2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

Significant, not necessarily,it would be dependent on your turbine's design. I don't know what crankshaft loss there would be, or why there should be a significant one. You would definitely have a lower exhaust pressure and temperature exiting the turbine, but it's the turbine's design that would determine if the mean exhaust pressure is increased much.
I do think that the team's are not able to get 160hp from MGUH at this stage, but are closing in on Mercedes.

I feel that come 2015 the cars will be close and mercedes wont be the best engine package. the race in hungary somewhat showed that the mercedes is less dominant.

[xpensive]

240 Hp from the MGU-H is perhaps a bit much, but there's no argument that it's where the MHPE advantage is.

Not to jump into conclusions, Hungaroring is no powertrack, this is where Damon Hill almost won with a Yamaha.

[gruntguru]

The amount of energy "available" in the exhaust has nothing to do with turbine design. The main factors are mass flow, temperature and pressure (including pressure transients ie "blowdown"). The pressure can be adjusted by turbine selection to increase or decrease the power available by as Tommy said this will affect the ICE power. Turbine design will increase or reduce the efficiency ie how much of the available exhaust energy is converted to work. (Note that all the available energy can NEVER be converted to work.)

Turbine design and selection is NOT a factor in MB's power advantage. Every team has a turbine selected to match their engine design and strategy.

Turbine design and efficiency has well established technological boundaries. The chance that there is even 1% difference between teams is remote.

If MB has a "bigger" turbine, that is a result of some difference in their engine design or strategy.

[nacho]

Why does the Ferrari engine sound so different to others? Quite often with partial throttle in corners the engine sound modulates a lot. Renault and Mercedes usually sound smooth with partial throttle / mid corner.

[Facts Only]

...
A roller clutch is not legal, the compressor and turbine must rotate at the same speed at all times, there is no loophole.

The FIA have design data and a homologated engine to compare it to, they can also compare this engine to any engine during the season to confirm they are still legal.
...

I still beg to differ.

Both points are facts not opinion.

[Cold Fussion]

...
A roller clutch is not legal, the compressor and turbine must rotate at the same speed at all times, there is no loophole.

The FIA have design data and a homologated engine to compare it to, they can also compare this engine to any engine during the season to confirm they are still legal.
...

I still beg to differ.

Both points are facts not opinion.

This may be correct, and you may even be Bob Bell for all we know, but just saying they are facts without any verification isn't confidence inspiring.

[tuj]

Why does the Ferrari engine sound so different to others? Quite often with partial throttle in corners the engine sound modulates a lot. Renault and Mercedes usually sound smooth with partial throttle / mid corner.

My *guess* is that Ferrari hasn't fully mastered the MGU-H and is venting pressure at partial throttle.

[ringo]

The amount of energy "available" in the exhaust has nothing to do with turbine design. The main factors are mass flow, temperature and pressure (including pressure transients ie "blowdown"). The pressure can be adjusted by turbine selection to increase or decrease the power available by as Tommy said this will affect the ICE power. Turbine design will increase or reduce the efficiency ie how much of the available exhaust energy is converted to work. (Note that all the available energy can NEVER be converted to work.)

Turbine design and selection is NOT a factor in MB's power advantage. Every team has a turbine selected to match their engine design and strategy.

Turbine design and efficiency has well established technological boundaries. The chance that there is even 1% difference between teams is remote.

If MB has a "bigger" turbine, that is a result of some difference in their engine design or strategy.

What do you know?
Show some theory. In case you're new to the site, i don't prescribe much to semantics and bolded words. in fact i don't see where 1% came from and if it has any bearing on anything, what is that?
Are you familiar with turbine design? on a serious note.

[gruntguru]

The amount of energy "available" in the exhaust has nothing to do with turbine design. The main factors are mass flow, temperature and pressure (including pressure transients ie "blowdown"). The pressure can be adjusted by turbine selection to increase or decrease the power available by as Tommy said this will affect the ICE power. Turbine design will increase or reduce the efficiency ie how much of the available exhaust energy is converted to work. (Note that all the available energy can NEVER be converted to work.)

Turbine design and selection is NOT a factor in MB's power advantage. Every team has a turbine selected to match their engine design and strategy.

Turbine design and efficiency has well established technological boundaries. The chance that there is even 1% difference between teams is remote.

If MB has a "bigger" turbine, that is a result of some difference in their engine design or strategy.

What do you know?

Enough.

Show some theory.

As little as you do? ie less than I currently do?

In case you're new to the site

That is easy to check.

i don't prescribe much to semantics and bolded words.

The word "NEVER" (caps BTW not bolded) emphasises a thermodynamic fact.
The word "NOT" is only my opinion.

in fact i don't see where 1% came from and if it has any bearing on anything, what is that?

1% is what I would consider an upper limit to the difference in turbine isentropic efficiency from one team to another.

Are you familiar with turbine design? on a serious note.

Yes. I am not a turbine designer but I understand the principles of turbine design. Seriously.

[xpensive]

The amount of energy "available" in the exhaust has nothing to do with turbine design. The main factors are mass flow, temperature and pressure (including pressure transients ie "blowdown").
...

This makes a whole lotta sense grunts, thanks.

[Facts Only]

I still beg to differ.

Both points are facts not opinion.

This may be correct, and you may even be Bob Bell for all we know, but just saying they are facts without any verification isn't confidence inspiring.

I am not Bob Bell.

People making ascertations that a manufacturer is using a system which is A) Not legal and B) Of no actual use anyway if you properly understand the system isn't confidence inspiring either.

But Rule Recap, this is how everyone in the actual business and TWG reads it:

5.1.6 (deleted for space)The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU-H) may be directly coupled to it.

