2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Pingguest]

For me, things have become a bit misty for me in the past few weeks. First I thought that from 2014 the fuel consumption will only be limited by a fuel-flow limit of 100 kilogram per hour, but now I read that an additional fuel consumption applies for the race. This is in contrast to what Charlie Whiting said before.

[Tommy Cookers]

Hello forum members , I have a query regarding 2014 f1 power unit, especially about working of ERS and it's stored energy utilization. ......
According to new regulations. Available energy from v6 1.6 turbo engine is around 600 hp, and ERS is about 160 hp

the conventional position on 2014 is that the EM must act monotonically with the ICE
that seems to mean that when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the EM must qualitively act as the ICE does
the EM quantitive response can be controlled by some mapping options

so 'push to pass/KERS' will end in 2013, from 2014 the EM action is to be (notionally) seamless
much of the EM action will be using a 'real-time' supply of electrical energy from the MGUH (not stored energy)
though the stored energy will at times be critically important in ensuring turbocharging rpm
the MGUH will often be recovering energy from the exhaust surplus to that 'recovered' in driving the turbocharging

[McMrocks]

Fuel-flow-meassuring sensor beeing to imprecise: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 32974.html

At the YDT the teams found ot that the tollerance of the sensors, who are delivered by "Gill Sensors" exceed the maximum tollereance from 0.5%. In reality they had a tollerance of 1.5% at the V8 engines at the YDT.

Vibrations and g-forces are the biggest problem for the sensors.

I'm sure someone else will translate it in detail later.

[ringo]

For me, things have become a bit misty for me in the past few weeks. First I thought that from 2014 the fuel consumption will only be limited by a fuel-flow limit of 100 kilogram per hour, but now I read that an additional fuel consumption applies for the race. This is in contrast to what Charlie Whiting said before.

Not really,
What Brawn was saying is that the total fuel and the fuel flow limits are still in place, However in the race there will be situations where the car will use less than the maximum fuel flow.

[ringo]

But after a certain percentage, the energy taken from the MGUH isn't "free" as TC was stating above. You'd be draining crank power to charge the batteries at that point.

Not really,
I don't think that point is at the 120kW mark. I calculated that almost double this amount is thermodynamically available, and this is at steady state with 590hp to the ICE. 120kW wont be much of a difference over 90kW.

[aleks_ader]

PART 1: Ferrari + Honeywell

I make just for my pleasure and also for pure "academic" researching due all F1 engine suppliers (somesort response on Omnicorse article). I decide to start with mysterious Ferrari..

Still unofficial but i dig i bit in it and fond this on on Honeywell official website:

With turbochargers set to re-enter Formula 1 in 2014, teams are working with Honeywell to optimize not just the power benefits of engine boosting but to exploit the potential to recover wasted energy by marrying the turbo to electric motors and generators. This concept, tying in closely with industry-wide interest in energy efficiency, is also under close consideration by the governing body of the Le Mans Series.

So Honeywell (they also owns Garett co&) involvement in F1 is possible. So we could see some of their promising technologies? It is that new testing bed for new potential radical thinking outside of box?

http://www.autolatest.ro/news-cars/hone ... st-factory

Could Ferrari engine had Dualboost technology (Youtube advert official video) in it? It is possible, let see what IF its is possible? Here are pros&cons of turbine of that design;

PRO:

Axial turbine had comparable conventional Radial design…



..up to 50%less rotational inertia…



This add p to 25-35% better response, much more even transient torque curve (test made on Ford 1.6L I4 GDI engine)



According this Ns/Ds table I see possible integration of radial turbine design. It fits in high RPM-s operation window...



CONS:
Weak expansion ratio of axial turbine 3-4 : 1 in comparison radial deal with 9 :1. That expose ineffective harvesting efficiently.

That Turbo design as i sad reduces amount of absorbed work from 1 stage axial turbines per 1 mass flow unit. That mean the turbine needs to be little wider (or more stages like in jet engine) like they meant to be so that leads in further increased mass (increased rotational inertia). So this will compromise overall construction and performance of the turbine. This could became tough juggling act between diameter vs. mass of the turbine. How keep TOP overall efficiently and desired quick response power curve without instand intervention of MGU-H (or make work easier for it).

Also they are many others construction parameters which did not take into account and is possible to miss something and let me now if is that possible? Harvesting from gathered energy could became weaker (less inertia, less stored rotational energy)? Also reducing the turbines inertia could led into little bigger MGU-H? Also designes could go other way around and keep MGH intact and reduce some weight and keep performance according conventional design unchanged and benefit on others areas. Because they is no need for so big MGH motor, performance curve is unchanged, due effective turbine design?

Potencial intergration of that systems:

Integration that system could became even more interesting if we look this picture which Ferrari posted on official Marusssia deal.



This picture above remembers me on Ferraris in late 80s, when they mounted turbo above their 1986 Ferrari V6 turbo 032 engine (look picture below). They made two “air pre intake chambers per each cylinder bank...



Maybe Ferrari engineers want to allow turbo and MGU-H sit deeply into construction of the engine block (trade-off higher CofG). Maybe is that AERO beneficial cuz will reduce coke-bottle area =>different work of diffusor, central cooling, starting motor hole, sidepods overall etc.

Bv interesting BLOG pictures of Ferraris engines, nice to see all stack together: http://www.egarage.com/current-interest ... y-ferrari/

Just for my pleasure i made sketch how i would like to made ancillary around V6 engine with that set-up (dualboos sits on top of engine+ 2 preintake chambers):



Bv if is someone interesting in templates from my Photoshop file, for easy sketch the engines ancillaries in the future to easy show what you mean. So in this project i made individually layers for each part, so it is like a puzzle. And sharing between members could increase "engine sketch database". Send me PM and my preparing to share. When you have system it so easy, i like to make F1T more colorful... THX

This pretty BOLD way to make aero work better.

