Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:21 pm

http://twitter.com/scarbsf1 wrote:I'm hearing the 2013 engine rules are: mandated 1.6l I4 turbo, 88mm bores, direct injection, 100kg\h fuel flow rate.


That is great news!!! We are going to have progress with the engines eventually. I don't really mind that they mandate a L4. It is not so short and rigid as a V4 but should be very efficient friction wise.

The 88 mm bore is just one mm outside of the 87 mm GRE specification. So they want to signal that it is not GRE but allow the GRE manufacturers to use their basic designs.

I'm not too surprised by the fuel flow limit either. Today we have 150 kg per race and the FiA wants to cut this to 70% at least. So they are aiming for 105 kg of race fuel. At full throttle the flow restriction would give us 133.3 kg for a 80 min race. It means that the race would be run at an average of 79% of peak power. That makes sense.
Last edited by mx_tifoso on Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Changed topic title to also discuss 1.6l V6
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:24 pm

xpensive wrote:Anyway, my final predictions for 2013is the following;
A 1.6 liter turbo-V6 restricted to 12 kRpm, as well as a 2.0 Bar boost (3.0 absolute) and a fuelflow of 45 cc/second.


According to Scarbs it will be an L4 with 37.7 cc/s if my figuring isn't too far off.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:51 pm

will be interesting to see/know, how the flow will be metered.
massflow vs. volume flow and what the smallest used time interval will be.
you can use 100kg/h but still use more then 27.77 g/s momentary, if you use
less at another moment (under braking, safety car etc.).
I would like to see a peakflow limit, if we need to go down this route anyway.
Last edited by 747heavy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver."
- Colin Chapman

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
747heavy
 
Joined: 6 Jul 2010

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:56 pm

WhiteBlue wrote:
http://twitter.com/scarbsf1 wrote:I'm hearing the 2013 engine rules are: mandated 1.6l I4 turbo, 88mm bores, direct injection, 100kg\h fuel flow rate.


That is great news!!! We are going to have progress with the engines eventually. I don't really mind that they mandate a L4. It is not so short and rigid as a V4 but should be very efficient friction wise.

The 88 mm bore is just one mm outside of the 87 mm GRE specification. So they want to signal that it is not GRE but allow the GRE manufacturers to use their basic designs.

I'm not too surprised by the fuel flow limit either. Today we have 150 kg per race and the FiA wants to cut this to 70% at least. So they are aiming for 105 kg of race fuel. At full throttle the flow restriction would give us 133.3 kg for a 80 min race. It means that the race would be run at an average of 79% of peak power. That makes sense.


i was hoping of 98mm bore with 53 stroke.
88mm bore would be 65mm stroke?
Still over square so it should be good for high revs. And 88 sounds like a typical production engine bore so it has some appeal.

I'll have to back in this thread and look on the fuel numbers.

edit: White blue have you noticed that you stipulated 115kg/race, when the FiA have 100kg/hr? (0.0278 kg/s)
It's says nothing about tank size or fuel mass limit.

So you see things weren't as extreme as you wanted. 79% peak power is more than enough. I'll have to find that calculation in the turbo thread and compare.
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:30 pm

It will be interesting to see if FIA/FOTA is brave enough, to let the I4 turbo compete against other technology on equal terms (fuel mass flow limit or total fuel mass used for race distance), or if the manufacturers can continue to live in their sheltered cave, governed by their own rules.

Image
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver."
- Colin Chapman

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
747heavy
 
Joined: 6 Jul 2010

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:50 pm

WhiteBlue wrote:
xpensive wrote:Anyway, my final predictions for 2013is the following;
A 1.6 liter turbo-V6 restricted to 12 kRpm, as well as a 2.0 Bar boost (3.0 absolute) and a fuelflow of 45 cc/second.


According to Scarbs it will be an L4 with 37.7 cc/s if my figuring isn't too far off.


37.7 cc/s equals 1.3 MJ/s, or 1289 kW to be ridicilously precise, now gimme your best shot at efficiency predictions WB?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:00 pm

Looking at the 100kg/hr fuel rate is worrisome though, it works out to a 8900rpm limit, 2 bar boost, with 588 indicated horsepower, at stoichometry.

That's weak!! :wtf: 438kW at 8900rpm is as anemic as it can get. :lol:

The torque is still staggering however. I think this was the number the engine working group was watching keenly.

I got 347lb.ft of torque vs 297 for the current engines. Not drastically higher, but 50lb.ft of difference should be felt in a light open wheeler i guess.

