2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

the FIA stated that the fuel allowance would be repeatedly reduced in the future
this would lead rather in the 'range extender' direction
ie less ICE power relative to recovered power and EM power

btw
the first clear downsizing movement was the general rather protracted change from sidevalve (flathead) to overhead valve
and there was a 20s/30s attempt in sportscars at smaller engines via supercharging (with a definite 'new technology' mystique)

[Edis]

2/3 is a falsification
and 2015 fuel is unlike any road fuel and specially made for superior mass-specific energy and efficiency regardless

Since 99% of the fuel must contain compounds normally found in commercial fuels any difference in terms of mass-specific energy would be minimal. The octane rating of the fuel is probably the biggest difference compared to normal commercial fuel, as unlike the previous naturally aspirated engines knock is probably an issue.

the FIA is making false comparisons
between 1914 and 2013 GP (with one exception) the FIA has not had any fuel quantity limit or any meaningful one
and so has relentlessly rewarded engines that maximise power regardless of fuel efficiency

Although a poor fuel efficiency has always been a handicap due to the extra weight carried.

the innovation of exhaust recovery was demonstrated by 16000 aircraft (piston) engines in the 1950s (using standard fuel)
recovery typically raised efficiency about 10-15% at sea level
current F1 is about the same (kinetic recovery is inapplicable in real world motoring and its benefit in F1 should be disregarded)

in our road cars we drive at low powers (largely by degrading efficiency) and exhaust recovery is negligible at low mep
yes, we can benefit from engine downsizing, but manufacturers do this already without needing a recovery turbine etc

the real point of the rules now is to glamourise and bulk-up the hybrid idea, and have future urban and city driving in electric mode

Kinetic recovery is very much applicable to real world motoring, infact it's a key technology combined with downsizing in all hybrid cars.

Turbocompound isn't new, aside from aircraft it's been used in mass-produced commercial vehicles since the nineties. But electric turbocompound has been quite rare. However, I suspect that this technology can become interesting for car manufacturers within a few years time. On the commercial side it's already being looked at, being worth an estimated 5-10% improvement in fuel efficiency. Since some car manufacturers are already looking at electric supercharging for improving throttle response in downsized turbo engines, a combined turbocharger/generator certainly can't be ruled out. The biggest cost driver for such a technology (just like electric supercharging) is really the higher voltage electric system required to handle the power levels, and if you have paid for that, you want to take as much advantage of that system as possible.

[Vortex37]

Since 99% of the fuel must contain compounds normally found in commercial fuels any difference in terms of mass-specific energy would be minimal. The octane rating of the fuel is probably the biggest difference compared to normal commercial fuel, as unlike the previous naturally aspirated engines knock is probably an issue.

I would like to add to your comment: the ignition/burn characteristics are very different to earlier fuels. Flame front control is important in these engines, to enable them to operate at the edge of the performance envelope.

[Vortex37]

The link below, is a paper on an aspect of control engineering, for a F1 current engine. Professor Limebeer,

He also did a video presentation..

http://uk.mathworks.com/videos/optimal- ... 96763.html

Rob

Thanks for the link. Nice presentation.

Iain.

[Tommy Cookers]

2/3 is a falsification
and 2015 fuel is unlike any road fuel and specially made for superior mass-specific energy and efficiency regardless

Since 99% of the fuel must contain compounds normally found in commercial fuels any difference in terms of mass-specific energy would be minimal. The octane rating of the fuel is probably the biggest difference compared to normal commercial fuel, as unlike the previous naturally aspirated engines knock is probably an issue.

the innovation of exhaust recovery was demonstrated by 16000 aircraft (piston) engines in the 1950s (using standard fuel)
recovery typically raised efficiency about 10-15% at sea level
current F1 is about the same (kinetic recovery is inapplicable in real world motoring and its benefit in F1 should be disregarded)
in our road cars we drive at low powers (largely by degrading efficiency) and exhaust recovery is negligible at low mep
yes, we can benefit from engine downsizing, but manufacturers do this already without needing a recovery turbine etc