GOOD
-reducing coke-bottle area=>without mild EBD effects become work of central part of diffusor and starter motor hole even more important source of backend downforce
-gearbox cooler could stay on that place like it is in many teams by now (behind engine on top of it)
-it in some extend schrinked huge “”sidepods and make it is thinner
-dual boost it is quite “easy” implement with 2 intercooler rads on each side of the car. Much more freedom in construction of engine, inlet, turbine dimensions and sidepods configuration. Engine cooling and intercooler don’t dictate possible unsymmetrical sidepods or further compromises in that area

BAD
-HUGE thermal problem. Turbo sits next to intakes= that need some extra intention
- extra weight is needed (insolation)
-some cooling ducting also needed. That willreduce heat transfer between 1000K hot exhaoust pipes, turbo housing and inlet housing (temp down under 330K)=> also adds some extra drag
-and mechanical side it is biggest trade-off HIGH CofG, turbo is above and all exhaust periphery also. There also will needed some smart ducting to not reduce engine power (reduced backpressure as possible)
-bulkier engine departmend need as I sad extra aero intention, cetral cooling autlet maye it will help etc.
Question is appx 50mm higher CofG tradeoff really worth aero benefits? THAT my “theory” I will try in next couple weeks to back-up or dismiss with some CFD evidences.

My couple additional sources witch I don’t mention in my post:
Honeywell Dualturbo http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/ ... tation.pdf;
Axial vs. radial turbine http://www.scribd.com/search?query=Appl ... bine+Types

I throw bones leet see you guys what you think?

Cheers

[Holm86]

Great article aleksandergreat.

I already suggested the dualboost turbocharger on page 240 of this thread. It would be exciting to see if it would be used in F1.

[Rikhart]

Am I alone in thinking the honda engine sounds like one of those model racing cars?

[Tommy Cookers]

But after a certain percentage, the energy taken from the MGUH isn't "free" as TC was stating above. You'd be draining crank power to charge the batteries at that point.

Not really,
I don't think that point is at the 120kW mark. I calculated that almost double this amount is thermodynamically available, and this is at steady state with 590hp to the ICE. 120kW wont be much of a difference over 90kW.

@ ringo
FWIW IIRC dren has fairly and usefully summarised the 'NACA position'
to recover 'almost double' this 120 kW what would the exhaust pressure be ? (and the 'boost' and turbocharging power ?)
are you suggesting a possible compounded power approaching 900 hp ? (if the rules were adjusted to make this useable)
compounding giving almost 50% more power than a turbocharged engine for the same fuel consumption ?

btw
the NACA work shows early exhaust valve closure is needed with these high exhaust pressures (helps retain crankshaft power)

[Pingguest]

For me, things have become a bit misty for me in the past few weeks. First I thought that from 2014 the fuel consumption will only be limited by a fuel-flow limit of 100 kilogram per hour, but now I read that an additional fuel consumption applies for the race. This is in contrast to what Charlie Whiting said before.

Not really,
What Brawn was saying is that the total fuel and the fuel flow limits are still in place, However in the race there will be situations where the car will use less than the maximum fuel flow.

Interestingly, the more articles I read, there seems to be an additional fuel consumption limit alongside a fuel-flow limit.

[1158]

This may not be quite the thread for this but discussing the post by Aleksandergreat I thought there will not be a starter motor hole next year? Don't the regs require the cars to be able to start themselves? I would imagine if this is the case they would do away with the SMH.

I could be mistaken though, it has been a while since I looked at the regs and these things do change.

Great article BTW!

[CBeck113]

Very nice Aleksandergreat! I would say that the disadvantage of the thermals for the proposed Ferrari design may have an advantage: you could use this very hot air as a substitute for the missing exhaust gas. It does not have as much energy by far, but much more than the normal atmospheric air around the car. So, by ducting the air around the engine (maybe through a well-placed radiator or two) you could let it out on the floor just in front of the diffusor. The exit could be tailored to compensate for weak areas of sealing from the front of the car.
I wouldn't want to calculate that, but I do believe that this could be helpful. I just can't say to what extent.
And one step further: would it be legal to allow ERS to drive a fan to accelerate this air? Technically it would be for cooling...

[aleks_ader]

This may not be quite the thread for this but discussing the post by Aleksandergreat I thought there will not be a starter motor hole next year? Don't the regs require the cars to be able to start themselves? I would imagine if this is the case they would do away with the SMH.

I could be mistaken though, it has been a while since I looked at the regs and these things do change.

Great article BTW!

Yes is still there:

5.20 Starting the engine :
A supplementary device temporarily connected to the car may be used to start the engine both on the grid and in the pits.

Here we could just discuss about engines configurations its thermal issues, dualboost implementation and its limitation etc.

Aeroside i will made cfd in apropriete post so ther could discuss about that....

[rjsa]

News are that the Gill sensor failed testing, off by up to 1.5%:

http://www.gillsensors.com/content/fuel ... ensor.html

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 32974.html

[Tommy Cookers]

Very nice Aleksandergreat! I would say that the disadvantage of the thermals for the proposed Ferrari design may have an advantage: you could use this very hot air as a substitute for the missing exhaust gas.

very hot air has such a (kinematic) viscosity that is potentially useful for aero ?