That fuel rate needs to go up. Better to limit the tank than the rate; if they're going to be so stingy with the power.
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:55 pm

Beginning of rant (disregard if your not in the mood for rants):
Just give the engine manufactures a set amount of fuel to finish the race and let them design what ever they want in order to finish! The diversity of engine types would add so much to f1. Why does everything have to be so political, revolve around "greenness" and be restricted by money. The rescission is over, people need to realize this. Carbon dioxides are not ruining the plant, people like al gore are with their faulty, misleading research.
Rant over.
hecti
 
Joined: 30 Mar 2009

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:12 pm

747heavy wrote:will be interesting to see/know, how the flow will be metered. massflow vs. volume flow and what the smallest used time interval will be. you can use 100kg/h but still use more then 27.77 g/s momentary, if you use less at another moment (under braking, safety car etc.). I would like to see a peakflow limit, if we need to go down this route anyway.

The regulation will be obviously expressed as a peak mass flow. The kg/h figure is probably only quoted for getting an imaginative figure for publishing. The actual measurements will be in ms intervals IMO. So you can expect to get an exact 27.78 g/s mass flow limit. I suggest we use this mass flow limit from now on for the discussion because it will obviously be part of the regulation.


xpensive wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:
xpensive wrote:Anyway, my final predictions for 2013is the following;
A 1.6 liter turbo-V6 restricted to 12 kRpm, as well as a 2.0 Bar boost (3.0 absolute) and a fuelflow of 45 cc/second.

According to Scarbs it will be an L4 with 37.7 cc/s if my figuring isn't too far off.

37.7 cc/s equals 1.3 MJ/s, or 1289 kW to be ridicilously precise, now gimme your best shot at efficiency predictions WB?

Lets switch to the mass flow and apply the figures we have previously agreed.
  • specific energy of fuel 46 MJ/kg
  • efficiency of the turbo engine 33% before HERS and KERS

100 kg/h / 3600 * 46 MJ/kg *33% = 0.422 MJ/s =422 kW=573 bhp peak power from the engine

If the plan is still to have 650 bhp from the engine in total it means we will need another 77 bhp or 13% from turbo compounding. That would be a pretty good plan IMO. To put the engine peak power into perspective the current engines probably use a peak flow of 142.4 kg/h. It means the FiA looks for a massive reduction with the published figure of 100 kg/h. This will not translate equally into peak power reduction as engine efficiency is likely to rise by 4% from 29% to 33% which contributes a reduction in the use of fuel by 12%.

There will be another power step by the KERS that will be allowed.

Patrick Head wrote:Autosport report November 18th
From what we understand, there's likely to be a much higher-power KERS system (in 2013); 120 kilowatts we hear, a much higher energy storage, a much higher stored energy level - we've heard figures from 2.3 megajoules to 4 megajoules allowance. Whereas at the moment it's 400 kilojoules, so possibly up to a factor of 10 the amount of energy you can store. It would be a very different thing. You've still got to harvest that energy, so. None of these figures is fixed yet. If the engine is a four-cylinder turbo engine it may well be that there's a possibility of installing the flywheel. If the design of the cars allows us to install the flywheel, we'll look at it again as a possibility for Formula 1.


According to Head electric peak power could be 120 kW (163 bhp). If the 4 MJ envelope of energy collection is hit and the electric drive is active for all the 60 s of a throttle signal of a lap we could have average electric power of 66.7 kW (90 bhp). This would be absolutely comparable to the 740 bhp that we have today. To make this kind of KERS power happen they would have to go to AWKERS with separate electrically driven front wheels. It would add massive traction in slow corners IMO. Such a car would probably have the potential to beat today's performance by sheer technology and still save 30% of the fuel.

ringo wrote:Looking at the 100kg/hr fuel rate is worrisome though, it works out to a 8900rpm limit, 2 bar boost, with 588 indicated horsepower, at stoichometry. That's weak!! :wtf: 438kW at 8900rpm is as anemic as it can get. :lol:


I see that we arrived at very similar figures using different methods.

WB: 573 hp
Ringo: 588 hp
Last edited by WhiteBlue on Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:50 pm

Your car will be a very very heavy car.
Turbo compounding and what not is pretty expensive compared to simply increasing the fuel flow to about 32g/s and saving weight and money.

You have to take into account the minimum weight for 2013 as well.

I think 580 hp is very weak and no amount of KERS or HERS will equate to a car that has 750hp on tap at all times, much less 650hp. 580hp with a bulky engine and energy recovery package, yukk.

