2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[timbo]

hey man relax please
scarbs said good ideas about of ferrari engine design and quad spark rumours on twitter just now
...

Aha, my kriztal ball still works, they will have quattro scintilla!

Nope it doesn't. See above, only one spark plug per cylinder according to the rules.

[tuj]

Could you make a single plug with 4 electrodes all facing away from each other? Maybe this is the quad-spark?

[xpensive]

As I am as seasoned patent-analyst, -writer, -inventor and -cheater rolled into one, I have taken a careful look at the below;

5.11.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder.
No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

My focus immediately fell on the xpression "spark plug", what xactly defines a "spark plug", what if you develop a "spark bolt"?

The novel Spark bolt TM will without a doubt look deceivingly similar to the now obsolete Spark plug but is not, xactly how is a company secret though. With the patent-pending Spark bolt TM we can apply just as many of the as we like or find room for.

Suck on that one Charlie!

[Blanchimont]

No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

How does your innovative spark bolt TM ignite the fuel/air mixture? With the help of sparks or do you use bolts?

But i guess that's a secret you'll never reveal!

[GitanesBlondes]

As I am as seasoned patent-analyst, -writer, -inventor and -cheater rolled into one, I have taken a careful look at the below;

5.11.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder.
No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

My focus immediately fell on the xpression "spark plug", what xactly defines a "spark plug", what if you develop a "spark bolt"?

The novel Spark bolt TM will without a doubt look deceivingly similar to the now obsolete Spark plug but is not, xactly how is a company secret though. With the patent-pending Spark bolt TM we can apply just as many of the as we like or find room for.

Suck on that one Charlie!

Interesting thinking xpensive.

I'd probably start looking into creating "new" technologies like your Spark Bolt idea.

I mean really, isn't that the way to get past the regulations anyway? Just create altogether new technologies that Whiting and company do not know about to get it a favorable ruling.

"Well the regulations don't expressly prohibit this at all."

I fully expect at least one team to be playing around with spark plugs....not to mention that team no doubt has the Shell hamsters working 24/7 to create the most energy dense fuel to go with it...

[xpensive]

No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

How does your innovative spark bolt TM ignite the fuel/air mixture? With the help of sparks or do you use bolts?

But i guess that's a secret you'll never reveal!

Correct, but on the subject, what xactly does "five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle" mean?

Think carefully before you answer now.

[langwadt]

Could you make a single plug with 4 electrodes all facing away from each other? Maybe this is the quad-spark?

four electrodes does not give you four sparks. The high voltage picks the path of least resistance, usually the nearest electrode, and that's it.

[Blanchimont]

Article 5.11.2 says that "Only conventional spark plugs that function by high tension electrical discharge across an
exposed gap are permitted." The bold part seems to be what a spark is for the FIA and for also me.

But is it also your definition, x?

[Tommy Cookers]

.... I think I have found a way that engine builders can increase the efficiency of F1 engines at part throttle ......
Now on the intake side. Since the compressor is attached to the turbine by means of a shaft then it to would be spinning at 100,000 rpm because the mgu-h is spinning the shaft. My thinking goes that on the cylinder that the intake valve is open air is being forced in. If air fills the combustion chamber 'quicker' (for want of a better word) than the piston descends in the cylinder then a situation arises where the piston is now actually adding energy to the crankshaft.
Yes, if the mgu-h was not there then the turbocharger would still have some effect on the intake side. However it would have the opposite effect on the exhaust side with an increase in back pressure. The combined effect of reduced back pressure on the piston in the exhaust phase and the increased pressure on the intake phase (raising the volumetric efficiency) should mean that less energy is taken from the crankshaft and maybe some even added in. This will have a net result of more than 50% at 10,000 engine rpm for roughly 0.5(X). More net torque at that rpm for the same fuel used.

your scheme appears to spend valuable stored electrical energy and recover pneumatically some of that spending of energy
to 'save' some fuel
surely other ways of spending electrical energy are more beneficial to race-time and track position ?

as in recent N/A F1 according to Renault Sport, little or no throttling is needed anyway (for partial powers)
and there's almost no reward for partial-power efficiency
because fuel rate limit is driven only by rpm, regardless of how much or little power is needed
ie there's plenty of fuel available at partial powers (this is no accident)
and fuel 'saved' cannot be held back eg for adding to the fuel rate at full demand

and anyway fuel can be spent to drive MGU-K generation exactly as it has been spent to drive KERS generation

the only benefit of fuel saving is a small weight reduction ie load 92 or 94 kg not 100 kg
surely it's more advantageous to spend fuel to eg keep the turbo spooled up whenever desirable
even spool it down (for generation) when appropriate, but any way and every way go for maximum energy storage and reuse ?
(at partial power you won't be MGU-H generating for real-time use)

[ringo]

you should all try to read the regulations

5.1.8 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves with axial displacement are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine
component must be circular.

5.10.2 There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted upstream of
the intake valves or downstream of the exhaust valves. Only approved parts may be used and
the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the
Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

5.11.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder.
No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

afaict the current spark plugs are ~7.5mm thread so they are pretty small already

so there is no maximum valve diameter then.

[xpensive]

Article 5.11.2 says that "Only conventional spark plugs that function by high tension electrical discharge across an
exposed gap are permitted." The bold part seems to be what a spark is for the FIA and for also me.

But is it also your definition, x?

