2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

Incomplete combustion or not, I think it's correct to relate the mechanical output power to the flywheel with the "raw" input power.

[wuzak]

Incomplete combustion or not, I think it's correct to relate the mechanical output power to the flywheel with the "raw" input power.

I agree.

I think the Nc factor of 0.97 should be dumped, since even if it isn't burning it is going through the engine.

Thus, for the example, efficiency = 77kW / (0.006kg/s * 44000kJ/s) = 29.3%.

For our case, assuming 46MJ/kg and 450kW (603hp) at the flywheel and 100kg/h (0.0278kg/s) we have:

n = 450 / (0.0278kg/s * 46,000kJ/kg) = 35.2%.

If the energy in the fuel is 44MJ/kg n = 36.8% and if the energy in the fuel is 48MJ/kg n = 33.8%.

[wuzak]

Just to be clear.

I believe in 600 to 650 Brake Horse power, aka power at flywheel with no MGUK power involved.

What i don't believe in is 800 Brake Horse power aka power at flywheel with no MGUK power involved.

I do agree with marmorini that when the electrical power is applied it will be an additional 160hp, i have agreed with this notion throughout.

Now my graph has around 560hp with 160hp added. I'm not a ferrari engineer, i can't squeeze out 650hp, i've come up 580hp with 30 degree intake air, but it is what it is. lol. close enough to 600!
But at the end of the day i'm in the ball park. And it's clear to all that 800hp from the engine alone is not possible.

even when i use 800hp,
for thermal efficiency
586kw/0.0417 = 14052.59 14052.59/46000 = 30.5%

I have to ask Ringo, what is the factor 0.0417?

[Tommy Cookers]

Ferrari's measured bsfc can only be reduced to a correct efficiency figure if we use for the correct calorific for their fuel
48 MJ 'plain' race gasoline is easily and cheaply available (US pump gasolines can exceed this at some times of year)
more extensive selection from the vast pool of available ingredients within gasolines is inevitable (cherry picking)
Shell say they do this in current F1 for tracks where fuel weight saving is useful (ie where volume saving is irrelevant)

49-50 MJ must surely be available right now to Ferrari and others doing 2014 work
you can be sure they know their exact calorific values

many race gasolines contain little or no alcohol
some contain available oxygen or similar (for nitromethane/nitrobenzene-like behaviour) - this is now banned in F1
these attributes are independent of the above figures

F1 fuel must contain 5.7% or so of bio-ethanol
interestingly, ethanol has about 28% more calories than gasoline specific to stoichiometric quantity !!! CHECK THIS !!!
(that is 28% more energy fuelling each stroke in the quantity burnable with a cylinder full of air)
so the ethanol in F1 fuel boosts useable calories by about 2%
but this is no use in a race limited by gravimetric fuelling rate, such as 2014 F1
(with DI, and so without its large charge air displacement with other fuelling devices, ethanol (or methanol) would give much more power)

these high CVs as above let engines give unusually good bsfc values
but eg if we assume 46 MJ when the bsfc run was using 49 MJ our efficiency calculation will be 6.5% optimistic

[xpensive]

Ferrari's measured bsfc can only be reduced to a correct efficiency figure if we use for the correct calorific for their fuel
48 MJ 'plain' race gasoline is easily and cheaply available (US pump gasolines can exceed this at some times of year)
more extensive selection from the vast pool of available ingredients within gasolines is inevitable (cherry picking)
49-50 MJ must surely be available right now to Ferrari and others doing 2014 work
you can be sure they know their exact calorific values
...

Amazing, is it my incination for deja vu, or did we discuss this matter rather enthuastically a few pages bac?

[WhiteBlue]

I have to ask Ringo, what is the factor 0.0417?

That was a fuel rate of 41.7 g/s which I proposed for the current V8. But with hindsight it was probably too high. We had a lot of discussion about the BTE of the V8s and everybody agreed on 29-30%.There is a dedicated thread to it if you search.

I would not like to speculate about higher caloric fuel values in this thread. I would increase confusion with the figures if we do so. There are no published indications that fuel will exceed 46 kJ/g next season. We should treat it the same as engine power. Only reliable sources should be considered.

[xpensive]

...
I would not like to speculate about higher caloric fuel values in this thread.
...

But I certainly would as I find it most pertinent, do you have more info on the matter TC, from "reliable sources" of course?

[WhiteBlue]

I wood also like to see figures from "reliable sources" introduced if we can get them!! My objections are simply to use a wide range of figures simultaneously and we would then have to explain every time we make a calculation which school of thought on caloric value we believe in.