Kinetic recovery is very much applicable to real world motoring, infact it's a key technology combined with downsizing in all hybrid cars.
Turbocompound isn't new, aside from aircraft it's been used in mass-produced commercial vehicles since the nineties. But electric turbocompound has been quite rare. However, I suspect that this technology can become interesting for car manufacturers within a few years time. On the commercial side it's already being looked at, being worth an estimated 5-10% improvement in fuel efficiency. Since some car manufacturers are already looking at electric supercharging for improving throttle response in downsized turbo engines, a combined turbocharger/generator certainly can't be ruled out. The biggest cost driver for such a technology (just like electric supercharging) is really the higher voltage electric system required to handle the power levels, and if you have paid for that, you want to take as much advantage of that system as possible.

our road fuel is 5% or more Ethanol and so is around 44-45 MJ/kg
current F1 fuel has 5% biofuel, but this is bio-feedstock qualified via 'commercial intent' only, and enables 48 MJ/kg overall
anyway the N/A F1 fuel was designed for combustion speed first and (usually) for volume/specific energy second

I meant to say that kinetic recovery is morally inapplicable in real-world motoring
ie it only has significant value in broad political terms
morally inapplicable meaning that the cost outweighs the (trivial) benefits ie it's not a way to save the world

I have often praised the ingenuity of the current 'PU-concept' rules

but re-definition of heat-engine efficiency allowing energy already delivered to the load to be counted twice as a deliverable ....
is fraudulent and mendacious nonsense
iirc the FIA is claiming (in their unfair comparison with the N/A engine) a 30% improvement in BTE
it should be clear by now whether the claims count or discount KE recovery in their determination of BTE

yes, the F1 race fuel use is reduced significantly by genuine KE recovery (though only reaching 2 MJ/lap at Monza and Montreal ?)
but average road car driving corresponds in KE recovery potential to only a few % of F1's rate or level

sure as anything this (ie the broad, more-electric) technology is interesting (ie significant) to manufacturers
it will help our present manufacturers sell complicated, expensive cars (protectionism and greenwashing combined)
that's what I said 3 years ago, yes, I do feel vindicated by events so far

btw
the mass-produced commercial (compounded) vehicles are all CI not SI ?
and so for good reasons benefit less from exhaust recovery than F1 does
and CI car useage would benefit even less from exhaust recovery
the CI car would benefit more from recovery from coolant (waste) heat - but this is banned in F1 ?

[Powerslide]

whats interesting about energy recovery is it uses the weight of the entire vehicle rather than just itself to regenerate during breaking or coasting. I think kers benefits more to this than more electric energy set ups where battery weight starts to take a toll on tyre rolling resistance and returns might not out weight the benefits too much especially on highways. the overall return of reducing fuel usage during acceleration on heavy vehicle most definitely is something positive, this can also be seen as to divert efficient combustion engine energy to areas where mobility is inefficient by storing those energy.

to say kinetic recovery is morally inapplicable opens a much broader perspective of argument where in some areas of usage or road infrastructure, kinetic recovery by be extraordinarily applicable especially taken into account plug-in energy.

[gruntguru]

iirc the FIA is claiming (in their unfair comparison with the N/A engine) a 30% improvement in BTE
it should be clear by now whether the claims count or discount KE recovery in their determination of BTE

With current engines at 40+% BTE - at full power, the 30% figure is IMO conservative. The closest thing prior would be the Honda RA168e with a BTE around 32% - in economy mode. Recent NA engines may have similar peak BTE but certainly not at full power like the current engines.

yes, the F1 race fuel use is reduced significantly by genuine KE recovery (though only reaching 2 MJ/lap at Monza and Montreal ?)

With race total laps ranging from 44 to 78, the potential KE rcovery is 88 to 156 MJ. Fuel load is 100kg @ 48 MJ/kg ie 4,800 MJ. of which perhaps 40% (optimistically) is converted to work ie 1920 MJ. So the maximum KE recovery ranges from 4.6% to 8.1% assuming most of the 100kg allocation is burned.

An interesting fact raised by these numbers is the large variance in lap distance from track to track and the effect on KE recovery limit. Perhaps the 2MJ limit should be increased on the longer circuits?

the mass-produced commercial (compounded) vehicles are all CI not SI ?
and so for good reasons benefit less from exhaust recovery than F1 does
and CI car useage would benefit even less from exhaust recovery

Road going CI engines are all turbocharged these days. The best turbocharged engines already recover some exhaust energy - delivering work to the crankshaft during the intake stroke so can be considered (to some small extent) to be compounded.

the CI car would benefit more from recovery from coolant (waste) heat

No. Heat rejected to the cooling system is only of the same order as that rejected to the exhaust. The clincher though is temperature with cooling system heat rejection at a much lower temperature and therefore a much lower fraction is able to be converted to useful enrgy (work).

