2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Giblet]

I see where you are coming from Ringo, but a smaller lighter car is not about engine efficiency, it is about the efficiency of the car. An engine that uses less fuel on it's own accord is more relevant to road cars, which seems to be where they are going much to my dismay. The fuel flow limit is a very high bar right now, and there is little need to be at that limit all the time.

Having the engine turned up to full the whole race, running rich, keeping it cool so it can run even harder is against the engine efficiency ethos they are trying to put forward.

[ringo]

A smaller lighter car is about engine efficiency indirectly.
It's less load on the engine. Also a smaller car has less drag.

Running the engine half mast, is just a facade, that doesn't say much about fuel efficiency in racing.
And again i still believe a car with less fuel at the start can go full bore and still save more fuel.
When i get a little time i'll show an example.

I don't like the idea of having an inherently inefficient method in getting from point A to B, be masked with turning down the engine, to give a false impression of efficiency.

Refuel is the most cost effective way to reduce fuel consumption. That's a no brainer. A fuel flow limit controls the fuel use.
3 or 5 pitstops wont change the consumption will full bore driving.

Makes no sense spending millions of dollars on all kinds of technology if at the end of the day, the best way to save fuel is to ease your right foot and limp the car home.

[Giblet]

Since we are talking about 2013 here, lets assume that the cars will be lighter, and the tank will be smaller, and the engine will burn less fuel, even at full fuel flow rate.

With everything being smaller, and using less fuel by their very nature, it might not be an advantage anymore to stop for 20 seconds in the hope you make up 25 total on track. The margins between the stops were so minimal, the driver was the one in the end that had to find the extra pace by feeling the lighter weight.

The smaller cars might mean the advantage of in race refueling disappears entirely.

I'm not sure at this point, but it's definitely worth exploring if refueling will still be an advantage in the newer formula.

[godlameroso]

The Panamera engine with 10.5 : 1 is also a turbo engine.

The Panamera engine is also a 4.8l V8 which is three times the capacity and double the cylinders of the proposed engines. If I were an engine builder trying to run approximately 30psi of boost, unless I could vary the compression ratio, I would not run over 9.5 to 1. Turbo cars like to run rich, my old eclipse gs-t was running 18 psi with the stock intercooler, it was permanently heat soaked, and I would get knock if I raised the A/F ratio above 12.8:1, and that was at 8.5:1 compression ratio. Then again most intercoolers are garbage, even upgraded cores from tuning shops. The most important part of the intercooler is also the most neglected part, the end tanks. Good end tanks improve the flow in and out of the cooler in addition to generating less pressure drop, which also improves the turbo's efficency. Too bad 2013 is so far away I would love to know the restrictions on the turbo system's ancillaries as there is plenty of room for development there.

[strad]

No refueling makes for better racing. period

[ringo]

Since we are talking about 2013 here, lets assume that the cars will be lighter, and the tank will be smaller, and the engine will burn less fuel, even at full fuel flow rate.

With everything being smaller, and using less fuel by their very nature, it might not be an advantage anymore to stop for 20 seconds in the hope you make up 25 total on track. The margins between the stops were so minimal, the driver was the one in the end that had to find the extra pace by feeling the lighter weight.

The smaller cars might mean the advantage of in race refueling disappears entirely.

I'm not sure at this point, but it's definitely worth exploring if refueling will still be an advantage in the newer formula.

Mathematically it's an advantage. We're talking about fuel efficiency here, if we cared for how long it took to cover a race distance we would stick to the 750hp V8 with 120kW KERS.
White blues argument is increasing efficiency. Refueling will always be more efficient. We see it in the fighter planes, refuelling in the skies, instead of having to carry around huge tanks; increasing weight and size of the air craft.
It will always be an advantage to stop for fuel.
20s is just because of arbitrary pit lane speeds. And even with such a handicap, if hypothetically a 2009 car was to race with a 2010 car, the 2010 car would only have 1 free pitstop plus 7s or so to beat the 2009 car with a 2 stop strategy.

But not so sidetrack to the out right pace, and focusing on efficiency, it's best the 2013 rules incorporate refueling if the want to send a message. A tank half the width or length would do wonders for packaging and aero efficiency.
Also for tyre wear, and reduced engine loads.

If the FIA were serious about fuel saving, refueling with the fuel flow limit would be at the top of their list.

