Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[amouzouris]

The same 8 gears from Monaco to Spa...

EDIT: That, again, if this thing goes thru, which I doubt. The V8s will be around much longer than anticipated.

But the compromise would be in the final drive right? So i guess it would stille be possible to have the gear ratios pretty close.

And i hope the V8 will be replaced as scheduled. The engine regulations i F1 has been so crappy the last years since the V10's.

And as i mentioned earlier in this thread i dont get why theres so much fuss about the cost of these engines. Theyve had 3 years to develop them. In Le Mans for instance engine regulations can be redefined from year to year. But the manufartures i Le Mans dont complain. And they have far more freedom in their designs. In F1 almost everything is predefined.

well...that's exactly the reason they will be expensive... they've spent more money on development because they have 3 years to develop them...they have a lot of time to develop the engines....if they only had 1 year though...time would be limited and they would have spent that much money.... then all that money spent must be gained back....and to gain them back they will increase the prices of the engines thus making them more expensive...

[Tommy Cookers]

344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 525hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 590hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 656hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 212 or 1.1bar = 689hp
315 ft.lbs/ tq @ 11500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 208 or 1.1bar = 692hp
290 ft.lbs/ tq @ 12500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 191 or 0.9bar = 692hp
269 ft.lbs/ tq @ 13500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 177 or 0.8bar = 692hp
250 ft.lbs/ tq @ 14500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 165 or 0.6bar = 691hp
242 ft.lbs/ tq @ 15000rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 159 or 0.6bar = 691hp

This is what i come with going off my personal engine spreadsheet.

Interesting !

comparing 15000 with 10500 I'm thinking frictional bhp would be about 60 more at 15000
are we saying that the turbo (and related pressures) take 60 bhp less at 15000 ? ..... or how much less ?


surely we have 2 different engines here, a 'slow' 1.1 bar boost engine and a 'fast' 0.6 bar boost engine ?

surely the optimal CR of these 2 would be very different ie hugely dependent on the boost used ?
(the induction and exhaust system design would be rpm-specific also ?)

(without VVT etc) surely one would choose one or the other design, and run it over the smallest rpm range possible ?


BTW your power measurements (related to your BSFCs measured), was this rolling road or crankshaft ? interesting any way!

[Holm86]

The same 8 gears from Monaco to Spa...

EDIT: That, again, if this thing goes thru, which I doubt. The V8s will be around much longer than anticipated.

But the compromise would be in the final drive right? So i guess it would stille be possible to have the gear ratios pretty close.

And i hope the V8 will be replaced as scheduled. The engine regulations i F1 has been so crappy the last years since the V10's.

And as i mentioned earlier in this thread i dont get why theres so much fuss about the cost of these engines. Theyve had 3 years to develop them. In Le Mans for instance engine regulations can be redefined from year to year. But the manufartures i Le Mans dont complain. And they have far more freedom in their designs. In F1 almost everything is predefined.

well...that's exactly the reason they will be expensive... they've spent more money on development because they have 3 years to develop them...they have a lot of time to develop the engines....if they only had 1 year though...time would be limited and they would have spent that much money.... then all that money spent must be gained back....and to gain them back they will increase the prices of the engines thus making them more expensive...

But the engines should have been allready in 2013. But they also complained about that and said that was not enough time.

[garrett]

The CVC shareholders and their managing director Ecclestone are not interested in what they denounce as "green c....", because their interest is confined to get out the utmost shareholder value of F1. Thats why they oppose technical innovations, additionally I suppose Ecclestone fears it could occur to someone something like the following: "If the engines are not affordable for the teams, so give them a bigger share of the cake in the CA negotiations and the problem is solved."

But: Norbert Haug recently said if someone would consider the idea of keeping the V8 for another season they should do as well; but the customers will have to pay for another year of development and the engines will be even more expensive.

Should they even be dropped, at least Mercedes and Renault will pull out of F1 as it would be a slap in the face for them with the aborted inline four in first and the waste of another one and a half year development in second place. The customers will have to take care of the services of the ex Merc and Renault for themselves (or by engaging tuners like Heini Mader in earlier years). I don´t think this will be cheaper. Someone will have to pay the bill when the music stops to play.

If PURE and Cosworth pull out, there will be more customer slots for the three manufacturers and the price of the engines will decrease, something that Cosworth used in a similar version with their V8.

Additionally, (because I read of revving up to 19.000, V8 and so on) please do not forget the wider context of the new regulations which surpasses F1 by far) an example:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1520&format=HTML

[rjsa]

But the engines should have been allready in 2013. But they also complained about that and said that was not enough time.