[Tommy Cookers]

iirc there's not enough 'real' braking time/lap on most circuits to reach 2 MJ/lap (because of the gu-k action limit to 120 kW)
so the genuine KE recovery/race is a more even % of fuel energy supplied than your figures might suggest ?

btw
Ricardo ran a race-compression N/A Napier Lion at 0.32 lb/hp-hr - 'the best he had ever seen' equivalent to less lb gasoline
BTE 37% or so ?
unprecedentedly good ME due to rolling-element bearings, 8 offset rods, and very low piston frictional area

[bergie88]

iirc there's not enough 'real' braking time/lap on most circuits to reach 2 MJ/lap (because of the gu-k action limit to 120 kW)
so the genuine KE recovery/race is a more even % of fuel energy supplied than your figures might suggest ?

btw
Ricardo ran a race-compression N/A Napier Lion at 0.32 lb/hp-hr - 'the best he had ever seen' equivalent to less lb gasoline
BTE 37% or so ?
unprecedentedly good ME due to rolling-element bearings, 8 offset rods, and very low piston frictional area

Isn't the best thing to do then to increase the maximum MGU-K power such that the 2MJ limit is reached on more circuits (btw, I don't know on how many circuits it is not reached?) and the MGU-H in generating mode can be fully exploited?

[gruntguru]

iirc there's not enough 'real' braking time/lap on most circuits to reach 2 MJ/lap (because of the gu-k action limit to 120 kW)
so the genuine KE recovery/race is a more even % of fuel energy supplied than your figures might suggest ?

btw
Ricardo ran a race-compression N/A Napier Lion at 0.32 lb/hp-hr - 'the best he had ever seen' equivalent to less lb gasoline
BTE 37% or so ?
unprecedentedly good ME due to rolling-element bearings, 8 offset rods, and very low piston frictional area

Using 45 MJ/kg fuel that would be 41% BTE.

[Edis]

our road fuel is 5% or more Ethanol and so is around 44-45 MJ/kg
current F1 fuel has 5% biofuel, but this is bio-feedstock qualified via 'commercial intent' only, and enables 48 MJ/kg overall
anyway the N/A F1 fuel was designed for combustion speed first and (usually) for volume/specific energy second

Roadside fuel is more like 43 MJ/kg without the ethanol.

The fuel used by Honda in F1 during the late eighties were 41 MJ/kg.

I meant to say that kinetic recovery is morally inapplicable in real-world motoring
ie it only has significant value in broad political terms
morally inapplicable meaning that the cost outweighs the (trivial) benefits ie it's not a way to save the world

Well, Toyota have sold the Prius for over 15 years by now, so kinetic energy recovery in road vehicles is very real and have been for quite some time. Even regular road vehicles tend to use some kinetic energy recovery by controlling when to use the alternator.

yes, the F1 race fuel use is reduced significantly by genuine KE recovery (though only reaching 2 MJ/lap at Monza and Montreal ?)
but average road car driving corresponds in KE recovery potential to only a few % of F1's rate or level

I would say it's the other way around, the reduction in fuel usage is much higher in a road car than in a racing car. Mostly during city traffic for obvious reasons. Volvo claimed up to 25% fuel consumption reduction with flywheel kers.

the mass-produced commercial (compounded) vehicles are all CI not SI ?
and so for good reasons benefit less from exhaust recovery than F1 does
and CI car useage would benefit even less from exhaust recovery
the CI car would benefit more from recovery from coolant (waste) heat - but this is banned in F1 ?

Since heavy commercial vehicles rarely use SI engines, it isn't surprising that turbocompound only have been used in CI powered vehicles. But manufacturers or heavy commercial vehicles hardly put anything on their vehicles which isn't cost effective for their customers.

Recovery from coolant would hardly be beneficial for most CI engine powered cars. CI passenger cars reject little heat to the coolant, during wintertime the heat rejected to the coolant is typically not enough to provide adequate cabin heating - as a result these cars are typically equipped with an additional heater which either heats the coolant burning diesel in a separate heater or heating the incoming cabin air using electricity.

With current engines at 40+% BTE - at full power, the 30% figure is IMO conservative. The closest thing prior would be the Honda RA168e with a BTE around 32% - in economy mode. Recent NA engines may have similar peak BTE but certainly not at full power like the current engines.