[Giblet]

Sorry ringo, but you just backpedalled to the word 'efficient', as if this discussion is about the whole car, it isn't, it's about the engine.

So at MPG, fuel flow, energy limiting series, the engine needs to burn less fuel every lap. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but it is the direction the FIA seems to be going, so with that in mind, refueling goes against that ethos.

If we follow your line of thought, we will end up with the ghastly Delta wing IRL concept.

Both lines of thought have many positive points, and it would take a detailed, expensive study to ever conclude what the actual tipping point of favor is, and where it is at.

If the tipping point is near the middle, then a decision would be based on cost and safety.

[Shaddock]

The Panamera engine with 10.5 : 1 is also a turbo engine.

The Panamera engine is also a 4.8l V8 which is three times the capacity and double the cylinders of the proposed engines. If I were an engine builder trying to run approximately 30psi of boost, unless I could vary the compression ratio, I would not run over 9.5 to 1. Turbo cars like to run rich, my old eclipse gs-t was running 18 psi with the stock intercooler, it was permanently heat soaked, and I would get knock if I raised the A/F ratio above 12.8:1, and that was at 8.5:1 compression ratio. Then again most intercoolers are garbage, even upgraded cores from tuning shops. The most important part of the intercooler is also the most neglected part, the end tanks. Good end tanks improve the flow in and out of the cooler in addition to generating less pressure drop, which also improves the turbo's efficency. Too bad 2013 is so far away I would love to know the restrictions on the turbo system's ancillaries as there is plenty of room for development there.

You could upgrade your stock I/C for a Forge one http://www.forgemotorsport.co.uk/conten ... talog=0013, that would have helped with the onset of knock. The hot air and high cylinder pressures will increase the tendency of an engines to knock. When an engine is running 'on boost', the intake air temperature increases, thus increasing the tendency to knock. If your I/C can't keep things cool, (my wifes BMW 335 couldn't either!) because it's soaked, then the cars knock sensors (if your car has them) will instruct the ecu will either add fuel, pull the timings or reduce boost all reducing overall power.

[Edis]

Using of variable nozzles in gasoline engines is limited by the exhaust gases temperature (higher than in case of diesels). However, as LMPs diesel turbos are working in the temperature similar to what you can find in the road gasoline ones, it just a matter of time before they'll find their way into mass production.

So far Porsche are the only ones offering VNT turbos on a gasoline powered production car. I'm not certain what temperature they can handle but I suppose around 1000 degC. They are however quite expensive, and the technology would probably be more useful for a roadcar than a racecar.

There is nothing in the published data and it would not make sense from a regulatory point of view. The new formula is fuel restricted and not air restricted. If you decide for one method you better stick to it and leave the other side of the equation open.

Turbo pressure for a target power of 560 hp can be easily calculated. The displacement and rev factors are both 0.66. If you apply that to the old engine you have 333 hp. To get to 560 hp you have to boost by 1.68.

Actually, a boost limit of 3 bars absolute was mentioned earlier. There is a good reason to limit boost pressures in order to prevent the use of very high boost pressures at low engine speeds.

I disagree. They will try to run the highest possible compression which will be determined by the way they run the combustion process. It will be almost certainly spray guided with central injection from the center top of the cylinder at the end of the compression phase. In that combustion mode they will have the leanest combustion with the highest lambda in homogenous mode and the best cooling effect from the vaporization of the fuel.

No, they will not go for the highest possible compression ratio. The choice of compression ratio is always a trade off between several parameters. It is very unlikely that they use spray guided injection, but rather use homogeneous charge direct injection just like every other racing engine using direct injection. They will possibly use a homogeneous lean mode at part load.

I think the engine makers are beginning to see the reduced return on investment for developing what amounts to a spec engine, in a time when the future of the internal combustion engine is becoming less and less secure.
If the estimate of 10 percent of road vehicles becoming all electric by 2015 happens, then the market for road ic engines is set to begin an inevitable and relatively rapid decline.
Red Bull have a product to promote that is not connected with the motor industry or racing but it does have a health and fitness connection (at least in the minds of the buying public). A Red Bull engine or one paid for and labeled as one based on an energy conscious formula, IMO is the most sensible way to move forward for the best financial reward. I am betting that VW are aware of this.
If the FIA continue to tighten the regulations and further restrict inovation in energy saving within motor sport, then most of the transitory development on hybrids and EVs will inevitably happen outside their remit.
They are dangerously sitting on the fence at present.

