2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

I doubt if that's relevant in the context.

[pgfpro]

To help with Engine Delta Pressure you could run a leaner A/F ratio (utilizing DI) while maintaining the same BSFC and thus run more boost. The same goes for running a higher IAT temperature (heat controlled-intercooler). This will also let you run more boost while keeping below the 100kg/hr fuel rule.

I would think the engineers are going to want the maximum Engine Delta Pressure they can get and this is going to require running over 1.0 bar. This will give them more room to play when it comes to the turbo generator mode for producing electric current due to the higher BP that it will create from more load on the turbine.

[Red Schneider]

Is anyone else hoping to see more engine/powertrain failures in the next formula? This hyper-reliability is bothering me. F1 is supposed to be about pushing the limit, and to me that means we need to see more engines blow up.

[pgfpro]

Is anyone else hoping to see more engine/powertrain failures in the next formula? This hyper-reliability is bothering me. F1 is supposed to be about pushing the limit, and to me that means we need to see more engines blow up.

I personally would love to see some thrashing. But that's what I'm used to, pushing my turbo-compound 2.0L in upwards of 800HP you tend to brake a few parts... OK a lot of parts.LOL

F1 needs to be more of a innovator and less of a follower.

[Tommy Cookers]

your turbo-compound ??


Please elaborate !

[pgfpro]

your turbo-compound ??


Please elaborate !

Its a turbo compound system like the diesel tractor puller's run, but on gasoline.

My Compound Turbo System:
4G63 DSM 2.0L inline four cylinder engine
Rear-Mount BW S400SX4-75x100mm ETT, Atmospheric Primary Turbo with a 1.32 A/R Turbine T6 Flange 60mm waste-gate dump to atm, rated at 1050HP.
Engine-mount or Second stage EVO III 16G with a 28mm internal waste gate rated at 450HP.
DN Performance exhaust manifold with two Tial 44mm gates, FP O2 housing
TurboWerks Exa-Pump Electric Oil Scavenge Pump for Primary turbo return.
God-Speed FMIC

How the turbo compounding works is the small secondary turbo will spool first at its low flow lower rpm. This lets me run a tighter converter. When the small turbo reaches its max flow around 41lbs/min all that exhaust flow is sent to the larger turbo(about the same exhaust flow as a 350 CI N/A engine at 4500rpm). Around 35lbs/min the larger turbo will start to spool and then comes on line. Once the flow is over 41lbs/min the 28mm wastegate is choke and the first 44mm gate will open. Then once the engine starts flowing over 60lbs/min the second 44mm gate starts to open. Now the small turbo has still only 41lbs/min of exhaust going through its turbine and by-passing all the rest around it(BP drops a ton). The larger BW turbo has a 60mm wastegate and dumps to atm. to control the 45+ lbs.of boost.

Advantages:
No turbo lag
Massive amounts of torque
Very low engine back pressure

[Tommy Cookers]

It's all good !!


(When you mentioned compound, I was thinking of a turbine feeding mechanical power to the crankshaft)

[pgfpro]

It's all good !!


(When you mentioned compound, I was thinking of a turbine feeding mechanical power to the crankshaft)

I'm working on a generator on the larger turbo but it will only be able to charge the battery in replacement of the alternator.

[FW17]

I think this image is deliberately misleading, the driven turbine's outlet and the intake-plenum's inlet indicates there will be an intercooler in between, but nobody would place the inlet like that? I believe at this low boost, some 0.7 Bar, there is no need for an intercooler, why we will see the turbo-outlet feeding directly between the two plenums.

1) Why would a low boost engine need such a large turbo spinning at 200,000 rpm?

2) Why is there such a large airbox leading to the turbine inlet?

[ringo]

Computer-generated image of new P.U.R.E V-6 turbo motor
Source

I think this image is deliberately misleading, the driven turbine's outlet and the intake-plenum's inlet indicates there will be an intercooler in between, but nobody would place the inlet like that? I believe at this low boost, some 0.7 Bar, there is no need for an intercooler, why we will see the turbo-outlet feeding directly between the two plenums.

Who says the boost will be 0.7 bar, where did you find that info?

[matt21]

I think this image is deliberately misleading, the driven turbine's outlet and the intake-plenum's inlet indicates there will be an intercooler in between, but nobody would place the inlet like that? I believe at this low boost, some 0.7 Bar, there is no need for an intercooler, why we will see the turbo-outlet feeding directly between the two plenums.

1) Why would a low boost engine need such a large turbo spinning at 200,000 rpm?

2) Why is there such a large airbox leading to the turbine inlet?

The engine should be around 600 to 700 mm wide. So the turbo seems not so big to me.

The max fuel flow of 100 kg/hr equals 1470 kg of air per hour with an AFR of 1.
For maximum power you have an AFR of around 0.9, what equals 1323 kg/hr of air.

This is around 1100 m³/hr or 18.4 m³/min. or in other words really a lot at max rpm.

With 1 bar absolute you can do 11.25 m³/min at 15.000 rpm.
So if I calculate 18.4/11.25 I come to around 1.6 bar absolute.

Edit: Please note that this calculation is based on the same charge air temperature for both cases. If you raise the temperature the pressure will also rise.

[xpensive]

Great stuff matt21, you came to almost the same results as me, even if we used completely different methods?

A rather simplistic lazy-dog;

a) A useful equalizer, based on today's 750 Hp from 2.4 liter at 18 kRpm, is 17.5 Hp per liter, kRpm and Bar absolute.
b) Fuel flow for the turbos is limited to 27.7 g/s, which at 47.2 kJ/g and an efficiency of 35% means 460 kW or 620 Hp.
c) Based on a), a 1.6 liter engine with 620 Hp at 12 kRpm would need 1.85 Bar absolute or 0.85 boost to make use of the fuel.

This is of course based on the assumption that each and every input parameter has a proportional impact on output power, where proportionality here means that if one input parameter doubles it's value, so does the resultant output power.

[Rob01]

When the FIA mandates what the bore diameter should be, automatically the stroke is being mandated, a fixed crankshaft axis and chassis/gearbox mounting points, a cap on fuel flow and engine revs limited to 15k rpm, the last bombshell, the engine will produce the same maximum power as the current 2.4l v8 BUT ONLY WHEN THE ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEMS ARE IN USE, which means the engine maximum power output will be 600 bhp, 150less then the 2.4l v8, and remember this with a turbo super charger. (sunny).

[pgfpro]

There the same numbers I got on my Turbo EFI spreadsheet too running 13.2 A/F at 100*F IAT at sealevel.

[Ian P.]

The 2014 regs don't seem to contain any limitations or specification for bore or stroke. Only displacement.
If the fuel flow is fixed from 10,500 up, and with "normal" boost levels you can get max air flow and hence max power from 10,500 to what-ever, why would you go to 15,000.?? There is no need. 12,500 is more than enough.
Gear boxes are 8 speed. If 1st is good for 100 kph (likely higher in practice) and you run 16% at each shift, then 7th is good for 300 kph. 8th becomes an overdrive to cover DRS, KERS etc without either droppping below max power or hitting the rev limit.
The engine need only run to 12,500. This improves efficiency and will open up some variations on bore / stroke ratios.
It is going to be all about thermal efficiency. The best should be upwards of 40%.
And yes, there will be intercoolers, a boost of 2.0 and a compressor efficiency of 70% (likely on the high side) results in an air temp. of 140 deg C. Right in the range for intercoolers and too high to stuff into the engine without serious additional compressor losses.