Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Kittredge305]

will be interesting to see/know, how the flow will be metered.

[Pierce89]

I wonder. With the ban on OT-EBD maps now; how possible would it be; when these 1.6L engines come out; to work around that?

Would it be possible for example; to substitute it with the pressure blow-off valve?

Very unlikely in my view. Waste gates may not even exist on those designs because any surplus of turbine power over the compressor demand would be sapped by the MGUH. The MGUH is supposed to contribute 90 kW to the motive power. If they have a waste gate at all it would merely be a safety feature.

I don't see a reason why the teams wouldn't put an external wastegate on the turbos. How they configue the actuator is the clever part. There has to be a blow off or recirculating valve on the cold side, a blow off would give a very nice sound on upshifts.

Theoretically they shouldn't need a wastegate. When the exhaust flow creates more energy than the given boost level requires, they will harvest the excess energy as electricity using the MGU attached to the turbo shaft, instead of just dumping that energy out a wastegate.
The blow-off valve is a different story, obviously, as you can't dump boost into a decelerating engine, but on TV, I doubt we'll hear the blow-off valve.

[Shaddock]

I'm going to disagree. The engine builders are going to have a boost limit in their mind, say 30 psi, but they are also going to want this peak as low down the rev range as possible to make the engine tractable. After the engine has hit this point in the rev range you are going to need to bleed gasses past the turbine otherwise you will end up with too much boost to the engine and a turbo that overheats.

The process of artificially braking the spinning turbine shaft after peak boost has been achieved at approx the half way point in the engines rev range by 'harvesting' energy from it will create a back pressure. As the engine tries to accelerate to it's peak rpm, the extra exhaust gas produced will not be able to escape past the turbine blades as they will already have reached their max rpm/boost levels.

The idea of not running a wastegate only works if the desired peak boost occurs at max engine rpm (engine designers don't won't this), or some very clever variable geometry blades are used.

[xpensive]

I'm going to disagree. The engine builders are going to have a boost limit in their mind, say 30 psi, but they are also going to want this peak as low down the rev range as possible to make the engine tractable. After the engine has hit this point in the rev range you are going to need to bleed gasses past the turbine otherwise you will end up with too much boost to the engine and a turbo that overheats.
...

Only the boost will be much lower than that, probably less than one Bar (15 psi), the flow limit will see to that.

[ringo]

A waste gate will be on the cars i think. Why ignore something that will give more control?
Why not have one? It's not costing anything.

[Pierce89]

A waste gate will be on the cars i think. Why ignore something that will give more control?
Why not have one? It's not costing anything.

Good point, but also why have an extra part, when supposedly the point of these regs is to recover wasted energy and convert it electricity to be fed back into the drivetrain? With proper electronic control, harvesting excess torque off of the turbine could control boost just as effectively as wastegate.

[Pierce89]

I'm going to disagree. The engine builders are going to have a boost limit in their mind, say 30 psi, but they are also going to want this peak as low down the rev range as possible to make the engine tractable. After the engine has hit this point in the rev range you are going to need to bleed gasses past the turbine otherwise you will end up with too much boost to the engine and a turbo that overheats.

The process of artificially braking the spinning turbine shaft after peak boost has been achieved at approx the half way point in the engines rev range by 'harvesting' energy from it will create a back pressure. As the engine tries to accelerate to it's peak rpm, the extra exhaust gas produced will not be able to escape past the turbine blades as they will already have reached their max rpm/boost levels.

The idea of not running a wastegate only works if the desired peak boost occurs at max engine rpm (engine designers don't won't this), or some very clever variable geometry blades are used.

I think you're overestimating the amount of backpressure it would create and its effects. These regs are supposedly designed to encourage or allow the very idea you stomped all over.
If they would allow turbine and compressor on seperate shafts there would definitely not be a need for a wastegate.

[WhiteBlue]

A waste gate will be on the cars i think. Why ignore something that will give more control?
Why not have one? It's not costing anything.

Good point, but also why have an extra part, when supposedly the point of these regs is to recover wasted energy and convert it electricity to be fed back into the drivetrain? With proper electronic control, harvesting excess torque off of the turbine could control boost just as effectively as wastegate.

Exactly! People who don't see this did not understand the turbo control strategy. The hybrid turbo charger artificially spools up and then balances the load of the turbine to the compressor. You must also understand that the total rev range of the engine between 10,500 and 15,000 is run on a dipping boost to be fuel efficient. The moment you hit the max fuel flow at 10,500 rpm the engine must continuously reduce the compressor boost in order to maintain the AFR. If the boost was constant you would be leaning the AFR over and above the most economical point. One can assume that under 10,500 the engines will already run as lean as they can make it to make use of the scarce fuel. So there is no other strategy but to reducing boost when you need to maintain the AFR. Hence you may have more than 15 psi boost at 10,500 rpm but by the time you reach max rpm your boost is down to the lowest it gets.

The fuel flow limit will be controlled by the standardized engine control unit (SECU) and the use of standardized fuel injectors. The control program always knows the actual fuel flow of the injectors and tracks the fuel utilization. It is set to a flow limit by an injector map with limited opening times of the injectors for all engine conditions.

