2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[pgfpro]

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.

If you want I'm willing to give you my personal spreadsheet that I use to tune with. Its great at building fuel maps based on injector size.

[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.

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

No, it was more a general question aimed at those who disagree with those figures in order to trigger a review. If someone shows me where I'm wrong I'm prepared to accept other figures. But until that time I believe we got something that will stand up to scrutiny.

[Tommy Cookers]

nobody has been able to show you where you are wrong, although you so often are

stop using a lower calorific value than is correct for race gasolines such as our friend pgfpro uses and 2014 F1 will use
at best BSFC is measurable, but efficiency is only calculable, via correct calorific values
IIRC past posts have shown with some credibility gasoline cvs from 44-49 MJ/kg, but you would race with 46 only ?
(and we might consider practical aspects related to calorific value of the fuel quantity specific to Air or Oxygen quantity)

BTW any engine running leaner than stoichiometric is pumping more air than a stoichiometric running engine
and would appear only able to benefit from charge stratification by possible reduced losses to coolant
have you evidence, testimony or reason supporting the view that mixtures leaner than stoichiometric have value at w.o.t ?
sincerely

your talk of higher AFR is worse than pointless unless you explain how much higher than what
that's why the terms rich, lean, and stoichiometric (neutral) would be helpful here

[WhiteBlue]

stop using a lower calorific value than is correct for race gasolines such as our friend pgfpro uses

So what is the correct value in MJ/kg or kJ/g in your view?

BTW any engine running leaner than stoichiometric is creating extra losses thereby
and would appear only able to benefit from charge stratification of charge by possible reduced losses to coolant
can you show evidence, testimony or reason supporting the view that mixtures leaner than stoichiometric have value at w.o.t ?
sincerely
your talk of higher AFR is worse than pointless unless you explain how much higher than what
so let's use the terms rich, lean, and stoichiometric !

Perhaps we do not understand each other or something else causes a break down in communication. I perceive this as distortion to my posts here. I have said it clearly that I expect stoichiometric combustion as a target compared to rich burning that we have from the old V8s. I have even made it clear what kind of combustion process exactly I expect. I'm quite prepared to elaborate on the details if that helps.

I expect them to push the spray guided combustion with hollow cone shaped spray cloud, that was left behind by Audi when they switched over to diesel engines. The process used Bosch made piezo driven injectors with outward opening nozzles and 200 bar pumps. They managed stratification by this method up to several thousand rpm but not anywhere near where racing petrol engines were at that time in terms of red lines. As a result at high rpm they did not manage to run stoichiometric and had to go richer and inject earlier than they ideally wanted. If you manage a fast enough injection the compression is very high in this process because you essentially compress only air and add the fuel during the last five or ten degree crank shaft rotation before TDC. The crucial point is that so far nobody has claimed he has reached 10.500 rpm while hitting the time window that effectively becomes smaller and smaller as you raise the rpm. Increasing injection pressure to 500 bar naturally helps because you squeeze the fuel through the injectors faster. Nevertheless there will be a point where your ideal AFR needs to be reduced and you have to go richer because your injection speed is not sufficient to hit the crank shaft angle window. One of the downsides is that you also have to reduce the compression at that point which you can practically do by variable valves or variable compression devices, which are forbidden in F1 or you reduce the boost. So you see the dilemma. You ideally can run high compression up to lets say 8.000 rpm, but you may have to select lower compression because you are in a pinch between 8.000 and 10.500. Than over 10.500 your fuel flow remains constant and you can reduce the boost which helps. So here we are. Is the injection fast enough to give you high compression and stoichiometric combustion all the way to 10.500 rpm? That is the big question nobody will answer you. Compression will very much depend of that. Ultimately they may also turn to another type of injectors with a different stratification approach, we do not know. But the one thing that we can say for sure is that they will try very hard to work into this direction with direct injection. And the figures that are being put forward indicate that there is a break through in efficiency of the combustion engine. Take you own conclusions from there.

[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.