Electrical power is not like engine power, the torque characteristics are completely different. The more we compensate the power with it, the more artificial and less driver dependent the racing becomes. That HERS and KERS will more likely be computer regulated and track position dependent.
In actuality we'll just have weak, heavy, easy to drive 580hp cars with a big electric boost for the straights.

Anyway 27.78 is about a 8900rpm with 2 bar gauge, anywhere pass that and the engine will be running lean with that fuel flow.
So what are the opinions on the engine speed? and the # of engines per year?
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:01 pm

Mass flow is a tad more difficult to measure and relate to, why I will stick to my beloved cc/s if you don't mind WB?

Anyway, my predicted 45cc/s at 12 kRpm would have given 508 kW, or 686 Hp, and 404 Nm at the same 33% efficiency.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:14 pm

ringo wrote:Your car will be a very very heavy car. Turbo compounding and what not is pretty expensive compared to simply increasing the fuel flow to about 32g/s and saving weight and money. You have to take into account the minimum weight for 2013 as well.

I don't think so. I expect the minimum weight at 640 kg like 2011. These dedicated engines should save 30 kg including the turbo charger and turbo compounder. This additional weight can go into the AWKERS system. They may decide to standardize the turbo system in the first year to limit the cost race. At least that has been reported in fall by the EWG. So cost wise it may not even be such a problem.

ringo wrote:I think 580 hp is very weak and no amount of KERS or HERS will equate to a car that has 750hp on tap at all times, much less 650hp. 580hp with a bulky engine and energy recovery package, yukk.

Depending of the KERS system they can reach the same top power as before. It should become the focal point of competitive development. Nice prospect for a change to get something mechanical on the chassis side instead of the boring aero stuff.

ringo wrote:Electrical power is not like engine power, the torque characteristics are completely different. The more we compensate the power with it, the more artificial and less driver dependent the racing becomes. That HERS and KERS will more likely be computer regulated and track position dependent.
In actuality we'll just have weak, heavy, easy to drive 580hp cars with a big electric boost for the straights.

Again I disagree. The only sensible way forward for high electrical KERS efficiency is using a dual torque mode instead of a boost button. It means the electric torque is fed at exactly the same rate as the engine torque. Drivability will actually improve as the power is put down by all four wheels.

ringo wrote:Anyway 27.78 is about a 8900rpm, anywhere pass that and the engine will be running lean with that fuel flow. So what are the opinions on the engine speed? and the # of engines per year?

Anything around 9,000-10,000 rpm will be just fine. A turbo engine doesn't need mad rpm to perform. It is much torquier and much more drivable. I would be surprised if they would be using more than 5 engines. Getting the engine numbers down will help compensating for the cost of KERS.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:29 pm

xpensive wrote:Mass flow is a tad more difficult to measure and relate to, why I will stick to my beloved cc/s if you don't mind WB?

I would think that the actual instrument will be a differential pressure measurement augmented by a temperature check to compensate viscosity changes from temperature fluctuations. That is the method that has been described in the literature. The regulatory references will all be in mass flow. They could also use a mini turbine but then thy would probably regulate the volume flow. IMO the mass flow is the correct physical dimension because it will be invariable to temperature. It would be a bit dumb if the energy restriction in Bahrain (45°C) would be different to say Spa in the rain (20°C). But use what suits you by all means.

xpensive wrote:Anyway, my predicted 45cc/s at 12 kRpm would have given 508 kW, or 686 Hp, and 404 Nm at the same 33% efficiency.

And that is a 100 hp difference to what we expect now.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:36 pm

Scientifically speaking, you are obviously entirely correct WB, it's just that I imagine that F1T's members in general
finds it a bit easier to relate to liters and cc, rather than kg and grams when it comes to gasoline.

Some of our beloved menbers think in BTU's and gallons, but I would never go there.

Btw, what's the thermal xpansion coefficient of gasoline anyway?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:43 pm

WhiteBlue wrote:Anything around 9,000-10,000 rpm will be just fine. A turbo engine doesn't need mad rpm to perform. It is much torquier and much more drivable.


While I have no objections from an engineering PoV - and don´t care to much what they will do anyway.

This, especially if combined with AWKERS and it´s technical possibilities, is probably not the best for the "show aspect" of F1, as it will "devalue" the influence of a good driver, in mastering the car.

Walter Röhrls comment about the Audi Quattro (while he was still driving a RWD car) in rallying comes to mind:
"You could put a monkey in this car"
(or something to this effect)
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver."
- Colin Chapman

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
747heavy
 
Joined: 6 Jul 2010

Next

Return to Engine, transmission and controls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brian Coat, CCBot [Bot], henry, RSS Junkie [Deamon] and 1 guest