More realistic estimations say around 3% market share for electric cars by 2020. This do however include both full electrics and plug in hybrids, which means about 98.5% of the cars sold 2020 will still have combustion engines.

A smaller lighter car is about engine efficiency indirectly.
It's less load on the engine. Also a smaller car has less drag.

Running the engine half mast, is just a facade, that doesn't say much about fuel efficiency in racing.
And again i still believe a car with less fuel at the start can go full bore and still save more fuel.
When i get a little time i'll show an example.

I don't like the idea of having an inherently inefficient method in getting from point A to B, be masked with turning down the engine, to give a false impression of efficiency.

Refuel is the most cost effective way to reduce fuel consumption. That's a no brainer. A fuel flow limit controls the fuel use.
3 or 5 pitstops wont change the consumption will full bore driving.

Makes no sense spending millions of dollars on all kinds of technology if at the end of the day, the best way to save fuel is to ease your right foot and limp the car home.

The main purpose of reducing a cars weight is to reduce the power required to run the car.

For road cars there is a secondary benefit, but it is actually that it allows you to increase the average load on the engine. Remember, an engine is more efficient at a higher load.

For a road car the engine is essentially sized to give adequate acceleration performance. This do however mean that the engine is way oversized when the car is running at a constanst speed, or when only a slow acceleration is required. Since a lighter car means less power consumed during acceleration, a less powerful engine will provide the required acceleration performance which means that this less powerful engine will be under a higher load during driving with a constant speed.

[WhiteBlue]

Using of variable nozzles in gasoline engines is limited by the exhaust gases temperature (higher than in case of diesels). However, as LMPs diesel turbos are working in the temperature similar to what you can find in the road gasoline ones, it just a matter of time before they'll find their way into mass production.

So far Porsche are the only ones offering VNT turbos on a gasoline powered production car. I'm not certain what temperature they can handle but I suppose around 1000 degC. They are however quite expensive, and the technology would probably be more useful for a roadcar than a racecar.

I don't think that F1 would consider road car prices as expensive. One should also consider that it is a declared objective of the new formula to be more road relevant.

There is nothing in the published data and it would not make sense from a regulatory point of view. The new formula is fuel restricted and not air restricted. If you decide for one method you better stick to it and leave the other side of the equation open.
Turbo pressure for a target power of 560 hp can be easily calculated. The displacement and rev factors are both 0.66. If you apply that to the old engine you have 333 hp. To get to 560 hp you have to boost by 1.68.

Actually, a boost limit of 3 bars absolute was mentioned earlier. There is a good reason to limit boost pressures in order to prevent the use of very high boost pressures at low engine speeds.

In the run up to the final decision a lot of different figures were discussed. The boost pressure was one of them. It never got mentioned when the legislation was finalized though. So until we get confirmation from a reliable source I would treat an "old" boost pressure figure with some skepticism.

I disagree. They will try to run the highest possible compression which will be determined by the way they run the combustion process. It will be almost certainly spray guided with central injection from the center top of the cylinder at the end of the compression phase. In that combustion mode they will have the leanest combustion with the highest lambda in homogenous mode and the best cooling effect from the vaporization of the fuel.

No, they will not go for the highest possible compression ratio. The choice of compression ratio is always a trade off between several parameters. It is very unlikely that they use spray guided injection, but rather use homogeneous charge direct injection just like every other racing engine using direct injection. They will possibly use a homogeneous lean mode at part load.

You are not very convincing. What kind of direct injection do you propose they would be using instead of spray guided? Wall guided or air guided would be the alternatives. Both methods are old and a lot less efficient. Audi have used air guided DI in the R8 project back in the '90s. Air guided would cause higher gas exchange losses and wall guided would wet the pistons and reduce evaporation performance.

Spray guide DI has been the driver for increasing petrol injection pressures from 150 to 200 bar. F1 wants to go to 500 bar now. Why would they do this unless they need it for higher flow rates? The high flow rates are generally needed to execute spray guided injection in a very short time window at the end of the final compression stroke. It all fits the plan to use spray guided injection and utilize the advantage of a higher compression.

