2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[strad]

I still question whether the differential gear ratio is part of what's fixed.
All quotes I can find refer to 8 forward gear ratios which must be commited to before the start of the season (with one opportunity to change).
"8"...IF the diff ratio was included they would be talking aboutr "9" ratios that have to be fixed.
I cannot see, especially with this powerplant, the ability to run the same final ratio at say Monaco and at Spa.
Some have said..Well at Monaco they just won't use top gear,,That in itself sounds unreasonable.
I don't use Twitter or nay of that so I'd really appreciate it if someone who does could ask Steve Matchett or like that and get a difinitive answer.

[strad]

I wonder what's the point of rev limit when the fuel flow is limited and there's minimum mileage too?

good point

[Holm86]

I still question whether the differential gear ratio is part of what's fixed.
All quotes I can find refer to 8 forward gear ratios which must be commited to before the start of the season (with one opportunity to change).
"8"...IF the diff ratio was included they would be talking aboutr "9" ratios that have to be fixed.
I cannot see, especially with this powerplant, the ability to run the same final ratio at say Monaco and at Spa.
Some have said..Well at Monaco they just won't use top gear,,That in itself sounds unreasonable.
I don't use Twitter or nay of that so I'd really appreciate it if someone who does could ask Steve Matchett or like that and get a difinitive answer.

Why do you take the discussion to this thread?? We have already discussed this in the Technical Regulations thread. And I have quoted the regulations for you there.

I'll gladly quote the regulations for you again :

"Each competitor must nominate the forward gear ratios (calculated from engine crankshaft to drive shafts) to be employed within their gearbox. These nominations must be declared to the FIA technical delegate at or before the first Event of the Championship. For 2014 only a competitor may re-nominate these ratios once within the Championship season, in which case the original nomination becomes immediately void. Ratio re-nominations must be declared as a set."

It does not say the 8 ratios. It says the forward gear ratios. And unless you believe that differentials are mounted after the driveshafts I cannot see why question that they are fixed. According to regulations they are!.

[WhiteBlue]

I wonder what's the point of rev limit when the fuel flow is limited and there's minimum mileage too?

The rev limit is a cosmetical figure. Effectively the max. fuel flow rate at 10.500 rpm cuts off all the revs above 10.500 for anything but gearbox flexibility purposes. The higher you rev the more friction you produce and you only loose efficiency. This is particularly evident if you consider that you have to inject earlier and earlier in the compression stroke in order to meet the required time for atomization and combustion.

Nobody was expecting that a 12.000 rpm limit would do anything. But the noise lovers protested the low rev level and for political cosmetics it was increased to 15.000 rpm. In reality the rpm limit is nonsense anyway as nobody will be limited by it. It is one of these products of having everything regulated to the last nut and bolt of the engine.

IMO it makes as little sense as regulating the power you can send to the the kinetic energy motor generator unit. I can't understand why this must be limited. Teams should be able to decide for themselves how they make such design decisions. Apparently there was some fear that teams with greater resources will be able to do more research and come up with higher regen power than the mid grid customer teams. But this is nonsense as well. The whole power package will be homologated to all works and customer teams with the same specification.

So the bottom line is that there is a huge amount of over regulation for some irrational fears that look not substantiated even to the casual observer.

[ringo]

I was looking at the BMW i3 today. It has a 170hp motor with 250NM of torque. I think the MGUK torque figure is the elephant in the room when limiting these new f1 motors.
Also it may be the reason mercedes are requesting wider tyres. That 250NM will be right off starting speed for that motor so you can imagine coupling this to the turbo engine's torque, which by itself is greater than the V8.

As for the 15,000rpm rev limit, let's see what the teams do.

[chip engineer]

The whole power package will be homologated to all works and customer teams with the same specification.

So the bottom line is that there is a huge amount of over regulation for some irrational fears that look not substantiated even to the casual observer.

It seems that the limits on displacement and number of cylinders could be eliminated as well. Any speculation on what engine configuration would be best without these limits?

My guess is that the number of cylinders would be reduced at least to 4 for less heat loss to cylinder walls. But I don't know if displacement would increase or decrease.

[WhiteBlue]

The whole power package will be homologated to all works and customer teams with the same specification.

