2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[747heavy]

just some more data, for those who are interested or want to do some calcs/sims.



Illmor data from F1 year 2000



typical throttle application over a lap (Monza 2000)





better version of the Audi LeMans lap data

[WhiteBlue]

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.

I do not use 20s for part time throttle, I used 25s and I have explained how I came to the figure. Out of a 80s lap we expect 50% (40s) on full throttle. We also have breaking time which I estimated with 15s for the 2013 lap. The rest of 25s is part time throttle.

The Honda data I would completely discard for a 2013 prognosis. Those engines had massive turbo lag and were practically driven in binary mode of full power or no power demand. We do not expect this for a modern turbo engine at all.

If the new engine is similar to modern high revving petrol turbo engines there should be no turbo lag at all above 2,000 rpm and the engine should not really go down to that kind of idle speed at all. If I remember the current race engines right they do not go much under 10,000 rpm during races.

I would accept the Audi R8 data from the graphic as useful for further evaluation of the part throttle profile.

[747heavy]

I would accept the Audi R8 data from the graphic as useful for further evaluation of the part throttle profile.

Agree with that WB, but 10-12% of an hypothetical 80s lap are 8-10s not 25s in my book.

[WhiteBlue]

I would accept the Audi R8 data from the graphic as useful for further evaluation of the part throttle profile.

Agree with that WB, but 10-12% of an hypothetical 80s lap are 8-10s not 25s in my book.

My proposal was to evaluate the 12% part throttle period and replace it with a representative average throttle position. I wasn't referring to the part throttle duration which is much easier and more reliably evaluated by the method I proposed.

0-25 % throttle = 13%
25-50% = 38%
50-75% = 63%
75-99% = 88%

(6 x 13 + 4 x 38 + 1 x 63 + 1 x 88)/12 = 32

I would replace the Le Mans part throttle profile of four throttle positions by one phase with 1/3 throttle open. My simplified throttle profile for a 2013 F1 lap would be:

40s of full throttle
25s of one third throttle
15s of zero throttle while breaking

How does that look as a model for simplified computations?

The next question should be how those throttle positions translate to power delivery.

I would think that in reality power control in 2013 will be completely by valve, injection and ignition mapping without a throttle function at all.

[747heavy]

My proposal was to evaluate the 12% part throttle period and replace it with a representative average throttle position. I wasn't referring to the part throttle duration which is much easier and more reliably evaluated by the method I proposed.

But why, if this is your intention, would you measure a "representive average throttle position" in time (25 sec)?
Would % not be a better metrics for "average throttle position"?

I do not use 20s for part time throttle, I used 25s and I have explained how I came to the figure. Out of a 80s lap we expect 50% (40s) on full throttle. We also have breaking time which I estimated with 15s for the 2013 lap. The rest of 25s is part time throttle.

I´m pretty sure, we will not see 25s at 50% throttle in 2013.

[Giblet]

explain why.

I don't think you get what I am trying to say. When the engine is limited, via fuel flow, displacement, or a giant lead flywheel, the designers need to look at other areas of efficiency in the engine, and this thread is about the engine.

The other efficiencies in body work, rolling resistance, or whatever, are all being done anyways. Teams aren't ignoring all the things you mention, just because there is refueling.

If there is refueling, your engine becomes designed to run at max power and fuel consumption, because you can always get more.

The FIA is now trying to stretch every single drop of fuel, and refueling, or adding drops, goes against what the FIA are now trying to accomplish, right or not.

I'm not debating your points, I just don't see why you don't see that the push to smaller engines and a fuel flow limit are going in the opposite direction of refueling.

Even more simply, it's like I give you $10, and say "Go buy all the food you need to eat for the week". You find a way to stretch that $10 as far as you can. If you come back to me 2 days later and say "Well just give me another $10, I can go get some more food" of course makes sense and would work, unless the energy allowance, or budget, is the topic de jour.

Since using less actual gasoline over the race distance, and finding other ways for the cars to gain sustenance is the current idea behind the rules, refueling is not withing that ethos.

To stretch that $10 of gas, of course you want to make the car slicker, faster, less draggy, and able to get the most bang for the buck of each ounce of gas, and this is what the engine guys are going to be working towards now instead of max power until the next fuel load.

[ringo]

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.

Amen brother 747.
Those Honda turbo graphs were the fist ones i posted in regards to the direct injection arguement in the first thread.
I'd expect with less powerful 1.6lt engines, part throttle would be even more scarce.
Amen to the max fuel flow formula requiring the car to be using the max at all times, to get the engine up to full power and efficiency at all times.
This ties into my sidetracking concerning refueling as well.

[ringo]

Damn!!!





That's basically a binary square wave for the throttle input!

[ringo]

explain why.

I don't think you get what I am trying to say. When the engine is limited, via fuel flow, displacement, or a giant lead flywheel, the designers need to look at other areas of efficiency in the engine, and this thread is about the engine.

The other efficiencies in body work, rolling resistance, or whatever, are all being done anyways. Teams aren't ignoring all the things you mention, just because there is refueling.