Another point to keep in mind is the reduced fuel flow curve under 10.500 rpm. It means that engine designers will probably get into fuel stratification all the way between 4,000 and 10,500 rpm. This could mean that the AFR could be unusually high already for a racing engine in that operating range. The turbo engines will be using super high pressure direct fuel injectors (500 bar) for the first time in F1 race engine history. They will also have spray guided combustion mode available which has been developed in road cars at lower pressure and up to 8,000 rpm. I have the funny feeling that the reduced fuel flow has been specified in order to force the engineers to use the lower revs more efficiently by using high boost. I would not at all be surprised to see a torque curve that peaks immediately allowing idle revs of 2,500 to 4,000 rpm to remain high between 4,000 and 10,500 and fall then to a minimum at 15,000 rpm. Those engines will be very different to drive compared to a current F1 engine that idles at 7,000-9,000 rpm.

[xpensive]

With 28 g/s flow, there's 1290 kW entering the engine, with a 35% efficiency, that's a 450 kW (610 Hp) output.

If we use 17.5 Hp per 1000 Rpm, liter and Bar (absolute), all based on today's 2.4 V8s as a template, it would mean that
the 1.6 turbo at 10.5 kRpm needs a 1.1 Bar boost to make use of all the fuel. At 14 kRpm this will drop to 0.6 Bar boost.

This is where it becomes interesting, will it be more useful to run at a lower Rpm with a higher boost or speed up the engine
to get a lower boost and leave more room for recovery of energy from the turbine, still with the same engine output?

[WhiteBlue]

I agree that it will be intriguing. For sure it will be a very different engine in terms of driveability. It will probably have the feel of a turbo diesel with huge grunt right from the begin of the rpm curve.

My guess is that such an engine will be better used with lower rpm and high boost. The excessive rpm only generate higher frictional and thermal losses. The high boost can be better recovered by the turbine and at lower rpm the engine will be able to run more in stratified charge mode.

[xpensive]

I agree that it will be intriguing. For sure it will be a very different engine in terms of driveability. It will probably have the feel of a turbo diesel with huge grunt right from the begin of the rpm curve.

My guess is that such an engine will be better used with lower rpm and high boost. The excessive rpm only generate higher frictional and thermal losses. The high boost can be better recovered by the turbine and at lower rpm the engine will be able to run more in stratified charge mode.

That is not how I figure, with the same output from 10.5 to 14 kRpm, the same amount of xhaust gases, the boost will drop from 1.1 to 0.6 Bar, shouldn't you have more room for recovery at the lower boost with less power going to the compressor?

Anyway, the engine will have funny characteristics with torque dropping from 400 to 300 Nm between 10.5 and 14 kRpm.

[WhiteBlue]

That is not how I figure, with the same output from 10.5 to 14 kRpm, the same amount of xhaust gases, the boost will drop from 1.1 to 0.6 Bar, shouldn't you have more room for recovery at the lower boost with less power going to the compressor?

Yes, there would be a higher percentage of recovery if you generally run high rpm and low boost but the delta pressure of the turbine would be also affected and I think that the turbine efficiency will raise with higher delta p. I guess it will be a tricky optimization task and they will benefit from having elaborate test bench equipment that can simulate race conditions.

So the news that PURE have acquired the Toyota engine facility in Cologne comes at no big surprise. That factory is supposed to have state of the art bench facilities which will no doubt become quite handy.

[xpensive]

One intriguing part will be how to gear the cars with a constant power and falling torque between 10.5 and 14 kRpm?

Is it obvious that you will keep the revs within that span?

[WhiteBlue]

One intriguing part will be how to gear the cars with a constant power and falling torque between 10.5 and 14 kRpm?

Is it obvious that you will keep the revs within that span?

A nice engineering task, isn't it? But I dare say that in future you probably don't need eight gears any more, would you?

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.f1today.net/en/news/renault-already-devotes-most-of-its-resources-to-2014-engine

F1 engine supplier Renault is now devoting 70 per cent of its efforts into the sport's new 6-cylinder turbo formula for 2014. This year's championship and the next are the last in which the cars will be powered by the current generation of normally-aspirated V8s.

"We are now working 70 per cent on the new engine," Red Bull supplier Renault Sport F1's Jean-Francois Caubet told Germany's Auto Bild. "Next year it will be 100pc," he added.

Renault also supplies the Lotus, Williams and Caterham teams. The report said Renault's estimated cost of development for the 1.6 litre V6 is EUR 50 million.

A significant part of that is KERS. "That (KERS) is an integral part of the new engine," Caubet explained. "In 2014 we will supply Red Bull not only with the engine, but the complete powertrain." (GMM)
Zweeler

Interesting figures. I very much doubt that Ferrari and Merc will stop at €50m. They could easily be spending €100-200m based on justification that basic research into hybrid power trains will benefit their performance road cars. Naturally they will not say so publicly. PURE or Cosworth need very deep pockets as only sovereign wealth funds have or they will fall by the way side IMO.