So the bottom line is that there is a huge amount of over regulation for some irrational fears that look not substantiated even to the casual observer.

It seems that the limits on displacement and number of cylinders could be eliminated as well. Any speculation on what engine configuration would be best without these limits?

My guess is that the number of cylinders would be reduced at least to 4 for less heat loss to cylinder walls. But I don't know if displacement would increase or decrease.

The I4 is up against a very strong alliance. Ferrari is against anything with less than six cylinders and Red Bull is against anything that does not have a V configuration. Newey does not want to have the way changed he does his packaging.
By the already established rules we will not have something new before 2019 earliest.

Rant on. So I'm afraid if we want to enjoy the pinnacle of race car engineering we will have to look at LMP1. I'm personally happy to do this. Perhaps the pain of seeing the WEC taking off as the biggest thing in race car engineering will be a healthy shock for F1. Something must change. This bloody micro managing of everything is so disgusting.

In Lmp1 we will have all wheel kinetic recovery of 8 MJ /lap and any engine you want. You can have petrol or diesel, any number of cylinders, V or in line. It will be huge fun just to see which concepts allow optimization in terms of final performance. I can't wait for more manufacturers to join Audi, Toyota, Porsche and hopefully Honda for an all out effort in the class. F1 will be shown what it could have been if it did not have its own head in it's ass all the time. Rant off

[Tommy Cookers]

..... I think the MGUK torque figure is the elephant in the room when limiting these new f1 motors.
Also it may be the reason mercedes are requesting wider tyres. That 250NM will be right off starting speed for that motor so you can imagine coupling this to the turbo engine's torque, which by itself is greater than the V8.

As for the 15,000rpm rev limit, let's see what the teams do.

what the EM could do 'right off starting speed' is immaterial and illusory
the EM could only do this if allowed to draw a correspondingly huge current (attempting to give huge/infinite acceleration)
roughly the job that our car starter motors do (when allowed to draw freely from a charged battery)
the 2014 EM will be energised from a drive where the current is always managed (that's what varying the voltage does)
managed so as not to need the drive to be the size of Texas
the EM/MGs size,weight,bulk and responsiveness are related to mean (more like rms really) torque
(so giving them apparently 'free' peak torques in motoring and generating that can and will be temporarily much greater)
their 'drives' size,weight bulk and responsiveness are strongly related to peak torque
so the penalty for the electric machines 'free' peaks is paid by the drive side
the cars will be designed for best through-race performance (ie compromises) not for best 1000 ft dragstrip performance
the EM torque will be limited by the rules to a fixed proportion of ICE torque at all times anyway ?

yes, rpms towards 15000 require much less supercharger power, as your calcs showed us a long time ago
low boost and relatively high rpm works well (for crankshaft power under fuel-efficiency rules)
but 2014 will have super-high-Octane 'petrol' (as well as super-DI) so can stand high boost
IMO this allows higher backpressure and higher exhaust recovery (raising efficiency by reducing pressure/KE loss in blowdown)

IMO even with engine running based on 10500, the gearboxes will have them going eg to 12500 significantly
so below 10500 is interesting, but above 10500 is more important because that's where the fuel is

[WhiteBlue]

..the EM torque will be limited by the rules to a fixed proportion of ICE torque at all times anyway ?

Not a fixed proportion IMO. The proportion needs to vary continuously and monotonously over the throttle pedal stroke. It means you cannot reduce the electric torque so much that the resulting torque decreases as well.
There is some scope to feed in electric torque at will and at points of the power curve that you find suitable.

[ringo]

The motor torque can be pretty flat across the rev range.
As long as there is no sign change, ie the overall torque doesn't fluctuate as the pedal is being pressed in, then it's legal.
It's motor torque + engine torque, therefore the motor torque can be pretty much anything, as long as the overall torque is increase, without fluctuation as pedal travel increases, or decreasing without fluctuation as pedal travel decreases.

here's the bmw i3 curve:


This would be acceptable for the MGUK.

The overall torque will give the tyres a beating for sure. Not to mention the fact that 8 gears will be used.