If there is refueling, your engine becomes designed to run at max power and fuel consumption, because you can always get more.

The FIA is now trying to stretch every single drop of fuel, and refueling, or adding drops, goes against what the FIA are now trying to accomplish, right or not.

I'm not debating your points, I just don't see why you don't see that the push to smaller engines and a fuel flow limit are going in the opposite direction of refueling.

Even more simply, it's like I give you $10, and say "Go buy all the food you need to eat for the week". You find a way to stretch that $10 as far as you can. If you come back to me 2 days later and say "Well just give me another $10, I can go get some more food" of course makes sense and would work, unless the energy allowance, or budget, is the topic de jour.

Since using less actual gasoline over the race distance, and finding other ways for the cars to gain sustenance is the current idea behind the rules, refueling is not withing that ethos.

To stretch that $10 of gas, of course you want to make the car slicker, faster, less draggy, and able to get the most bang for the buck of each ounce of gas, and this is what the engine guys are going to be working towards now instead of max power until the next fuel load.

I get your point, but what I am saying is that it is likely that more fuel will be used with 1 full tank of gasoline compared to refueling 2 or 3 times in one race with a smaller tank.

What the FIA did with banning refueling wasn't to curb fuel consumption. It indirectly made the teams put more focused on using the least amount possible, but it doesn't mean the least amount possible for a non refueling formula is less than one with refueling.
I understand the incentive to put the focus on it, but reality is fuel flow limit with refueling would incorporate the same measures that are being used with non refueling.
I would say non refueling is like giving someone 1 million dollars to last for 10 years versus, refueling being like giving someone 800 thousand to last 10 years, but only giving them 80 thousand a month.
The one being given the 80 thousand will spend more frivolously, since he has a reduced responsibility but he still will use less money at the end of the 10 years.

[WhiteBlue]

But why, if this is your intention, would you measure a "representive average throttle position" in time (25 sec)?
Would % not be a better metrics for "average throttle position"?

Because I don't want to use % twice. Percent of time and percent of throttle pedal is confusing.

I´m pretty sure, we will not see 25s at 50% throttle in 2013.

Agreed, that is not what I added later to my post.

My proposal was to evaluate the 12% part throttle period and replace it with a representative average throttle position. I wasn't referring to the part throttle duration which is much easier and more reliably evaluated by the method I proposed.

0-25 % throttle = 13%
25-50% = 38%
50-75% = 63%
75-99% = 88%

(6 x 13 + 4 x 38 + 1 x 63 + 1 x 88)/12 = 32

I would replace the Le Mans part throttle profile of four throttle positions by one phase with 1/3 throttle open. My simplified throttle profile for a 2013 F1 lap would be:

40s of full throttle
25s of one third throttle
15s of zero throttle while breaking

How does that look as a model for simplified computations?

The next question should be how those throttle positions translate to power delivery.

I would think that in reality power control in 2013 will be completely by valve, injection and ignition mapping without a throttle function at all.

I just repost it here to avoid that it gets overlooked.

[Shaddock]

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.

What sort of boost you getting with a k24? You must have traction issues

I wonder if the teams can swap the turbo's between races or if they can't, then build different engines with different turbo's for certain races.

Ideally the turbo spec you would want on your engine at Monaco, you wouldn't want at Canada.

[WhiteBlue]

I would think that single turbos for 2013 would almost certainly be variable vane units. Those are adjustable to conditions in a wide range and will be controlled by SECU mapping.

[747heavy]

o.k. WB, I see where you want to go / coming from

How about this instead?

40s of full throttle
25s of zero throttle while braking (&coasting)
15s of one third throttle (I think your method is a bit oversimplified, but that´s o.k. for now)

What is your rational explaination for braking time of 15s?

[godlameroso]

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.

What sort of boost you getting with a k24? You must have traction issues

I wonder if the teams can swap the turbo's between races or if they can't, then build different engines with different turbo's for certain races.

Ideally the turbo spec you would want on your engine at Monaco, you wouldn't want at Canada.

No boost the K24 is naturally aspirated, that's what's crazy. I had changed out the turbo on the eclipse for a slightly bigger one, slightly smaller than the turbo on an evo 3. I ran 18 psi on that one, until the timing belt snapped and I ate up the valves.

Back on topic, regarding turbo lag, yes there will be some, and yes it will be almost to 4k rpm, but once the turbo kicks in there's practically instant response especially if the cars get direct injection.

It's interesting to consider, does anyone suppose a spec turbine will be used?

[Shaddock]

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.

What sort of boost you getting with a k24? You must have traction issues

I wonder if the teams can swap the turbo's between races or if they can't, then build different engines with different turbo's for certain races.

Ideally the turbo spec you would want on your engine at Monaco, you wouldn't want at Canada.

No boost the K24 is naturally aspirated, that's what's crazy. I had changed out the turbo on the eclipse for a slightly bigger one, slightly smaller than the turbo on an evo 3. I ran 18 psi on that one, until the timing belt snapped and I ate up the valves.

My mistake thought you were running a Borg Warner K24 Turbo