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.
xpensive
382
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 pm
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby xpensive » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:19 am

The need for an intercooler comes predominantly from the air-compression itself, not from heat-transfer. At these low boost levels however, some 0.6-1.0 Bar depending on rpm, it is questionable if it will be useful to employ one in the first place?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

Pierce89
72
User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby Pierce89 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:00 pm

WilliamsF1 wrote:Can a turbocharger be made out of pyrosic glass-ceramic matrix composite?

If possible will the car still require a intercooler as the thermal transmittance from turbine side to compressor side will be negligible.

In f1 no, the rules won't allow it. Theoretically? probably could but, from what i understand, the increase in air temp comes mostly from being compressed not from thermal radiation.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

johnny99
5
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:28 pm
Location: Killucan Westmeath Ireland

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby johnny99 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:40 pm

Heat transfer is neglible. Most if not all heat is generated by compressing the air.

John

scarbs
296
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:47 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby scarbs » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:52 pm

I've seen a 2014 turbo compressor, it was machined from aluminium. It was a surprisingly large diameter. From what I also saw of the installation, there could be an intercooler packaged on top of the inlet plenums.

xpensive
382
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 pm
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby xpensive » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:13 pm

scarbs wrote:I've seen a 2014 turbo compressor, it was machined from aluminium. It was a surprisingly large diameter. From what I also saw of the installation, there could be an intercooler packaged on top of the inlet plenums.


Most interesting, a compressor housing machined from aluminium sounds very elegant compared to the typical cast execution. Or did you refer to the compressor-turbine itself, a machined such would be something to behold indeed?

Intercooler on top of the inlets would make certain sense packaging-wise, perhaps fed by the same air-box as today's?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

WhiteBlue
124
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:58 pm
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby WhiteBlue » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:22 pm

scarbs wrote:I've seen a 2014 turbo compressor, it was machined from aluminium. It was a surprisingly large diameter. From what I also saw of the installation, there could be an intercooler packaged on top of the inlet plenums.


The large diameter could be a result of the oversizing. With oversizing I mean that the turbine not only drives the compressor as in conventional turbo chargers but also the MGUH. The diameter is also driven by the single turbine concept for both cylinder banks, which is unusual.
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)

Holm86
135
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby Holm86 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:17 pm

I read on autosport.com yesterday that mercedes will be testing an 2014 engine very soon. I wonder if any video/sound clips will be released??

xpensive
382
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 pm
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby xpensive » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:36 pm

WhiteBlue wrote:
scarbs wrote:I've seen a 2014 turbo compressor, it was machined from aluminium. It was a surprisingly large diameter. From what I also saw of the installation, there could be an intercooler packaged on top of the inlet plenums.


The large diameter could be a result of the oversizing. With oversizing I mean that the turbine not only drives the compressor as in conventional turbo chargers but also the MGUH. The diameter is also driven by the single turbine concept for both cylinder banks, which is unusual.


The 2014 turbo compressor will not be doing very much but feed the engine's inlet, while if Scarbs were actually referring to the xhaust drive-turbine, I would be very surprised indeed if any part on that side was made from Aluminium.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

scarbs
296
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:47 am
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby scarbs » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:44 pm

I meant the outer compressor casing is CNC Alu. The turbine casing & HERS appeared to be steel\Ti (?)

flynfrog
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:31 pm

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby flynfrog » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:55 pm

scarbs wrote:I meant the outer compressor casing is CNC Alu. The turbine casing & HERS appeared to be steel\Ti (?)

They could also be a nickel alloy but I don't think they will be seeing that much heat in the compressor. My money would be on Ti to get the mass down.

tok-tokkie
17
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:21 pm
Location: Cape Town

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby tok-tokkie » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:10 pm

The SG of aluminum at 3.5 is lower than titanium at 4.5. Ti is much stronger so, if there are forces to be carried, then Ti item may be lighter.

xpensive
382
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 pm
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby xpensive » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:46 pm

I really see no reason to second-guess Scarbs here, when I'm certain that he can tell the difference between Al and Ti, where an Al-alloy makes sense in the compressor casing due to density, 2.7 vs 4.5 for Ti, I doubt if strength is an objective there.

Al is a bitch to pour if you don't go pressure-die or investment casting, why a machined housing for a prototype or small-series would seem to be the sensible way to go, at least at this point of development.