[Tommy Cookers]

the car is not propelled by the combined engine torque or any other engine torque
it's propelled by torque at the driven axle, which at any moment is the product of the combined engine power and the gearing in use
eg if the combined power is 750 hp it doesn't matter what proportion of this is EM and what is ICE
if you are in the right gear 750 hp is about all you can use at low speed as traction is relatively low

if/when you have a non-ideal gear (non-ideal meaning the ICE can't give its proper power)
using extra EM torque might enable eg traction-limited acceleration to be reached in that non-ideal gear
ok, this is of some value when of your fixed 8 gears only 6 are useful

but the EM should have correct gearing in just the same way as the ICE does
the EM is a machine that produces torque proportional to current, whether at low speed or high
(its rated power curve rises with rpm like an ICEs)
it cannot produce rated power at lower than rated speed ie increased torque, except briefly
as the torque (proportional to the current) is fundamentally limited by heating (proportional to the square of the current)
also using extra EM torque at low speed is inefficient
(using higher rpm ie a lower gear gives more torque for the same current, or the same torque for less current)

also, however, this 'magic getaway' can only exist to the extent that braking-phase recovered energy is available
and it will be judiciously used, in partl also because the current will be governed by the limitations of the chosen drive
which will be related to the level of current available from recovery
most ? seem to believe that the braking-phase recovered power is limited to 120 kW

surely most of the energy input to the EM will come from the exhaust recovery ? (unavailable at low speeds)
and so low-speed getaway will be a relatively minor contributor to overall race performance

[chip engineer]

this 'magic getaway' will only exist to the extent that braking-phase recovered energy is available
and it will be judiciously used, partly because the current will be limited by the limitations of the chosen drive
most ? seem to believe that the braking-phase recovered power is limited to 120 kW

surely most of the energy input to the EM will come from the exhaust recovery ?(unavailable at low speeds)
and so low-speed getaway will be a relatively minor contributor to overall race performance

The exhaust recovery power may not be available at low _engine speed_, but that does not mean it is unavailable at low car speed.
Also, even if there is insufficient braking phase power to provide enough stored energy for the 'magic getaway', there are other ways to charge the energy store. It can be charged during partial throttle, and if that is not enough, possibly using MGUH power near the end of straights would be a benefit.

[dren]

..the EM torque will be limited by the rules to a fixed proportion of ICE torque at all times anyway ?

Not a fixed proportion IMO. The proportion needs to vary continuously and monotonously over the throttle pedal stroke. It means you cannot reduce the electric torque so much that the resulting torque decreases as well.
There is some scope to feed in electric torque at will and at points of the power curve that you find suitable.

Yes.
That's torque output vs pedal position. The more you press, the more torque has to be demanded and supplied by the power unit as a whole. The ES power curve will be fixed to an overall power unit curve, but t does not have to be proportional.

[WhiteBlue]

most ? seem to believe that the braking-phase recovered power is limited to 120 kW

I'm one of the doubters. But I have to exercise a bit of caution here. The whole recovery management does not make much sense unless the regulators had a concept in mind where the recovery and the feed-in of regenerated kinetic power is specifically tailored to pretty much every corner and strait of every circuit.

As time goes by I'm more inclined to subscribe to that theory although it is asinine to begin with in my view. It makes very little sense in my view to create a system with massive design restrictions and very little room for optimization if you want to promote energy efficiency.

On the other hand the regulators are not magnanimous benefactors in ivory towers but teams that suspiciously eye each other always on the tips of their toes to prevent any of them to run away with the smallest of competitive advantages.

I will be looking at the braking figures of Hungary and Canada, which I perceive as extreme samples of high power and low power braking circuits with a view to reconcile the the energy balance with the rules. If I apply constant rear braking bias and constant electric/friction brake bias I cannot fill the 2 MJ race lap energy balance.

If I assume a variation of electric/friction brake bias up to 100% electric I may be able to generate 2 MJ. I don't know until I find the time to do the Excel tables. At the moment I'm very tied up in a project and cannot afford much time to this analysis.

It would be dandy if someone would have a look at braking and acceleration regen power use and come up with theories how it will be managed.

[ringo]

Yes it is 120kW max. So the rest will be heat energy off the brakes.

Unless...
if the excess braking energy goes through the crank as engine braking and the MGUH is set to max load.
you can recover a bit there i guess. haven't looked at the details concerning that.