This dentoes that however the Turbo is layed out the basic Compressor/Turbine assembly must be on a common axis with all parts always rotating at the same speed irrespective of what the MGUH is doing or how many parts are in the system. Thus even with a split turbo with separate shafts for the Comp/Turbine the coupling or link shaft must be a direct fixed link on the same axis. Any sort of clutching, overspeeding or gearing is not allowed

5.2.4 The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the exhaust turbine of a pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.

This rule actually confirms rule 5.1.6 as it separates the Comp/Turbine arrangment in the rules and leaves no ambiguity for interpretation of parts running on the same axis and at the same speed no matter how you interface the MGUH. The MGUH can be either on the same shaft or running coaxially using a link with a ratio other than 1:1 but it must remain constant (i.e Fixed gear). A cutch may be added to this link. What you cannot do is put the MGUH in the middle of the Comp/Turbine and then use that as an excuse to separate the Comp/Turbine shaft assembly and so break rule 5.1.6. This is completely unambiguous.

5.2.5 Cars must be fitted with homologated sensors which provide all necessary signals to the FIA data logger in order to verify the requirements above are being respected.

I have not seen this rule quoted in this thread (perhaps conveniently for some) but it is the final nail in the coffin for the theory, there is a speed sensor on the Compressor Side, Turbine Side and MGUH to confirm the angular velocity that none of the rules above are being broken.

With regards to the usefulness (or not) of the clutch in the theory I will perhaps get onto this when I have another few spare minutes.

[gruntguru]

Hi Facts Only. You have hinted that you have some knowledge of what the teams are actually doing. Can you shed any light on any of the other issues that we have been guessing at?
Examples:
- Manifold Absolute Pressure. (Renault mention 3.5 bar.)
- Thermal efficiency. (MB claim 40%+. We assume this is simultaneous ICE and MGUH.)
- Full power AFR. Opinions here vary from lambda 0.8 to 1.3
- Charge air temperature

[ringo]

As little as you do? ie less than I currently do?

You are the one making claims, i'm simply asking to see some supporting evidence. I would like to know why you believe that a turbine's design has nothing to do with how much power it can extract.
That is a very serious claim that you are making there.

1% is what I would consider an upper limit to the difference in turbine isentropic efficiency from one team to another.

Why would you suggest that?
Ever heard of the term diagram efficiency? not that it is directly linked to these auto turbo chargers, but going beyond design from a cycle perspective, I am referring to blade and housing design for steam/gas turbines.
What I am saying to you is that you cannot draw the conclusions that you have been drawing on what impacts design has on how much power can be extracted from the exhaust.

Yes. I am not a turbine designer but I understand the principles of turbine design.

There is more to it. I don't know it all about turbines but I know what is involved in designing blades for a certain flow. And Mercedes can have some kind of novel approach with their turbine.

[gruntguru]

I would like to know why you believe that a turbine's design has nothing to do with how much power it can extract.
That is a very serious claim that you are making there.

What I actually claimed was:
1. The energy available is a function of the ICE.
2. The % of that energy actually recovered is a function of turbine efficiency.
3. Turbine efficiency has a pretty solid ceiling these days after centuries of development. Finding a 1% advantage would be very unlikely.

There is more to it. I don't know it all about turbines but I know what is involved in designing blades for a certain flow. And Mercedes can have some kind of novel approach with their turbine.

As I said. Very unlikely. The multi billion dollar turbine industries (GT, Jet engine, steam turbines, Turbochargers etc) would have discovered it by now. They have much bigger budgets and much more to gain from even the smallest gain - let alone a breakthrough.

[wuzak]

People making ascertations that a manufacturer is using a system which is A) Not legal and B) Of no actual use anyway if you properly understand the system isn't confidence inspiring either.

But Rule Recap, this is how everyone in the actual business and TWG reads it:

5.1.6 (deleted for space)The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU-H) may be directly coupled to it.

This dentoes that however the Turbo is layed out the basic Compressor/Turbine assembly must be on a common axis with all parts always rotating at the same speed irrespective of what the MGUH is doing or how many parts are in the system. Thus even with a split turbo with separate shafts for the Comp/Turbine the coupling or link shaft must be a direct fixed link on the same axis. Any sort of clutching, overspeeding or gearing is not allowed

5.2.4 The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the exhaust turbine of a pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.

This rule actually confirms rule 5.1.6 as it separates the Comp/Turbine arrangment in the rules and leaves no ambiguity for interpretation of parts running on the same axis and at the same speed no matter how you interface the MGUH. The MGUH can be either on the same shaft or running coaxially using a link with a ratio other than 1:1 but it must remain constant (i.e Fixed gear). A cutch may be added to this link. What you cannot do is put the MGUH in the middle of the Comp/Turbine and then use that as an excuse to separate the Comp/Turbine shaft assembly and so break rule 5.1.6. This is completely unambiguous.

5.2.5 Cars must be fitted with homologated sensors which provide all necessary signals to the FIA data logger in order to verify the requirements above are being respected.

I have not seen this rule quoted in this thread (perhaps conveniently for some) but it is the final nail in the coffin for the theory, there is a speed sensor on the Compressor Side, Turbine Side and MGUH to confirm the angular velocity that none of the rules above are being broken.

With regards to the usefulness (or not) of the clutch in the theory I will perhaps get onto this when I have another few spare minutes.

Thanks for this Facts Only.

The only thing I would dispute is the requirement that the MGUH is coaxial with the turbo's shaft assembly. It could be parallel or perpendicular or at any angle, so long as it is mechanically connected to the turbine's shaft with a fixed speed ratio. And may be clutched.

That said, I don't see any advantage to not having it co-axial - either between the turbine and compressor, as Mercedes and Ferrari have done, or ahead of teh compressor, as Renault have done.