2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Abarth]

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.[...]

Agreed.

The point is not to invent something new[...]Unless designers find novel ways to enhance the combustion process regarding this aparently simple but challenging objective no real progress will be delivered. [...]

Pretty difficult to find novel ways without "inventing something new", given the tight ruling, methinks...

[...] 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.

Now thats interesting....are you implying that we have people on board wich are able but not willing to give some thoughts?

[CBeck113]

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

You can ignite the spark plug / bolt a maximum of five times during one cycle of the four-stroke cycle in each cylinder. You could use 5 ignitions to burn the fuel as thoroughly as possible, or you could use three to ignite the fuel under compression and the other two to ignite the rest fuel in the exhaust gas (i.e. after the exhaust valves opened) to increase its energy (most likely used last year, could be counterproductive in 2014, since you'll want to be as efficient as possible...or could the fumes be used to cool the turbo? ).

IIrc this is common practice in road cars to get a smoother and more efficient ignition, and I think that tailoring the burn process could help the engines last longer by reducing the shock of the pressure build-up in the cylinder.

[Holm86]

Gill Sensors have confirmed that they fuel flow meter has been homologated by the FIA and is approved to be run during the 2014 Formula One season, following a race against time to get it ready.

Gill initially had trouble making sure they their ultrasonic fuel flow meter was accurate enough to be used in Formula One and WEC, and therefore to satisfy the FIA, ensuring they would be able to reliably enforce the fuel limit that is in the regulations for 2014 and beyond.

"Since the start of its development in 2011, the Fuel Flow Meter project has embraced the challenges of researching and developing an innovative technology aiming to provide the motorsport industry with real time data required for the new regulation", a statement reads. "Gill has continued to develop the use of ultrasonic technology to provide a solution that measures bi-directional fuel flow to a very high degree of accuracy. Feedback from the vigorous testing programme has been crucial to the meters design and functionality, ensuring the it fulfils the specification needs of each customer.

"Designed with an innovative, lightweight construction, the flow meter achieves the rapid transit response rate vital for the harsh environment application. The meter is capable of a flow measurement rate of 8000ml/min and fulfils the FIA’s accuracy requirements. “Gill Sensors are thrilled to have been chosen to undertake this extraordinary venture and we are delighted that the FIA is confident in the performance and durability of the Ultrasonic Fuel Flow Meter.” says Mike Gill, Chairman of the Gill Group. “We would like to thank the FIA and all the teams for their backing which has been fundamental to the project.”

"The ultrasonic fuel flow meter will remain homologated for use within Formula 1 and WEC throughout the expected lifetime of the turbocharged V6 engine and future designs."

http://www.f1technical.net/news/19049

[Tommy Cookers]

I don't know what people mean when they talk about 'improving the combustion', though this always sounds good
before road cars had catalysts combustion at cruise was about 99.8% (inferrable from permitted levels of CO or HCs)
now combustion in-cylinder is only 98% (the mixture being always 2% rich for 3-way catalysis)

regarding 2014 engine efficiency, we need combustion that is fast relative to the piston motion
so the heat is liberated at the right piston position for fullest expansion of all the hot gas (Atkinson, Miller etc cycles being banned)
2013 engines could not do this at 18000 rpm (in part because the injection pressure was reduced to 100 bar and DI banned)
such is implied by the spark timing, and shown by (Ferrari) cylinder pressure data we have seen here
2014 can have eg 500 bar and only 10500-13000 rpm and relatively small cylinder bore
there seems no problem with combustion speed and no need for non-ideal ignition timing

surely the issue is maximising CR ie ER ? (this is of course helped by the very late DI possible enabled by very high pressure)
Simon suggested that valve size may be limited to allow the physical attainment of a very high CR (by reducing clearance volumes)
if controlled injection rate after sparking can deter detonation by controlling combustion rate this might enable a higher CR/ER

and no-one seems to mention dissociation, the factor traditionally unavoidable in high mep SI running
(high temp causing CO2 temporarily to revert to CO, disadvantageously absorbing heat then re-releasing it later in the stroke)
unless there's some 'magic beans' fuel ingredient that reduces dissociation
injection might be managed to reduce dissociation (though this would be part counterproductive ?)
people love to talk physical thermodynamics, as though this was useful (representative) when considering piston engines)
but they always ignore the chemical thermodynamics

there is presumably (in an engine working over a limited speed range) some relationship between combustion speed and HUCR
traditional factors eg dissociation and combustion rate limits may have allowed CR to be higher than otherwise

[WhiteBlue]

The point is not to invent something new[...]Unless designers find novel ways to enhance the combustion process regarding this aparently simple but challenging objective no real progress will be delivered. [...]