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.

ohhhh i See

Thanks,
I think that's the discrepancy.
I did the calculations from the otto cycle and the breyton cycle for the compressor and turbine.
I used different inputs and outputs across the two cycles to represent a turbo charged engine.

Power is an output for my engine, where as it is a output for yours based on on two known inputs.
So my BSFC would be something that i don't know until i get a power figure calculated.

But overall it's my temperature and pressure after combustion that is responsible mostly for what i get out.

but just some other things i have:

compresion rato: 12.5:1
intercooled temp: 40 degrees C

[Tommy Cookers]

while this is fresh in my mind ......
with the Wright T-C
(compounding of course requiring relatively high mean exhaust pressure)
NACA test work in 1944 showed that sweeping the mean exhaust pressure relative to induction pressure by up to 0.7 bar (ie -delta P)
took power away from the crankshaft and gave it to the recovery turbine on an approx 1:1 basis
(so compounding essentially did not increase overall (combined) power, ie in that sense there was no 'free' power)

but the engine efficiency was improved by 15-20% relative to the same engine turbocharged
(so relative to fuel consumption there was 'free' power)
this is consistent with the view that a lot of the useful properties of the exhaust gas are lost in (supersonic) blowdown
this loss is reduced as the pressure difference reduces with raising of the exhaust pressure relative to induction pressure

another report shows that in normal lean-mixture cruise operation, after the exhaust energy lost to chemical reaction .......
65% of the exhaust sensible energy is unavailable to recovery eg by turbine
35% is Kinetic Energy and so is available
but is mostly lost in blowdown past the exhaust valves (20% of the total exhaust sensible energy as above !)
and the net recovery power is 6% of the total exhaust sensible energy ie 8% added to the crankshaft power
(the bsfc is 0.40 lb/hp-hr at this 1840 hp operation, the fuel being slightly low in calorific value)

so NACA thought most of the exhaust energy can only be recovered by eg heating feedwater as in the BMW Turbosteamer

[ringo]

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.

It's all marketing.
The efficiency of the ICE itself wont improve much over any other typical engine out there. it doesn't have the properties.
It's big bore, small stroke, high friction among other things.
If you want to look on a total efficiency i would agree with you, but i can't agree when it comes to the ICE thermal efficiency.

[WhiteBlue]

It's all marketing.

So you are saying that Marmorini is lying or incompetent or misleading us?

The efficiency of the ICE itself wont improve much over any other typical engine out there. it doesn't have the properties. It's big bore, small stroke, high friction among other things.

I'm telling you that the injection is different, the injection pressure is different, the injectors may be different to any other DI and that potentially the compression ratio may be vastly different to other engines if they manage to inject directly in a sub ms interval at 95% completed compression. How is that not going to be a completely different ball game compared to port injection with regard to thermal efficiency? How would your calculation look if they achieve CR of 13 or 14?

Friction will go down as well compared to the V8 by two sources. Fewer and smaller moving parts and slower rotation and reciprocation. It will not go down as much as it had gone down in an I4 but down it will go for sure.

Have a look at the efficiency of the V8s with the same specific fuel energy density of 46 kJ/g. 760 hp is 485 kW. 150 kg/h peak fuel flow gives you 41.7 g/s. This provides 1917 kW caloric power. The BTE is 29.6%. How can you say it is the same ICE type? It is a completely different ball game compared to an ICE with 35% - 38% or even 39%.

[type056]

James Allen said:

There are question marks about how potent the Ferrari powertrain will be for 2013. Industry insight puts Mercedes ahead of Renault with Ferrari behind. Allison and his clever aerodynamics may not be enough.

I think he mean 2014.But the most important thing is that where his information is come from?

[xpensive]

James Allen said:

There are question marks about how potent the Ferrari powertrain will be for 2013. Industry insight puts Mercedes ahead of Renault with Ferrari behind. Allison and his clever aerodynamics may not be enough.

I think he mean 2014.But the most important thing is that where his information is come from?

Don't you know that James Allen, just like Joe Saward and Chris Sylt, has a giant crystal ball at home?

Industry insight...