According to Cosworth the CA needed 260 g/kWh in lean mode (roughly 32% BTE). Their estimation of the new engines were 190 g/kWh in self sustaining mode and 180 g/kWh with battery assistance, so the claim about 30% improvement seems fairly accurate.

[Tommy Cookers]

Roadside fuel is more like 43 MJ/kg without the ethanol.
The fuel used by Honda in F1 during the late eighties were 41 MJ/kg.

and CI car useage would benefit even less from exhaust recovery
the CI car would benefit more from recovery from coolant (waste) heat - but this is banned in F1 ?

Recovery from coolant would hardly be beneficial for most CI engine powered cars. CI passenger cars reject little heat to the coolant, during wintertime the heat rejected to the coolant is typically not enough to provide adequate cabin heating

According to Cosworth the CA needed 260 g/kWh in lean mode (roughly 32% BTE). Their estimation of the new engines were 190 g/kWh in self sustaining mode and 180 g/kWh with battery assistance, so the claim about 30% improvement seems fairly accurate.

to cut a story short .....
since the demise of TEL and the demise of its replacement with aromatics as octane booster
our road fuel has had oxygenate octane booster eg ethers (now discredited) and now ethanol - these depress LCV
ie roadside fuel was not as low as 43 MJ until the demise of TEL
your Honda fuel was mostly Toluene, that's why it's 41 MJ (Toluene also depresses the LCV of Avgas)
but yes I RETRACT AS WRONG any claim I made or implied that any commercially available gasoline was over 45 MJ LCV
and accept that the routes in the public domain to eg 48 MJ are now banned with the relatively recent expansion of the fuel rules

CI cars have a dispersed combustion process and so a relatively large area exposed to combustion
so their heat loss to coolant is rather large at high power (ie relative to a truck CI engine)
yes, it's negligibly small at idle power
people should look at the papers that were cited in the TERS section
and the BMW 'turbosteamer' work

was the Cosworth CA designed for best bte or for best power relative to displacement ?

for years I have praised the ingenuity of the current F1 rules and the benefits (at wot) of turbocompounding
but turbocompounding works in road car (ie non-wot) use only if further downsized (beyond turbocharged downsizing)
so the claim or implication that there's a new kind of engine that's 30% better in Joe Public's use is difficult to accept
ie whether for the road a 300 ICE hp Merc 'hybrid' with this F1 tech is a solution or a 30 ICE hp 'range extender' hybrid is better
we know in our hearts that this F1 is about people buying the 300 hp cars being helped to believe that they're saving the planet

[Edis]

Roadside fuel is more like 43 MJ/kg without the ethanol.
The fuel used by Honda in F1 during the late eighties were 41 MJ/kg.

and CI car useage would benefit even less from exhaust recovery
the CI car would benefit more from recovery from coolant (waste) heat - but this is banned in F1 ?

Recovery from coolant would hardly be beneficial for most CI engine powered cars. CI passenger cars reject little heat to the coolant, during wintertime the heat rejected to the coolant is typically not enough to provide adequate cabin heating

According to Cosworth the CA needed 260 g/kWh in lean mode (roughly 32% BTE). Their estimation of the new engines were 190 g/kWh in self sustaining mode and 180 g/kWh with battery assistance, so the claim about 30% improvement seems fairly accurate.

to cut a story short .....
since the demise of TEL and the demise of its replacement with aromatics as octane booster
our road fuel has had oxygenate octane booster eg ethers (now discredited) and now ethanol - these depress LCV
ie roadside fuel was not as low as 43 MJ until the demise of TEL
your Honda fuel was mostly Toluene, that's why it's 41 MJ (Toluene also depresses the LCV of Avgas)
but yes I RETRACT AS WRONG any claim I made or implied that any commercially available gasoline was over 45 MJ LCV
and accept that the routes in the public domain to eg 48 MJ are now banned with the relatively recent expansion of the fuel rules

CI cars have a dispersed combustion process and so a relatively large area exposed to combustion
so their heat loss to coolant is rather large at high power (ie relative to a truck CI engine)
yes, it's negligibly small at idle power
people should look at the papers that were cited in the TERS section
and the BMW 'turbosteamer' work

was the Cosworth CA designed for best bte or for best power relative to displacement ?