One also needs to consider that we see a major shift away from high throttle settings to lower average power settings. In 2010 the average full throttle percentage across all 19 tracks was 57%. This is supposed to go down to 50% in 2013 according to Patrick Head. This trend is another good reason to use an injection method that is offering highest fuel efficiency in homogeneous and in lean homogeneous modes.

[747heavy]

Careful WB, do not fall into a statistical average trap.
If a race engine spends 50% of of´s time on 100% throttle and 50% on 0% throttle, the average throttle angle will be 50%.
But this is not the same as using the engine at part load.

The reduction to 50% from 57% (or 70% or whatever was mentioned in other sources) will mainly come from an increase in "off throttle" time, do to the proposed reductions in downforce.

I´m afraid, but I don´t see the 1.6 ltr T/C I4 engines of +2013 operate at any significant part throttle periods under normal racing conditions (no safety car periods).
Consider, that the engines are less powerful and if AWKERS does come into play, traction out of slow corners will be improved, therefor applying full throttle is easier, earlier.
The engine will operate in WOT or off throttle mode, which leads to an quoted average - but does not equal part load operation, as seen in road cars for most of the time.

The only time when race engines are operated in a part load condition, is when the engine is "too" powerful for the chassis/tire, in an extreme case, this would mean, you can´t even apply full throttle on the straights, because it would cause wheelspin.
The 2013 engine goes in the opposite direction.

I did not quite understand (at first) what the intention behind the reduced overall downforce idea for 2013 was.
I do understood why they whould like to go to GE aero, but did not necessary understand, why an overall reduction was needed, as I don´t think, we have a safety issue at the moment (sure slower is safer, but it does not look like a pressing issue atm).
In the meantime, I have come to the conclusion (maybe wrongly), that it is KERS related, and an attempt to favour a battery KERS solution.
If they would have just switched to GE aero, the cars would be quicker on the straights, therefore having more downforce (but less drag) on the end of the straights. Braking distances (time under brakes) would still be extremely short.
As we have seen in our KERS calculations (right or wrong), this poses a fundamental problem for a battery KERS.

The time ratio of braking/not braking in F1 is ~ 1/5, if we account for some coasting and times where you can´t accelerate this becomes perhaps ~1/4, this is still a far cry from a road car where the ratio closer to 1/2 or even 1/1.

Extreme short braking distances(time under brakes) which are/used to be a hallmark
of F1 are not very helpful in developing road car relevant KERS solutions.
Therefore braking distances have to become longer (more time to charge the batteries).

Reducing overall downforce, will achieve just this, but I doubt it will lead to any significant part throttle operation of the engine.

If you go and check some historical data, you will see that the V10 3 ltr. engines in F1 where operating much longer at part throttle, then the current V8 2.4 ltr. engines.

[WhiteBlue]

First of all, the question of the power profile doesn't really impact on the choice of the injection method IMO. Why should it if one of three methods is always more fuel efficient than the other two?

Second, I have given that some thought to profiles but I have not come to a conclusion. If we assume 80s for a representative F1 lap we should see 40s of full throttle. If we assume 12 s realistic breaking time per lap now we can perhaps expect that to rise to 15s in 2013.

This still leaves us with 25s of part throttle operation which needs a realistic average throttle and power figure. For ease of computation I would instinctively use 50% but from your post I have to assume that you would see that figure much higher.

I'm afraid we probably need some professional input here to go forward with confidence.

[godlameroso]

The Panamera engine with 10.5 : 1 is also a turbo engine.

The Panamera engine is also a 4.8l V8 which is three times the capacity and double the cylinders of the proposed engines. If I were an engine builder trying to run approximately 30psi of boost, unless I could vary the compression ratio, I would not run over 9.5 to 1. Turbo cars like to run rich, my old eclipse gs-t was running 18 psi with the stock intercooler, it was permanently heat soaked, and I would get knock if I raised the A/F ratio above 12.8:1, and that was at 8.5:1 compression ratio. Then again most intercoolers are garbage, even upgraded cores from tuning shops. The most important part of the intercooler is also the most neglected part, the end tanks. Good end tanks improve the flow in and out of the cooler in addition to generating less pressure drop, which also improves the turbo's efficency. Too bad 2013 is so far away I would love to know the restrictions on the turbo system's ancillaries as there is plenty of room for development there.