[WhiteBlue]

Information can come from all kinds of sources. The injection supplier must be homologated and is likely to be the same for all. Turbo suppliers and tyre suppliers also will have a lot of insight into power development. The teams that buy power trains will have intimate know how if they shop from different sources. The figures always leak out somehow. Latest the FiA will know the truth. When we still had a power race in F1 people knew how much their competitors had. Finally there is the price difference. The most expensive engine is likely to be the most powerful.

[xpensive]

No they don't, all speculation and hearsay, even the price of the engines. Lot's of smokescreens at that, like the Renault images.

[ringo]

Have a look at the efficiency of the V8s with the same specific fuel energy density of 46 kJ/g. 760 hp is 485 kW. 150 kg/h peak fuel flow gives you 41.7 g/s. This provides 1917 kW caloric power. The BTE is 29.6%. How can you say it is the same ICE type? It is a completely different ball game compared to an ICE with 35% - 38% or even 39%.

it is not a different ball game.

Where did you get your peak fuel flow numbers from?

But lets work with what you have:

485 kJ/s / .0417kg/s = 11630 kJ/kg of fuel , that's 11630kj/kg/46000kJ/kg = 25.2% BTE

So you calculated it yourself. I don't see why we are disagreeing here?

The efficiency wil be improve by over 6% for the turbo charged ICE, that is pretty good.

Now why i wont believe 38% is because my calculations are based on complete homogenization of the fuel, ie assumption air and fuel mixture is an ideal gas. You can't get any better than theoretical.

My thermal efficiency calculation looks like this:

specific power / (fuel to air ratio * lower fuel heating value)

You can't get any more perfect than this, direct injections or not. that specific power is without mass flow, it is purely based on enthalpy differences. I prefer to work with fuel to air ratio.

Now what that equation is saying:

enthalpy is KJ/kg and it applies to the working fluid which is the air and fuel mixture correct; the perfect mixture, not even DI can match this, as it assumes a homogeneously perfect gas.

Now to find the contribution of the fuel portion of this mixture, i use the fuel to air ratio, about 0.074 of the mass of that working fluid. and this is multiplied to the heating value, so we know how much energy content is in 1kg of the air and fuel mix.

Basically i'm comparing the KJ/kg given by the working fluid vs the KJ/kg of the air and fuel mix.
For my calculation this is nowhere near 38% and my calculations only assume theory. it doesn't take into account % of fuel burned and burnt mass properties.
For thermal efficincy you may see 36%, for break thermal this depends on your brake power; which is found from the mechanical efficiency. if it's 85%, then you BTE would be around 0.85*36% = 30.6% which is what i said, 31%

[xpensive]

...
My thermal efficiency calculation looks like this:

specific power / (fuel to air ratio * lower fuel heating value)
...

That definition is new to me.

[ringo]

I also made an intercooler calculator. I think now is an ok time to mention the calculation. I was fine tuning the method.

Well i'll just work with power numbers that we agree on. The calculator is linked to the engine compressor air output.
But i can work with what the borg warner site has as it's intake air and compressor outlet air temp.

For 660hp
For a compressor outlet temp of 94 degrees C and intake air of 27 degrees,
intercooler size is about 20 inches by 65 inches with 4 inch thickness.

I don't think the intake air temp will be that cool. i'd call it 40 degrees C.
I get 20 inch by 36inch

I held the width at 20 inches, which may be reasonable for the width of an F1 car.
As you can see the size required to drop the temp to almost 25 degrees, which is roughly ambient is enermous.

I make these calculations with about 1200cfm of cooling air. Aluminum radiator and various thickness and fin spacing etc.
I figured the cooling aspect adds some dimension to the engine package.

I haven't made anything for oil cooling or water cooling, though i assume water radiators would be about the same size.

edit: i have squeezed 580bhp out of my setup. Intercooler size is around 20" x 42". But yeah you guys are getting the idea. Maybe some correlation can be made with power increase.
Compressor efficiency will be very very important to reduce temperatures. It affects almost everything. That twin wheel setup posted earlier may be what teams will look into.