Pretty difficult to find novel ways without "inventing something new", given the tight ruling, methinks...

It depends of your thinking. There is absolutely nothing in the regs that stop you being inventive about combustion. The last innovation I'm aware of is spray guided combustion by Bosch and other parties more than ten years ago. I do not know of any substantial invention in the field since then. F1 is long overdue to make a contribution there. I think that the cutting edge will be represented by Porsche and LMP1.

[...] 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.

Now thats interesting....are you implying that we have people on board wich are able but not willing to give some thoughts?

Yes, we certainly have people on board who are able to understand the concepts that have been applied for the last 20 years in combustion development. I'm not an automotive engineer and I can understand it when I read the literature that got published. But I also know that the most active board members with a keen interest in engine technology ignore this field of work.

When I follow the discussion about ignition there is a distinct lack of knowledge of the requirements that modern combustion concepts place on geometric design considerations.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.f1technical.net/news/19049

There is news that the fuel flow meters are now homologated by the FiA. Unless I'm very much mistaken there has been wide spread doubt about that mile stone being met in time by Gill and the FiA.

[Holm86]

http://www.f1technical.net/news/19049

There is news that the fuel flow meters are now homologated by the FiA. Unless I'm very much mistaken there has been wide spread doubt about that mile stone being met in time by Gill and the FiA.

I just quoted that little longer up the page And yes there has been much doubt but great that they managed to get it done. I wonder what the actual accuracy is.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote="trinidefender]
Now that I think about it my solution with a lean burning engine, even at full power may have some advantages ..... 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. ...... 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
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. ..... [/quote]

the thread consensus seems to be that the generation of the MGU-K is limited to 120 kW
even though far more KE is available in the braking phase on some tracks high speed straights

[ringo]

Ultrasonic Fuel Flow Meter
Solid-state Ultrasonic Fuel Flow Meter capable of monitoring bi-directional fuel flow rate up to 8000ml/min.

Max Flow: 8000 ml/min
Measurement Rate: 1 kHz
V Supply: +4.75V to +5.25V
Outputs: 4 x Analogue; CAN



The Gill Ultrasonic Fuel Flow Meter is compact, lightweight and designed to withstand extreme levels of vibration and temperatures.

The fuel flow meter uses proven solid-state ultrasonic flow measurement technology to detect bi-directional fuel flow rate up to 8000ml/min. The fuel flow meter is capable of monitoring both transient and steady fuel flow, flow direction, fuel temperature and cumulative fuel usage.

With no mechanical moving parts within the flow path, pressure drop across is minimised providing true flow rate data with little impact on the fuel flow itself. Featuring a newly-developed electronic platform, which integrates the latest technology, the meter is capable of measuring fuel flow rate at 1KHz.

The Ultrasonic Fuel Flow Meter has been designed for use with all fuel types, including petroleum, gasoline, diesel and aggressive ethanol blends. The meter has been certified by the FIA for use in the 2014 Formula 1 and World Endurance Championship (WEC).

data sheet:

http://www.gillsensors.com/content/data ... -Meter.pdf

apparently the meter must go before the high pressure pump, it can only withstand 2000kPa of pressure. So i'm guessing a lift pump then the meter, then the high pressure pump.
On question though, as it relates to the fuel returning to the tank, will this pass through a second meter of the same kind?

The size is quite impressive. I know most were wondering how big will the mass flow meter be for this thing. I was thinking coriolis meters. Now they have the ultrasonic flow meter that is quite small.