You could upgrade your stock I/C for a Forge one http://www.forgemotorsport.co.uk/conten ... talog=0013, that would have helped with the onset of knock. The hot air and high cylinder pressures will increase the tendency of an engines to knock. When an engine is running 'on boost', the intake air temperature increases, thus increasing the tendency to knock. If your I/C can't keep things cool, (my wifes BMW 335 couldn't either!) because it's soaked, then the cars knock sensors (if your car has them) will instruct the ecu will either add fuel, pull the timings or reduce boost all reducing overall power.

My current car is NA...An EJ6 Civic hatch, with a K24 with the K20 head, BPU, Hondata tuning...etc. Crazy thing it makes more power than the 4g63 in my Eclipse, then again that engine had over 200,000 miles before it popped. Changed the turbo at around 120,000 miles from the stock 14b which only did 14.5 psi stock.

[ringo]

Sorry ringo, but you just backpedalled to the word 'efficient', as if this discussion is about the whole car, it isn't, it's about the engine.

So at MPG, fuel flow, energy limiting series, the engine needs to burn less fuel every lap. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but it is the direction the FIA seems to be going, so with that in mind, refueling goes against that ethos.

explain why.

The way i see it, if there is a fuel flow limit, you are restricted. You cannot use as much fuel as you please, even with refueling.
A car can run at the maximum fuel flow rate with 100kg less of fuel, with a sleeker body and could still be more fuel efficient than the heavier fueled car with a huge tank.

Your only saving grace with a non refueling strategy for 2013 is under fueling the car, which makes the direct injection and other fuel saving technology look like a joke. The cars should be able to run full bore and be fuel efficient at the same time.

The discussion is about the engine formula, surely the thing the engine is bolted to will have it's influence on the engine and geabox design. V6's came back into the discussion, so it can be seen how considerations for the fuel tank KERS and batteries come into play, especially if teams could chose between the 4 cylinder and the 6 cylinder.

[747heavy]

First of all, the question of the power profile doesn't really impact on the choice of the injection method IMO. Why should it if one of three methods is always more fuel efficient than the other two?

Second, I have given that some thought to profiles but I have not come to a conclusion. If we assume 80s for a representative F1 lap we should see 40s of full throttle. If we assume 12 s realistic breaking time per lap now we can perhaps expect that to rise to 15s in 2013.

This still leaves us with 25s of part throttle operation which needs a realistic average throttle and power figure. For ease of computation I would instinctively use 50% but from your post I have to assume that you would see that figure much higher.

I'm afraid we probably need some professional input here to go forward with confidence.

I did not comment on your choosen Injection method WB, only on the fact, that a reduction in average throttle angle over a lap, is not equal to more time at part throttle (for me part throttle means >10% <75%)

As for the rest:

This season's V8 engines are spending some ten per cent more time at full throttle around the high-speed Monza circuit compared to their V10 predecessors, BMW motorsport director Mario Theissen has revealed.

"With the V10 engines the full-throttle percentage was 67, with the less powerful V8 we recorded 77 percent during testing," Theissen explained. He went on to add that BMW is determined to boost its points tally in the final European race of the season.

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/1288 ... -throttle/

o.k. it´s not F1, but a race engine non the less
We look at ~10% spend part throttle mode, not 20%


old F1 turbo Honad turbo engine


max efficiency at/o close to max. power:


Do you have any data/facts to support your 20s on part throttle claim WB?

Keep in mind that there is a slight statistical error in the transient region.
Best seen in the Audi data for 50%-75% and 75%-85% both accounted for with 1%.
To go from 0% to 100% and back to 0% throttle, you will have to pass the transient region twice, which will lead to a given percentage of time spend there, but it does not mean that the engine as actually operating in this area with any constant applied throttle angle.

At which A/F ratio does the engine produces it´s max. power?
If we agree (and maybe be don´t), that the primary purpose of a race car is to be a quick as possible, and therefore to spend as much time as possible at max. power, it should answer the question as what is the predominant load condition for a /successful) race car/engine. - IMHO

In a fuel flow formula, you would want to use the max. allowed fuel flow all the time, either to drive your car or if you can´t make use of all the power, due to beeing traction limited, charge your KERS batteries and then make use of the extra power, when you are not traction limited.