. When I started I only wanted 300whp lol that was about 8 years ago. The car is to the point where it is almost too much power for the street lol. I recently broke teeth off the ring gear and the countershaft so now I'm building the transmission.

Sorry for off topic post

They were 98 lb/hr or 1000cc/min injectors.
Flowed 176 lb/hr total or 80 kg/hr total for the non yanks
26 psi of boost @ 7500rpm
IAT 130*F
duty cycle of only 45% lol at 43psi rail pressure
12.0 A/F ratio on a 50/50 mix of 92 pump and C16

This was also just a D16 Z6 engine single cam. lol

Anyway to keep on topic I get where coming from. On my 1.6L engine over ten years ago .40 BSFC or .36 BTE is not to bad for some junk and old technology. lol The new F1 engines should be able to easily run around .34 BSFC

[WhiteBlue]

If I take Marmorini's power figures I get 485 kW and 448kW respectively. Fuel flow of 27.78 g/s @ 46 kJ/g gives you 1278 kW thermal power from the fuel flow. By doing the ratio I get 35% and 38% BTE. Those are the figures we have agreed so far for fuel specific energy. So where am I wrong? It all depends if you think Marmorini is a dependable source which so far nobody has denied. So why do we now suddenly think that the BTE for these figures are crap? We knew for a long time that the 2014 ICEs would be much more efficient than the current race engines by merit of direct injection, less friction, improved thermal efficiency and turbo charging. How would anybody expect to reduce fuel consumption at equal performance by 37% without a huge break through in ICE efficiency. 5-8% BTE improvement is very well in the expected range if you ask me. Direct injection alone can give you a big chunk of that by going from homogeneous to stratified injection and to a much higher AFR.

[1158]

They were 98 lb/hr or 1000cc/min injectors.
Flowed 176 lb/hr total or 80 kg/hr total for the non yanks
26 psi of boost @ 7500rpm
IAT 130*F
duty cycle of only 45% lol at 43psi rail pressure
12.0 A/F ratio on a 50/50 mix of 92 pump and C16

This was also just a D16 Z6 engine single cam. lol

Anyway to keep on topic I get where coming from. On my 1.6L engine over ten years ago .40 BSFC or .36 BTE is not to bad for some junk and old technology. lol The new F1 engines should be able to easily run around .34 BSFC

Wow, the single cams are not generally regarded as having a good flowing head. Your numbers further bolster my hopes that the mentioned 600-650 ICE is possible. I figure you were around 480 at the flywheel. I can see a purpose built race engine gaining 150 hp over a single cam D series.

FWIW I'm trying to calculate the fuel flow of my current set up but I do not know the speed of the fuel and the drivetrain is torn apart so I cannot attempt to measure it.

[pgfpro]

If I take Marmorini's power figures I get 485 kW and 448kW respectively. Fuel flow of 27.78 g/s @ 46 kJ/g gives you 1278 kW thermal power from the fuel flow. By doing the ratio I get 35% and 38% BTE. Those are the figures we have agreed so far for fuel specific energy. So where am I wrong? It all depends if you think Marmorini is a dependable source which so far nobody has denied. So why do we now suddenly think that the BTE for these figures are crap? We knew for a long time that the 2014 ICEs would be much more efficient than the current race engines by merit of direct injection, less friction, improved thermal efficiency and turbo charging. How would anybody expect to reduce fuel consumption at equal performance by 37% without a huge break through in ICE efficiency. 5-8% BTE improvement is very well in the expected range if you ask me. Direct injection alone can give you a big chunk of that by going from homogeneous to stratified injection and to a much higher AFR.

Is this directed to me??? Im with you I think we will see over 40% BTE