[langwadt]

[quote="trinidefender]
Now that I think about it my solution with a lean burning engine, even at full power may have some advantages ..... 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. ...... 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
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. .....

the thread consensus seems to be that the generation of the MGU-K is limited to 120 kW
even though far more KE is available in the braking phase on some tracks high speed straights[/quote][/quote]

I only see battery power going to the mgu-h to spin it up to reduce lag
at maximum torque demand I expect you would run the ICE at 100% and harvest as much as from the mgu-h
as you can use in the mgu-k any more that that (if any) can go to the batteries

and I don't see how increased pressure would gain anything, any power gained from pushing down on the piston in the intake stroke will balance out with the increased power needed to compress the higher pressure in the compression stroke

all you get is an apparent higher compression ratio, you could also get that by not having an intercooler,
that could give you higher pressure with out the excess oxygen

[trinidefender]

[quote="trinidefender]
Now that I think about it my solution with a lean burning engine, even at full power may have some advantages ..... 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. ...... 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
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. .....

the thread consensus seems to be that the generation of the MGU-K is limited to 120 kW
even though far more KE is available in the braking phase on some tracks high speed straights

[/quote]

I only see battery power going to the mgu-h to spin it up to reduce lag
at maximum torque demand I expect you would run the ICE at 100% and harvest as much as from the mgu-h
as you can use in the mgu-k any more that that (if any) can go to the batteries

and I don't see how increased pressure would gain anything, any power gained from pushing down on the piston in the intake stroke will balance out with the increased power needed to compress the higher pressure in the compression stroke

all you get is an apparent higher compression ratio, you could also get that by not having an intercooler,
that could give you higher pressure with out the excess oxygen[/quote][/quote][/quote]

While you raise the overall compression ratio, you don't do it in the same way as not having an intercooler. It would be more efficient than that. Secondly what about the fact that you are also reducing back pressure on the exhaust stroke. That does take load off of the crankshaft.

[WhiteBlue]

On question though, as it relates to the fuel returning to the tank, will this pass through a second meter of the same kind?.

I doubt that any fuel that has passed the meter will return to tank unless there is back flow in the system, which sounds unlikely.

[ringo]

Well if there is fuel pressure regulation, there should be a return line to the tank.
The fuel demand will vary a lot during operation, as the driver presses the pedal. For protection of the pump and other equipment, it does make sense to have a regulator that relieves the fuel rail of fuel pressure.

[langwadt]

Well if there is fuel pressure regulation, there should be a return line to the tank.
The fuel demand will vary a lot during operation, as the driver presses the pedal. For protection of the pump and other equipment, it does make sense to have a regulator that relieves the fuel rail of fuel pressure.

it can be internal to the pump

[ringo]

I have been investigating the effects of engine load, desired intake air temperature on intercooler sizing.

It's quite interesting that depending on the temperature difference you want across your intercooler, it affects at what engine speeds you will have a greater heat load on the intercooler.
I have included in my engine calculator an intercooler sizer. It uses variables like intercooler material, material thickness, tube spacing, fin spacing, desired width, air speed and cfm to come up with an intercooler length.
You also put in what core thickness you will use.

Any how here is an example:

ideal lenght vs engine speed, under full load.


ambient temp: 15 degrees C
compressor outlet temp: varies
desired inlet temp: 50 degrees C
material: Aluminum
Air flow through side pod: 1200 cfm
number of tubes 50
tube height 0.005m
fin thickness 0.0005m
fin per inch 15
fin spacingm 0.001693333
tube spacing 0.01m
core thickness: 4 inches

From the above, it might make sense to go with the maximum size, as it will still cool sufficiently at less demanding times.
So this example 89cm is the height selected, this occurs at 10,500rpm logically. You can imagine 89cm x 30cm
If that's too big, i can increase core thickness or fool around with tubes and spacing etc. or simply require less of the intake temperatures.
Or i can make the interooler work at more forgiving air speeds. For the cfm above blowing through a 15 inch sidepod hole this is just about 5m/s. So with increased ground speed the size can be smaller. I can't simmulate this however. that would reqire of me to know how fast the cars are.