[Tommy Cookers]

sources apparently at least as reliable as yours show 47 and even 48.5 MJ (this seasonally)
ERC will sell you A-19A at 47 MJ quite cheaply

please feel free to e mail the numerous other manufacturers of race gasoline
and use Google

gasoline is a mix of hundreds of constituents with selection driven by economics ie minimal
if you pay people $1000/litre they can do some real cherry picking
how could this not be gainful ?

[WhiteBlue]

That is fine and dandy, TC. But how are we to know that the racing gasoline is fit for F1 regs and that it ticks all the other boxes that F1 teams have on their requirement list. Until some insider gives you a number you can just as easily use 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 or 49 and that's what different people will do until we agree on a value that we all are happy to use. So far that has been 46. I'm not at all adverse to a higher number if there is a broad understanding. The question is what will it do in relative terms. The base case will always be the current V8 engine. The efficiency figures for that engine will also fall if you run it with a fuel of higher caloric value. So we would gain little info by just lowering all efficiency data, particularly if it turns out in the end that the figure was bogus. That's the way I see it.

[xpensive]

I think we should refrain from sweeping arguments like the above, while I trying not to moderate other members.

[Tommy Cookers]

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.

IIRC I have not seen this explanation
presumably injection would start before sparking and continue after combustion has started
so the pattern could never be a homogeneous charge, but is not the usual stratified charge operation
and we will have the world's first hard test of managing SI combustion-near-detonation by injection rate
it may be not very manageable, but efficiency losses from a safety margin in CR may be largely recoverable in the compounding
it may already be somewhat self-managing by (in-cycle) dissociation of CO2 into CO
in this regard we might have some motive towards lower temperatures in-cylinder

Audi went rich to get consistent combustion, still a factor at 10500 rom ?
(rpm related factors drive up combustion speed according to 2005 Ferrari test, ie combustion speed falls with rpm)
agreed stoichiometric or near stoichiometric must be the way now

I suggested a year ago that over 10500 rpm the least bad option is to raise exhaust pressure, as thermodynamically better
(even to include some charge dilution with exhaust gas ?)
the 1940s NACA work clearly shows this is the way to improved efficiency without loss of combined power
so at a constant fuel rate there could even be a gain in combined power over 10500 rpm

[pgfpro]

Thanks guys!!! The .97 he used should have been divided by not multiply. When I do this it puts it with ringos numbers.

I'm not trying to drag the thread down so please I hope you guys don't think that. Just trying to see what formula is everyone using when it comes to BTE. Speak the same language so to speak.

I personally like BSFC as the way to see how the engine converts fuel energy into power at the flywheel. Just like they did with the 80's F1turbo cars by using lbs/hp/hr or g/Kwh. Because in today's port injection engines some of the fuel will be used for thermal fuel management. Even tomorrows F1 DI I suspect will at certain parts of the rpm range do this and BSFC accounts for it. BSFC just makes more sense to me.

[WhiteBlue]

presumably injection would start before sparking and continue after combustion has started
so the pattern could never be a homogeneous charge, but is not the usual stratified charge operation
and we will have the world's first hard test of managing SI combustion by injection rate
it may be not very manageable, but efficiency losses from a safety margin in CR may be largely recoverable in the compounding

Audi went rich to get consistent combustion, still a factor at 10500 rom ?
(rpm related factors drive up combustion speed according to 2005 Ferrari test, ie combustion speed falls with rpm)
agreed stoichiometric or near stoichiometric must be the way now

I suggested a year ago that over 10500 the least bad option is to raise exhaust pressure (as thermodynamically better)
the 1940s NACA work clearly shows this is the way to improved efficiency without loss of combined power
so at a constant fuel rate there could even be a gain in combined power over 10500

I have no way of knowing how quick the injection is nowadays with 500 bar. But the book on spray guided injection calls for complete atomization and mixture of the hollow shaped cone pattern before you ignite it. In fact it would not work any other way if you look at the schematics in the video which I provided some pages ago. The injector sits in the middle on top of the piston and the spark plug come from the side of the cylinder head at an angle of approximately 45-60°.

As I said I don't know what exactly they will do but a maximum of compression before injection and ignition would be the logical target.

@ x, I have no intention to play the moderator here. I just want to minimize the misunderstandings and extra posting. All I say is my humble opinion. You can agree or disagree as you see fit as always.

[pgfpro]

WB I would be glad to delete all my last post on my question about my BTE if you want?