2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
dren
226
Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 14:14

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Fuel is limited to 100kg total as well right? Should we expect teams to try and run less?

I expect teams to run at the max fuel rate and maximize efficiency for the most power since it's fuel limited. It will then be track dependant on how much fuel they carry.
Honda!

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

dren wrote:Fuel is limited to 100kg total as well right? Should we expect teams to try and run less?

I expect teams to run at the max fuel rate and maximize efficiency for the most power since it's fuel limited. It will then be track dependant on how much fuel they carry.
I wasn't talking about 2014. I was talking about the fact that I see no stronger motivation to maximize fuel specific energy next year more than they do already now. Of course they will take the 100 kg next year.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Here it goes again since it seems to have gone unoticed the first time:
rjsa wrote:Effort and reward, basic arithmetics. Let's say 20% increased energy density.

Weight gain:

700Kg car, 150Kg fuel, 850Kg starting weight. After 20% gain in fuel, 125Kg fuel weight at the start, 825Kg total. Less than 3% gain. Last 4 laps, less than 0.05% gain.

Fuel flow limited, energy gain:

20% more power all around.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

20 % increase in energy density is ludicrous. They will be happy to get 1% if at all. Do you think all of xpensive's lab rats had their thumbs up their asses for the last 10 years? If higher energy content were possible Montezemolo would have long sent all Shell boys and girls knifes as incentives. :lol: :wink:
To get 20% of anything you need to take very low hanging fruits. The guys at Shell will need oxygene masks to get high enough to grab those left after ten years of harvesting. They will be at Mount Everest altitude searching for what is left over.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
643
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

is that 1% more than road gasoline (the best or some average?) or 1% more than 2013 F1 ?

2013 F1fuel composition is dominated by having the best combustion speed
then, within that restriction, the best energy specific to air mass (how much energy from each cylinderful of air)
so it doesn't have the best fuel-mass-specific energy
or even the best fuel-volume-specific energy (although this for most events this has priority over mass-specific energy)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 13 Aug 2013, 01:05, edited 2 times in total.

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:20 % increase in energy density is ludicrous. They will be happy to get 1% if at all. Do you think all of xpensive's lab rats had their thumbs up their asses for the last 10 years? If higher energy content were possible Montezemolo would have long sent all Shell boys and girls knifes as incentives. :lol: :wink:
To get 20% of anything you need to take very low hanging fruits. The guys at Shell will need oxygene masks to get high enough to grab those left after ten years of harvesting. They will be at Mount Everest altitude searching for what is left over.
I expect you to be smart enough to know the lower the gain, the more it's pointless today while still being worth on a fuel restricted formula.

Or you will need me to draw it for you?

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

dren wrote:Fuel is limited to 100kg total as well right? Should we expect teams to try and run less?

I expect teams to run at the max fuel rate and maximize efficiency for the most power since it's fuel limited. It will then be track dependant on how much fuel they carry.

I'm going to make a bold prediction. Force majuere will be used at some tracks after teams realize that 100kg is simply not enough to finish the race. :lol:
Wait and see.
For Sure!!

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

ringo wrote:
dren wrote:Fuel is limited to 100kg total as well right? Should we expect teams to try and run less?

I expect teams to run at the max fuel rate and maximize efficiency for the most power since it's fuel limited. It will then be track dependant on how much fuel they carry.

I'm going to make a bold prediction. Force majuere will be used at some tracks after teams realize that 100kg is simply not enough to finish the race. :lol:
Wait and see.
Very bold, since force majuere has been removed from the rules.

Also, it only applied to qualifying. After the race the car can be stopped, but after qualifying the car has to return to the pits. That's where force majuere came in - some unforseen problem prevented the car returning to the pits. Of course, the unforseen problem usually encountered was there wasn't enough fuel put into the car.

If, after the race, there isn't sufficient fuel on-board the car will be disqualified. No force majuere could be applied.

In any case, they can have more than 100kg on board for the race - but are only allowed to use 100kg from lights out to chequered flag.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

rjsa wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:20 % increase in energy density is ludicrous. They will be happy to get 1% if at all. Do you think all of xpensive's lab rats had their thumbs up their asses for the last 10 years? If higher energy content were possible Montezemolo would have long sent all Shell boys and girls knifes as incentives. :lol: :wink:
To get 20% of anything you need to take very low hanging fruits. The guys at Shell will need oxygene masks to get high enough to grab those left after ten years of harvesting. They will be at Mount Everest altitude searching for what is left over.
I expect you to be smart enough to know the lower the gain, the more it's pointless today while still being worth on a fuel restricted formula.

Or you will need me to draw it for you?
I'll pass on that. Not another apple/banana comparison, please. I can believe that in a multi parameter optimization there may be some scope to shift some of the parameters that matter today. But there are other equally high priorities that will matter and that fuel and lubricant designers will have to satisfy. Anybody who thinks he can predict how that mix of requirements will allow designers to tweak caloric fuel content significantly beyond what is already achieved today would be speculating. We do not have one single word by an expert in the field indicating there is some scope in reality. All we have is fantasy and speculation. If you are bold enough to make a prediction and give as a full set of figures please go ahead. You can be measured at a later time against reality. Eventually we will see the level of your knowledge in the field of F1 fuels. I for myself can only say I have no means to say what can be reasonably expected and therefore I simply stay with what we have had today. I'm more than happy to change away from 46 MJ/kg to a different value if someone gives me at least a quote by some technically minded reporter or a fuel engineer from the F1 business.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

wuzak wrote:
ringo wrote:
dren wrote:Fuel is limited to 100kg total as well right? Should we expect teams to try and run less?