Again, we will not use spark plugs, neither conventional nor otherwise devised, but our novel "Spark bolt TM", which will also create a high tension electrical discharge across an exposed gap. How this is specifically performed will be duly disclosed 12 months time after the patent application's priority date, all according to PCT/EPC standard procedure.

But how about your interpretation of; "five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle"

[trinidefender]

.... I think I have found a way that engine builders can increase the efficiency of F1 engines at part throttle ......
Now on the intake side. Since the compressor is attached to the turbine by means of a shaft then it to would be spinning at 100,000 rpm because the mgu-h is spinning the shaft. My thinking goes that on the cylinder that the intake valve is open air is being forced in. If air fills the combustion chamber 'quicker' (for want of a better word) than the piston descends in the cylinder then a situation arises where the piston is now actually adding energy to the crankshaft.
Yes, if the mgu-h was not there then the turbocharger would still have some effect on the intake side. However it would have the opposite effect on the exhaust side with an increase in back pressure. The combined effect of reduced back pressure on the piston in the exhaust phase and the increased pressure on the intake phase (raising the volumetric efficiency) should mean that less energy is taken from the crankshaft and maybe some even added in. This will have a net result of more than 50% at 10,000 engine rpm for roughly 0.5(X). More net torque at that rpm for the same fuel used.

your scheme appears to spend valuable stored electrical energy and recover pneumatically some of that spending of energy
to 'save' some fuel
surely other ways of spending electrical energy are more beneficial to race-time and track position ?

as in recent N/A F1 according to Renault Sport, little or no throttling is needed anyway (for partial powers)
and there's almost no reward for partial-power efficiency
because fuel rate limit is driven only by rpm, regardless of how much or little power is needed
ie there's plenty of fuel available at partial powers (this is no accident)
and fuel 'saved' cannot be held back eg for adding to the fuel rate at full demand

and anyway fuel can be spent to drive MGU-K generation exactly as it has been spent to drive KERS generation

the only benefit of fuel saving is a small weight reduction ie load 92 or 94 kg not 100 kg
surely it's more advantageous to spend fuel to eg keep the turbo spooled up whenever desirable
even spool it down (for generation) when appropriate, but any way and every way go for maximum energy storage and reuse ?
(at partial power you won't be MGU-H generating for real-time use)

While agree and knew about some of the points you are making there are some things I do not agree with. Yes you will be using power to keep the turbo at a high rpm all the time. However that also means that as soon as fuel is injected there is instantaneous power being produced. Rather than a lag for the mgu-h to spool it up for the driver.

Now that I think about it my solution with a lean burning engine, even at full power may have some advantages (assuming you can overcome the problems with lean burning, which coincidentally direct injection does overcome many of these problems) back to my example except now you are demanding 100% torque at 10,000 engine rpm. Say the exhaust gasses were to spin the compressor/turbine at 100,000 shaft rpm.

Now what if the mgu-h were to spend some electrical energy to spin the shaft to 125,000 rpm. This would create a situation where the exhaust is now being sucked out of the cylinders. Reducing back pressure and henceforth reducing the work the piston has to do to remove the exhaust gasses from the cylinder. On the intake side the compressor will now be spinning at 125,000 rpm also. This will create a situation where the intake is at a higher pressure. This pressure will help to fill the cylinder better than the lower pressure being produced at 100,000 rpm. This means that piston can actually be forced down the cylinder adding energy to the crankshaft. The net result would be a direct torque increase at whatever rpm the crankshaft sis turning at. Yes I realise fuel is still the limit and that this would create a lean burn.

Now the problems I have thought of with this are to keep the combustion stable in the lean burn conditions. Considering the advancements in stratified injection and direct injection I think this should be possible. The next problem arises with electrical power consumption. However I was doing some calculations and it seems the FIA were quite conservative when it comes to power generation and usage. With my napkin calculations it seems that in general teams will be able to generate more energy than they can use on the mgu-k because of the limits imposed by regulations. Any extra energy can be put into spinning the compressor/turbine shaft faster. A third problem arises by the fact that you remove a lot of energy that the mgu-h can generate because it will be acting like a motor. What if for most of the race the car will run at normal and say when the driver presses a button it will cause the mgu-h to go into motor mode and spool the compressor/turbine shaft quicker. This by extension will give a direct torque increase to the crankshaft and as a net result the engine will make more power at whatever rpm it is at. This can be used maybe for an overtaking boost or as a final lap surge when you aren't to worried about running out of electrical power.

[langwadt]

you should all try to read the regulations

5.1.8 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves with axial displacement are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine
component must be circular.

5.10.2 There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted upstream of
the intake valves or downstream of the exhaust valves. Only approved parts may be used and
the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the
Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

5.11.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder.
No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

afaict the current spark plugs are ~7.5mm thread so they are pretty small already

so there is no maximum valve diameter then.

no, but the bore is fixed at 80mm and I believe there is a well established optimum for valve size vs. bore

once you get past a certain size the cylinder wall starts to block part of the opening

[ringo]

I agree, but maybe there is a contention with spark plug and direct injector. Before there was enough real estate for the plug by itself.

[WhiteBlue]

The point is not to invent something new, but to combust the fuel/air mixture more efficiently with more power generation per mg of fuel. Unless designers find novel ways to enhance the combustion process regarding this aparently simple but challenging objective no real progress will be delivered. I'm pretty sure combustion improvement is one of the most challenging tasks and we do not have people on board who are willing to give it some thoughts.