2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[inox]

Altenatively, a 10% increase in fuel flow and RPM limt of 12000 would get you over 800hp from the ICE alone.

How is that possible? If we assumed current ICE power to be 700 hp and increase fuel flow by 10%, it would mean maximum output of 770 hp and probably slightly less due to added friction caused by extra revs. Revs itself don't add power, its the amount of burned fuel.

[Moose]

Its not 20% back at the start of the season Mercedes were rumored to be in the mid 900s with Ferrari not far behind.

If you are really suggesting 950 hp for combined output, that is just a pretty optimistic rumor. It has been discussed earlier on this topic that figure like that is just not possible. Just too high thermal efficiency for today's technology. Scale back 100 hp or so.

Except that various team members have repeatedly said that that's roughly where they are, and the 1000hp engine proposal was dropped because Mercedes claimed that they'd be "there or there abouts next year anyway".

[mrluke]

Its been repeatedly stated that members own calculations show that it is impossible that they are getting more power from V6T then they did from the V8s, unfortunately that is in direct disagreement to all statements made by the teams and drivers.

[Juzh]

Its not 20% back at the start of the season Mercedes were rumored to be in the mid 900s with Ferrari not far behind.

If you are really suggesting 950 hp for combined output, that is just a pretty optimistic rumor. It has been discussed earlier on this topic that figure like that is just not possible. Just too high thermal efficiency for today's technology. Scale back 100 hp or so.

Except that various team members have repeatedly said that that's roughly where they are, and the 1000hp engine proposal was dropped because Mercedes claimed that they'd be "there or there abouts next year anyway".

oh, please...

[inox]

if they could reliably up the power by 20% without modifying the crank, block, con rods, pistons and heads, then those parts are currently over engineered, and so must be heavier than necessary which as we all know in F1 is a big no no.
To up the power this much will probably take a massive redesign of all the PUs.

Interestingly, Mercedes engine boss indicates that 1000 hp can be achieved "quite easily":

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/02/d ... ys-cowell/

Asked about mooted plans for noisier and more powerful engines for 2017, Cowell says that it can be achieved quite easily with the latest generation of power units but only at the expense of using more fuel, a decision that should not be taken lightly.

“I believe that the current architecture can produce roughly 1,000 hp and more sound if we increase the flow rate. However, we should not dilute the concept of energy efficiency. It would be a shame to lose sight of this goal. The technology transfer from motorsport is important for Formula 1. That is why Honda has arrived.”

I do wonder though what "easily" means in this context.

[mrluke]

I have collated all of the pole lap times from 2000 to 2015 for all of the races on the 2015 calendar.

From this there are 7 races that are have been raced consistently on every calendar since 2000.

For each race I have converted each pole lap into a percentage against the best pole time at that track in the 15 year period. For example if the best pole was 100 seconds a pole of 110 seconds would rate as 10% slower on the below chart. I have not adjusted for weather or for track changes. The only adjustment is to 2008 and 2009 as Q3 had race fuel, in these years the best Q2 time has been taken.

Of these 7 races I have then taken an average for each year (thick black line) e.g. 2004 is on average within 1% of the best pole time achieved on each track in the period. The average series is distorted by Melbourne 2014 where due to rain the time was 25% slower than the best achieved.

Finally I have plotted the minimum car weights in grey (% increase over minimum in period). These were more difficult to find but I have taken the following:
2000-3 @ 540kg
2004-12 @ 605kg
2013 @ 642kg
2014 @ 690kg
2015 @ 702kg

This means that 2014 cars are 28% heavier than 2000-3 and 14% heavier than 2004-12 cars. Despite this they are only 5% slower over a lap than the best achieved in the period.

To be honest I had not appreciated just how much the weight has increased, graph below.



Im assuming there was a layout change to Barcelona in 2007 but I haven't looked into it.

Considering how little the lap times have increased for the increased weight I struggle to see how it can be possible that the cars have less power than before. If Melbourne and Barcelona were to be discounted then the cars would average about the same pace as 2012, but with an extra 85kg on board.

In general on the aero circuits the cars are slower but on the more power focused circuits the cars are setting very competitive times.

This years pole laps vs the best time in the last 15 years is as follows:

Melbourne 3.35%
Sepang 18.63%
Bahrain 3.03%
Shanghai 2.22%
Barcelona 13.44%
Monaco 2.10%

Ignoring a wet Sepang we are pretty close to 2004/2005 laptimes when the cars had 900-930bhp and weighed 605kg.

Thats a power to weight of 1490-1540 bhp/t

To match that with a 700kg car they would need to be making 1,043-1,078 bhp

So the question is, how many hundred bhp are you going to deduct to account for the slick tyres vs grooved?

[Juzh]

2012 was a "slow" year anyway. Don't take the slowest year of V8s engine as a comparison.
950 hp is bollocks. Wherever aero drag is not of main concern V10s own V6t. And they still own it trough all the sector speed traps where drag is not yet as profound (sort of mid range speeds 150-300).
I specifically remember V10s doing ~340-350 in S1 speed trap in monza with race fuel, Rosberg did 330 in 2014 in Q3.

If you were to put monza spec V10 vs monza spec V6t on a mile long runway it wouldn't be even close.