I expect teams to run at the max fuel rate and maximize efficiency for the most power since it's fuel limited. It will then be track dependant on how much fuel they carry.

I'm going to make a bold prediction. Force majuere will be used at some tracks after teams realize that 100kg is simply not enough to finish the race. :lol:
Wait and see.
Very bold, since force majuere has been removed from the rules.

Also, it only applied to qualifying. After the race the car can be stopped, but after qualifying the car has to return to the pits. That's where force majuere came in - some unforseen problem prevented the car returning to the pits. Of course, the unforseen problem usually encountered was there wasn't enough fuel put into the car.

If, after the race, there isn't sufficient fuel on-board the car will be disqualified. No force majuere could be applied.

In any case, they can have more than 100kg on board for the race - but are only allowed to use 100kg from lights out to chequered flag.
There will be very elaborate fuel and energy management. All sources from the manufacturers agree on that. IMO it means that a fuel control program is fully aware at any second of the race where it is in relation to the planned fuel curve. Depending where you are, above fuel curve or below there will be automatic adaptation. At least that is what I expect. You cannot reasonably leave it to the driver to manage the fuel curve. Remember that you are disqualified if you use 1g above 100 kg between lights out and the checkered flag.

So for force majuere would only apply IMO if there is a proven malfunction in the MES system that produces an infringement of the sporting regulations against the intention of the team. That would be very difficult to prove.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 13 Aug 2013, 05:11, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:
rjsa wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:20 % increase in energy density is ludicrous. They will be happy to get 1% if at all. Do you think all of xpensive's lab rats had their thumbs up their asses for the last 10 years? If higher energy content were possible Montezemolo would have long sent all Shell boys and girls knifes as incentives. :lol: :wink:
To get 20% of anything you need to take very low hanging fruits. The guys at Shell will need oxygene masks to get high enough to grab those left after ten years of harvesting. They will be at Mount Everest altitude searching for what is left over.
I expect you to be smart enough to know the lower the gain, the more it's pointless today while still being worth on a fuel restricted formula.

Or you will need me to draw it for you?
I'll pass on that. Not another apple/banana comparison, please. I can believe that in a multi parameter optimization there may be some scope to shift some of the parameters that matter today. But there are other equally high priorities that will matter and that fuel and lubricant designers will have to satisfy. Anybody who thinks he can predict how that mix of requirements will allow designers to tweak caloric fuel content significantly beyond what is already achieved today would be speculating. We do not have one single word by an expert in the field indicating there is some scope in reality. All we have is fantasy and speculation. If you are bold enough to make a prediction and give as a full set of figures please go ahead. You can be measured at a later time against reality. Eventually we will see the level of your knowledge in the field of F1 fuels. I for myself can only say I have no means to say what can be reasonably expected and therefore I simply stay with what we have had today. I'm more than happy to change away from 46 MJ/kg to a different value if someone gives me at least a quote by some technically minded reporter or a fuel engineer from the F1 business.

Gues I'll to have then. I have seen people around here suggesting 46, 48 and even 50 Mj/Kg.

A jump from 46 to 48 is a 4.3% increase in energy content. That would result in a 0,54% reduction in starting weight. As compared to 4.3% power gain from the ICE in a fuel restricted formula.

So like you or not, the reward for incresing fuel energy content will be much bigger next year.

I'd guess my knowledge of Formula 1 fuel to be exactly the same as yours: nill, zero, nada. The fact that we don't read about it on the press and that's not what JT wants to happen are pretty weak reasons why it shouldn't be happening already.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

rjsa wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:
rjsa wrote: I expect you to be smart enough to know the lower the gain, the more it's pointless today while still being worth on a fuel restricted formula.

Or you will need me to draw it for you?
I'll pass on that. Not another apple/banana comparison, please. I can believe that in a multi parameter optimization there may be some scope to shift some of the parameters that matter today. But there are other equally high priorities that will matter and that fuel and lubricant designers will have to satisfy. Anybody who thinks he can predict how that mix of requirements will allow designers to tweak caloric fuel content significantly beyond what is already achieved today would be speculating. We do not have one single word by an expert in the field indicating there is some scope in reality. All we have is fantasy and speculation. If you are bold enough to make a prediction and give as a full set of figures please go ahead. You can be measured at a later time against reality. Eventually we will see the level of your knowledge in the field of F1 fuels. I for myself can only say I have no means to say what can be reasonably expected and therefore I simply stay with what we have had today. I'm more than happy to change away from 46 MJ/kg to a different value if someone gives me at least a quote by some technically minded reporter or a fuel engineer from the F1 business.