The xhaust drive-turbine casing is another matter though, what did they use back in the 80s hey-days?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

flynfrog
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:31 pm

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby flynfrog » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:45 pm

xpensive wrote:I really see no reason to second-guess Scarbs here, when I'm certain that he can tell the difference between Al and Ti, where an Al-alloy makes sense in the compressor casing due to density, 2.7 vs 4.5 for Ti, I doubt if strength is an objective there.

Al is a bitch to pour if you don't go pressure-die or investment casting, why a machined housing for a prototype or small-series would seem to be the sensible way to go, at least at this point of development.

The xhaust drive-turbine casing is another matter though, what did they use back in the 80s hey-days?

I wasn't second guessing I was talking about the turbines and the hot side housing.

noname
4
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:55 am
Location: EU

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby noname » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:04 pm

xpensive wrote:I really see no reason to second-guess Scarbs here, when I'm certain that he can tell the difference between Al and Ti, where an Al-alloy makes sense in the compressor casing due to density, 2.7 vs 4.5 for Ti, I doubt if strength is an objective there.

If weight is a factor Magnesium would be the best choice for compressor housing. Used in WRC and Le Mans for a long time. Unfortunately it's banned in, what some call, pinnacle of motorsport.

tok-tokkie
17
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:21 pm
Location: Cape Town

Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Postby tok-tokkie » Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:17 am

Here is a long quote where ceramic components are said to be banned & problematic.

Edis wrote:
Holm86 wrote:Okay didnt think of that. But i know that direct injection can have problems keeping up in high revs. Remember reading a article on the Porsche Spyder LMP2 car a few years back where the biggest challenge was getting the direct injection system to work at 12.000 rpm.

But i believe that will be one of the areas that can be developed in F1. A few years and they should be able to run max revs on direct injection alone.


Ilmor ran direct injected F1 engines up to about 17,000 rpm years ago without a loss in power and a 5% gain in fuel efficiency, and this was with a fuel pressure of only 150 bar. Back then it was difficult to find suitable injectors for the purpose, since then a lot have happened in that area.

Ian P. wrote:I'm just disapointed that they didn't allow ceramic components. This engine design is all about thermodynamic efficiency and ceramics are likely one way to gain it.


Ceramics are in general a bad idea unless we talk about small wear or heat resistant parts like turbine wheels, balls for bearings, plungers for high pressure fuel pumps and such.

Trying to insulate the combustion chamber is a bad idea, it just increase exhaust temperature, knocking and reduce volumetric efficiency.

Ceramics have very high compressive strengths but their tensile strength is low. In tension a ceramic part fail by fast fracture and there is no way to tell when that is going to happen with a certain part (unlike with metals were fatigue can be predicted). Also, the larger the part, the greater the chance that there is a material defect in the ceramic part that can initiate the failure.

xpensive wrote:I am pretty convinced that the cooling effect of the fuel injection will be more efficient the more upstream you can do it?


Normally you get a greater cooling effect by injecting the fuel directly into the cylinder. That is one reason why direct injected engine are less prone to knock.

Mixture preparation can however suffer due to the short time availible for mixing.

ringo wrote:I think it will be worth it.
Intercooling is the key word in turbo efficiency. If they don't have it, then it would be a complete gimmick to have electric pit lane running in the name of saving energy.


Intercooling is useful in keeping the engine cool and improving volumetric efficiency, but it doesn't have to have a positive effect on engine efficiency.

xpensive wrote:Ceramics are used for thermal insulation, like the bottom of the space-shuttle, but they don't "absorb" anything.


The tiles used on the bottom of the space shuttle insulate well because they are 90% air. Think of them like plastic foam but instead of plastic they are made from silica with a black borosilicate coating.

Since ceramics with poor heat conduction tend to crack when they are heated (or cooled) the heat shield is "precracked" by using several small tiles instead of one large heat shield.


Yet James Allen writes about the Mercedes engine having ceramic pistons in this thread: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/12/h ... engine-hq/

It’s amazing to look back on the days when each team would bring as many as 10 engines to each race and bolt in a fresh one every day. What has come with the freeze in V8 engine regulations is a deeper understanding of the engines, which has brought amazing reliability The ceramic pistons today, for example, are lighter than those on qualifying engines of 10 years ago when they were just about strong enough to last for an hour’s qualifying session. And yet now they last 3,000kms!

I accept that JA is not a totally reliable source. Are ceramic pistons being used?




Return to “Engine, transmission and controls”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 5 guests