[mrluke]

Ricciardo achieved 362.1 kph at Monza last year and from the looks of the chart he still had 15+ laps of fuel in the car at the time.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... edtrap.pdf

Better yet don't take my word for it, hear it from somebody who drove the cars you refer to in anger and then drove a 2014 williams, in the wet without full power. Skip to 5:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLJVtDzjJ10

"oh wow the acceleration is just incredible, absolutely incredible, I have never felt anything like that in my life"

"the rest of the car feels like how you would expect a grand prix car but the power is just incredible"

[Juzh]

Ricciardo achieved 362.1 kph at Monza last year and from the looks of the chart he still had 15+ laps of fuel in the car at the time.

Such speed, much slipstream, so drs.. wow

Montoya did 369 kmh without any of these with race fuel. #rekt
Raikkonen did 324 kmh in 2005 over the start/finish line with a 1 stop race fuel.
Pointless to argue.
If those V6s had anywhere near 950bhp we'd be seeing insane speeds everywhere and no one would cry for more power. That's not to say they're bad or anything, but with that much power they'd be well above and beyond.
Remember rosberg ERS failure in Canada and the pathetic pace he had on the straights without it? Would not happen unless ERS is a major part of the overall power, and we know ERS is capped at 160 (theoretically).
I'd say 830-850 as has often been converged upon is a reasonable number. People forget that this power is constant now, unlike with NAs which spent most of the time below max output.
Also, no beam wings makes a huge difference in drag.

Better yet don't take my word for it

No worries, I won't.
Coulthard is a BBC employee who's job is to promote F1. He knows V10s would blow these turbos out of the sky.

[wuzak]

Such speed, much slipstream, so drs.. wow

I would discount DRS as a factor since during teh V10 era cars used very low drag setups. Probably equivalent to the current cars with DRS open.

[wuzak]

I would agree, however, that the current power units are 850-860hp max.

[gruntguru]

The only modifications required to hit 1000 hp would be fuel system (injectors etc), cooling system and maybe pistons. The resulting ICE would not be optimised for efficiency (power) ie there would be still more power available (without further increases in fuel flow) by optimising air management componentry for the new fuel limit.

They wouldn't be good engineers if they did not have designed these engines to the limit, and moreso the rotating/oscillating parts.

1. The engines are designed to a minimum weight rule. There is no advantage in designing critical components without significant safety factors.

2. The "limit" for rotating and oscillating parts has little to do with torque or even peak cylinder pressure for that matter. A 50% torque increase at 10,500 would require little or no increase in peak cylinder pressure (average cylinder pressure would increase) so no increase in connecting rod peak stress - ditto the crankshaft. Even if the peak cylinder pressure were to rise 50%, peak stresses in those components would only rise perhaps 15% - 20% - and still be lower than they are currently at 15,000 rpm.

[mrluke]

If we said that the current cars are 850bhp,

850bhp @ 700kg = 1,214 bhp/t

1,214bhp/t x 605kg = 735bhp

So essentially the argument is that the V6Ts are 200bhp (21%) down on the cars from 2004-12 but still setting ultimate laptimes within ~3%.

How can that be true when we know that the cars are quite significantly slower in the corners?

Page 4 of the reanult 2015 PU launch details

http://www.renaultsportf1.com/IMG/pdf/r ... -245077177

"combined maximum output of 850bhp"

Hands up who thinks Renault have the most powerful PU this year?

Hands up those who think that the teams typically under report how much power or downforce they have available.

Now much as I dislike using Horner as a source what did RBR say after the first race of 2015 with the new 850bhp renault engine?

Red Bull chief Christian Horner hit out at Renault’s lack of progress after the race, describing their V6 unit as “undriveable” and claiming the firm had even managed to go backwards since the final winter test at the start of the month.

“We're probably 100bhp [brake horsepower] down on Mercedes at the moment,” a downbeat Horner revealed.

Now if I had a penny for every time Horner moaned about renault I would be a rich man, but through all that its fairly clear that Renault are a fair chunk down on power to Mercedes and Ferrari. It might be a 100bhp difference or it might only be 50bhp, we have no way of knowing. But we do know that Renault have stated their engine makes 850bhp.

So we have that the people that have driven both the V10s and V6Ts are blatantly lying about the performance of the V6T.

The lap time data is pretty clear that the V6Ts are more powerful than the v8s and probably match the V10s.

Presumably both the teams and the engine manufacturers are also lying.

At this point I cannot think of any other way of demonstrating the power of the V6T short of putting this years car against a 2004/5 car in a drag race, which as much as I would love to see, is beyond my ability to organise.

[inox]

Finally I have plotted the minimum car weights in grey (% increase over minimum in period). These were more difficult to find but I have taken the following:
2000-3 @ 540kg
2004-12 @ 605kg
2013 @ 642kg
2014 @ 690kg
2015 @ 702kg

Not perhaps so essential, but you got wrong weights for years 2000-2003. It was 600 kg back then (including the driver).

The 540 kg figure was from 1988, when turbo engines were penalized by 40 kg over the naturally aspirated cars. And that didn't yet include a driver on those days. The lowest weight limit since 80's has been 500 kg (without driver) so cars probably weighted in excess of 560 kg.

See table on page 8 on this rather handy sheet:
http://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-Files ... P2_01e.pdf

[Juzh]

2014 vs 2003


2014 vs 2005


Not even close.