Gues I'll to have then. I have seen people around here suggesting 46, 48 and even 50 Mj/Kg.

A jump from 46 to 48 is a 4.3% increase in energy content. That would result in a 0,54% reduction in starting weight. As compared to 4.3% power gain from the ICE in a fuel restricted formula.

So like you or not, the reward for incresing fuel energy content will be much bigger next year.

I'd guess my knowledge of Formula 1 fuel to be exactly the same as yours: nill, zero, nada. The fact that we don't read about it on the press and that's not what JT wants to happen are pretty weak reasons why it shouldn't be happening already.
The only thing you can demonstrate by those figures is that fuel designers will try harder to reach the high hanging fruits. We know the low hanging are all gone because they were beneficial to grab in the past years. We have no means to know how the new set of requirements will influence the level where those fruits will hang. Who can say that effort and scope for optimization will bring the fruits into reach? Nobody! Everybody is entitled to the wildest speculation but we will still not have a robust figure. So we are back to square one.

What if the new requirements push the designers towards the other side of increasing energy content, towards decreasing contend? You want this new fuel to be very knock resistant, to have as much as possible vaporization energy, to work together with lubricants that have a higher temperature tolerance and probably many more things that I cannot even imagine. I say we just do not know!
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

WhiteBlue wrote: There will be very elaborate fuel and energy management. All sources from the manufacturers agree on that. IMO it means that a fuel control program is fully aware at any second of the race where it is in relation to the planned fuel curve. Depending where you are, above fuel curve or below there will be automatic adaptation. At least that is what I expect. You cannot reasonably leave it to the driver to manage the fuel curve. Remember that you are disqualified if you use 1g above 100 kg between lights out and the checkered flag.

So for force majuere would only apply IMO if there is a proven malfunction in the MES system that produces an infringement of the sporting regulations against the intention of the team. That would be very difficult to prove.
ok, what if after all of that, what if hypothetically 5 teams find out that no matter what they do, their package cannot finish say for instance, the singapore grand prix with 100kg of fuel?
What will the FIA do about that?
Think about another pirelli debacle. I'm sure Pirelli didn't predict their tyres would pop like balloons at silverstone. What if there is this one race where no team could simply use 100kg of fuel max.
What would we expect to see in that eventuality?
For Sure!!

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

ringo wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote: There will be very elaborate fuel and energy management. All sources from the manufacturers agree on that. IMO it means that a fuel control program is fully aware at any second of the race where it is in relation to the planned fuel curve. Depending where you are, above fuel curve or below there will be automatic adaptation. At least that is what I expect. You cannot reasonably leave it to the driver to manage the fuel curve. Remember that you are disqualified if you use 1g above 100 kg between lights out and the checkered flag.

So for force majuere would only apply IMO if there is a proven malfunction in the MES system that produces an infringement of the sporting regulations against the intention of the team. That would be very difficult to prove.
ok, what if after all of that, what if hypothetically 5 teams find out that no matter what they do, their package cannot finish say for instance, the singapore grand prix with 100kg of fuel?
What will the FIA do about that?
Think about another pirelli debacle. I'm sure Pirelli didn't predict their tyres would pop like balloons at silverstone. What if there is this one race where no team could simply use 100kg of fuel max.
What would we expect to see in that eventuality?
The solution is at the drivers' fingertips - ie turn down the fuel flow.

They will just have to drive more slowly, until it is fixed.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

wuzak wrote:
ringo wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote: There will be very elaborate fuel and energy management. All sources from the manufacturers agree on that. IMO it means that a fuel control program is fully aware at any second of the race where it is in relation to the planned fuel curve. Depending where you are, above fuel curve or below there will be automatic adaptation. At least that is what I expect. You cannot reasonably leave it to the driver to manage the fuel curve. Remember that you are disqualified if you use 1g above 100 kg between lights out and the checkered flag.

So for force majuere would only apply IMO if there is a proven malfunction in the MES system that produces an infringement of the sporting regulations against the intention of the team. That would be very difficult to prove.
ok, what if after all of that, what if hypothetically 5 teams find out that no matter what they do, their package cannot finish say for instance, the singapore grand prix with 100kg of fuel?
What will the FIA do about that?
Think about another pirelli debacle. I'm sure Pirelli didn't predict their tyres would pop like balloons at silverstone. What if there is this one race where no team could simply use 100kg of fuel max.
What would we expect to see in that eventuality?
The solution is at the drivers' fingertips - ie turn down the fuel flow.

They will just have to drive more slowly, until it is fixed.
Exactly. If you drive an F1 slowly it will take radically less fuel. The intention behind the formula is that only those who have the highest efficiency can have the highest pace. As long as one driver makes it to the flag we will have a winner. But do not worry. They will all finish and under 100 kg usually. This formula would not exist unless the MES system with FiA fuel sensors could measure and control the fuel flow challenge.

In a 3.5 L and 3.0 L naturally aspired formula Ferrari could not beat the Renault V10 engine because it was more efficient. So eventually Ferrari had to go V10 as well. Same here. If you are not efficient enough others will be. They will win, you will loose. That is motor racing.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)