Those who care about this formula don't matter, and those who matter do not care. It won't fly. Won't happen. They'll stick to the V8 and figure something else latter on. If we're lucky they will just get the V10s down from the shelves.

[pgfpro]

Sorry some of the numbers didn't transfer over from the spreadsheet.

344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 227 or 1.3bar = 525hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 228 or 1.3bar = 590hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10000rpm 95kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 227 or 1.3bar = 656hp
344 ft.lbs/ tq @ 10500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 227 or 1.3bar = 689hp
315 ft.lbs/ tq @ 11500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 208 or 1.1bar = 692hp
290 ft.lbs/ tq @ 12500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 191 or 0.9bar = 692hp
269 ft.lbs/ tq @ 13500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 177 or 0.8bar = 692hp
250 ft.lbs/ tq @ 14500rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 165 or 0.6bar = 691hp
242 ft.lbs/ tq @ 15000rpm 100kg/hr limit .32BSFC abs/kpa 159 or 0.6bar = 691hp

Interesting !

comparing 15000 with 10500 I'm thinking frictional bhp would be about 60 more at 15000
are we saying that the turbo (and related pressures) take 60 bhp less at 15000 ? ..... or how much less ?

What I'm saying is the intake boost will have to decrease from 10500k to 15000k based on the fuel rule. Or the VE will drop at the higher rpm and intake boost can stay the same or increase.

surely we have 2 different engines here, a 'slow' 1.1 bar boost engine and a 'fast' 0.6 bar boost engine ?

surely the optimal CR of these 2 would be very different ie hugely dependent on the boost used ?
(the induction and exhaust system design would be rpm-specific also ?)

It would be just one engine with dynamic compression changes control by intake boost pressure, cam profile and turbine design.

(without VVT etc) surely one would choose one or the other design, and run it over the smallest rpm range possible ?

Yes it will have a much smaller rpm range then what I posted. This was just to see the vast changes.

BTW your power measurements (related to your BSFCs measured), was this rolling road or crankshaft ? interesting any way!

This would all be crankshaft HP.

Keep in mind the BSFC and VE are just a guess on my part.

My spreadsheet's inputs are
engine size
rpm
intake pressure
elevation
IAT
injector size
VE
how many cylinders
a/f ratio
bsfc
primary/psi
seconadry/psi
primary emp
secondary emp
% waste-gated
number of turbo's
fuel spec gravity
egt
turbine outlet pressure

[pgfpro]

So no idea of going beyond 13500 rpm.?

What does the spreadsheet of a current 2.4 V8 look like? Or is this alot harder to specify because we dont know the exact fuel flow?

Sorry I was going to answer this and spaced it.

To be honest I don't have enough specs on the V8 engines of today?

Is there a fuel flow limit on today's engines?

[Tommy Cookers]

@pgfpro

what rpm/manifold pressure would you choose ?

is this driven by the turbine driving the MGUH being so much more capacious than engine supercharging demands ?

[xpensive]

I believe that my old "shortcut" of 17.5 Hp per 1000 cc, Bar absolute and 1000 Rpm works pretty well here?

Comparison with pgfpro's numbers above; 1600 cc, 1.9 Bar and 12500 Rpm would mean 665Hp vs his 692?

[Tommy Cookers]

@xpensive

any view on the apparent min rpm/max boost or high rpm/lower boost approaches ?

lower boost allows higher compression ratio, thereby efficiency ? and lower power taken for supercharge ??
but higher rpm causes greater friction

how big should the turbines capacity be (for electric power recovery, beyond the capacity for supercharging) ?

is recovery really viable, compared with drawing power from the (high compression) pistons ?

[xpensive]

Don't know much about those things really TC, but there might however be other things to consider here.

Quite obviously, as pfgpro has described, output will be constant between 10500 and 15000, why so will the xhaust mass-flow, but will the outlet temperature be the same, perhaps a higher boost at a lower Rpm will be advantageous recovery-wise?

However, enjoying a flat power-curve like that must per definition be the way to go gearshift-wise?

Edit:Bad thinking. Mass-flow and energy being the same, obviously so is temperature.

[Tommy Cookers]

but surely the flat power curve is only available (ie by using a large rpm range) if much of the time the CR over the piston is needlessly low (because the useable CR varies strongly with boost, which varies with rpm) ??

[xpensive]

Any idea of the upshift Rpm-range with an F1-gearbox, perhaps far less than 10500-15000?

[Tommy Cookers]

someone said 16%

[xpensive]

someone said 16%

Please elaborate TC?