for years I have praised the ingenuity of the current F1 rules and the benefits (at wot) of turbocompounding
but turbocompounding works in road car (ie non-wot) use only if further downsized (beyond turbocharged downsizing)
so the claim or implication that there's a new kind of engine that's 30% better in Joe Public's use is difficult to accept
ie whether for the road a 300 ICE hp Merc 'hybrid' with this F1 tech is a solution or a 30 ICE hp 'range extender' hybrid is better
we know in our hearts that this F1 is about people buying the 300 hp cars being helped to believe that they're saving the planet

Conventional gasoline contains about 43.5 MJ/kg, reformulated gasoline containing oxygenates have an energy content of about 42.5 MJ/kg.

Toluene, an aromatic compound typically found in reformate, has a rather high density and since the F1 regulations during the eighties capped the fuel usage in liters rather than kg, toluene offered a high energy content. It also resisted knocking well during high boost high speed condition, while at the same time meeting the RON 102 limit.

Blending ethanol with gasoline increase the vapor pressure of the gasoline, this is one reason why MTBE have been the preferred oxygenate used in gasoline.

The heat losses to the coolant is typically quite small for a diesel engine, only about 10-15 % of the heat released during combustion end up in the coolant as opposed to 30-40 % which end up in the exhaust. If we take the BMW turbosteamer as an example, they used a boiler in the exhaust system to generate steam with a temperature of about 500 degC.

A passenger car diesel use the same combustion process as the larger truck engines, only with the cylinders being smaller (typically 70-80 mm bore compared to 100-140 mm for truck engines). The combustion is not dispersed, on the contrary. In a diesel engine the bowl in the piston crown forms the combustion chamber together with the flat cylinder head into which the injector injects 5-8 high velocity jets of fuel. These self ignite and burn with a diffusion flame. Aside from impingement of the jets on the piston (which causes mostly localized heating), the flame have very little direct contact with walls of the combustion chamber.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ Edis

what I had in mind was the indirect injection diesel
ok, now I accept this view is inappropriate today
so it's DI design diesel cars, not just trucks ........
(that officially kill via particulates 29000 UK people and 60000 Germans annnually, kill meaning shorten life by maybe 6 months)
the reason diesels are banned from current F1 ? (by the fuel rules, in effect)

my main point was that a diesel will have less scope for exhaust turbine recovery than will an SI engine
unless an abnormally low piston CR is chosen (eg because of extreme boost or to increase exhaust recovery)

btw
in a RC Engine interview in 2013 ? with Gilles Simon on the now-current F1 engines ......
2 piece or steel-insert pistons were predicted (for the same reason as diesels have such piston construction)
so, do we have these now in F1 ?
(presumably we have max CR, the conflict between maximising valve sizes and maximising CR was mentioned by Simon)

[trinidefender]

@ Edis

what I had in mind was the indirect injection diesel
ok, now I accept this view is inappropriate today
so it's DI design diesel cars, not just trucks ........
(that officially kill via particulates 29000 UK people and 60000 Germans annnually, kill meaning shorten life by maybe 6 months)
the reason diesels are banned from current F1 ? (by the fuel rules, in effect)

my main point was that a diesel will have less scope for exhaust turbine recovery than will an SI engine
unless an abnormally low piston CR is chosen (eg because of extreme boost or to increase exhaust recovery)

btw
in a RC Engine interview in 2013 ? with Gilles Simon on the now-current F1 engines ......
2 piece or steel-insert pistons were predicted (for the same reason as diesels have such piston construction)
so, do we have these now in F1 ?
(presumably we have max CR, the conflict between maximising valve sizes and maximising CR was mentioned by Simon)

Ironically many small and modern, passenger car and light pickup Diesel engines are trending towards actually having lower compression ratio and higher boost than before.

Also this only really applies to part load but the Diesel engines are also not typically throttled. Simply put there will be more massflow than required for combustion at part throttle openings. More massflow equals to more energy for the turbine to turn the MGU-H or in general keep the compressor spinning. This is one reason why I believe that, even large, turbochargers work so well and with so little lag on Diesel engines.

Even modern SI engines are throttled somewhat reducing massflow to the turbine. Even if it is done with valve lift as in some cars.

P.s. With modern low sulphur fuel and diesel particulate filters the level of particulate emissions (soot) can be reduced considerably. How old old are your figures? To add to that you can include urea injection for much reduced NOx emissions.