2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Juzh]

The only way the V10s were getting a higher top speed than the current V6Ts would be by running less total drag. That is the only possibility.

ERS is not deploying at the end of very long straights, or at least at a very reduced rate. That's why on some straights the cars are absolute rocketships and on others they're almost dead after ~320 kmh. It's very dependant on the deployment strategy and optimisation over the whole lap. For example, V10 would have more average power over the whole monza straight and reach a higher top speed because it's pumping ~900+ bhp all the time, despite having worse acceleration up to ~300 kmh.

[wuzak]

But those 6 gears were tailored to the circuit

Are the current engines faster than V10 without DRS? NO

V10 with DRS would have hit 380 kph @ Monza

A V10 would not hit 380km/h with DRS. That is because they ran with low drag wings to get 370km/h, arguably lower drag wings than used with DRS.





http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ant ... id54468497
http://b.f1-facts.com/ul/a/1895
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... z-2004.jpg

[FW17]

A V10 would not hit 380km/h with DRS. That is because they ran with low drag wings to get 370km/h, arguably lower drag wings than used with DRS.

So there was no benefit of DRS in the low drag wings of 2011-2013?

Williams in 2004 ran much more wing than anyone else and still hit 372kph

[wuzak]

A V10 would not hit 380km/h with DRS. That is because they ran with low drag wings to get 370km/h, arguably lower drag wings than used with DRS.

So there was no benefit of DRS in the low drag wings of 2011-2013?

No, not a lot.

[Juzh]

Williams in 2004 ran much more wing than anyone else and still hit 372kph

That was montoya in testing. In the race RAI did 370.1 in 2005. In 2004 pizonia did 369 in a williams.

[mrluke]

The only way the V10s were getting a higher top speed than the current V6Ts would be by running less total drag. That is the only possibility.

ERS is not deploying at the end of very long straights, or at least at a very reduced rate. That's why on some straights the cars are absolute rocketships and on others they're almost dead after ~320 kmh. It's very dependant on the deployment strategy and optimisation over the whole lap. For example, V10 would have more average power over the whole monza straight and reach a higher top speed because it's pumping ~900+ bhp all the time, despite having worse acceleration up to ~300 kmh.

i'll direct people to this old but pretty good topic where this all was explored in some detail:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ca#p542690

Bear in mind this is comparing the 2014 cars rather than the 2016 ones which have somewhat more power.

Alternatively if people want to jump back in this thread to page 527 you can see where exactly the same discussions are held re max bhp, efficiency and drag.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... st#p584629

[godlameroso]

The only way the V10s were getting a higher top speed than the current V6Ts would be by running less total drag. That is the only possibility.

ERS is not deploying at the end of very long straights, or at least at a very reduced rate. That's why on some straights the cars are absolute rocketships and on others they're almost dead after ~320 kmh. It's very dependant on the deployment strategy and optimisation over the whole lap. For example, V10 would have more average power over the whole monza straight and reach a higher top speed because it's pumping ~900+ bhp all the time, despite having worse acceleration up to ~300 kmh.

i'll direct people to this old but pretty good topic where this all was explored in some detail:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ca#p542690

Bear in mind this is comparing the 2014 cars rather than the 2016 ones which have somewhat more power.

Alternatively if people want to jump back in this thread to page 527 you can see where exactly the same discussions are held re max bhp, efficiency and drag.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... st#p584629

Somewhat more power, maybe an extra 50 peak bhp and around 30% more torque over 50% of the power band.

[mrluke]

ERS is not deploying at the end of very long straights, or at least at a very reduced rate. That's why on some straights the cars are absolute rocketships and on others they're almost dead after ~320 kmh. It's very dependant on the deployment strategy and optimisation over the whole lap. For example, V10 would have more average power over the whole monza straight and reach a higher top speed because it's pumping ~900+ bhp all the time, despite having worse acceleration up to ~300 kmh.

i'll direct people to this old but pretty good topic where this all was explored in some detail:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ca#p542690

Bear in mind this is comparing the 2014 cars rather than the 2016 ones which have somewhat more power.

Alternatively if people want to jump back in this thread to page 527 you can see where exactly the same discussions are held re max bhp, efficiency and drag.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... st#p584629

Somewhat more power, maybe an extra 50 peak bhp and around 30% more torque over 50% of the power band.

30% more power over 50% of the power band??? Thats what an extra 250bhp? Where do you get these numbers from?

[kooleracer]

Willem Toet gave and seminar and was talking about the Thermal effiecieny numbers saying that between 45-50 is considered normal now.
https://youtu.be/4eHtaa-Z8jI?t=2351

[godlameroso]

i'll direct people to this old but pretty good topic where this all was explored in some detail:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ca#p542690

Bear in mind this is comparing the 2014 cars rather than the 2016 ones which have somewhat more power.

Alternatively if people want to jump back in this thread to page 527 you can see where exactly the same discussions are held re max bhp, efficiency and drag.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... st#p584629

Somewhat more power, maybe an extra 50 peak bhp and around 30% more torque over 50% of the power band.

30% more power over 50% of the power band??? Thats what an extra 250bhp? Where do you get these numbers from?

Depends where in the power band. If it's earlier in the powerband then it's obviously a lot less. Peak torque then yes, you'd be correct but a power band isn't flat.

[gruntguru]

We should all remember that comparing torque between engines with completely different peak-power-rpm is utterly useless.

[mrluke]

The rules dictate a flat power band between 10,500 and 15,000.

No doubt there will be some variance but its not going to peak significantly and clearly very few cars run past 12k.

[godlameroso]

The rules dictate a flat power band between 10,500 and 15,000.

No doubt there will be some variance but its not going to peak significantly and clearly very few cars run past 12k.

They are not flat above 10,500, and what about below 10,500? They're more a wave of torque that starts at 6,000 peaks around 10,000 and falls off after 12,500.

I wonder if anyone will try to exploit the higher revs for harvesting.

[wuzak]

The rules dictate a flat power band between 10,500 and 15,000.

No doubt there will be some variance but its not going to peak significantly and clearly very few cars run past 12k.

They are not flat above 10,500, and what about below 10,500? They're more a wave of torque that starts at 6,000 peaks around 10,000 and falls off after 12,500.

I wonder if anyone will try to exploit the higher revs for harvesting.

Torque will be almost flat until 10,500rpm before it falls away.

Power will rise to a peak at 10,500rpm before it falls away.

If friction could be held constant and the combustion efficiency remained the same the power would be constant above 10,500rpm.

Assuming constant efficiency of 45%, HHV of 46MJ/kg the torque at 6,000rpm would be 545Nm and at 10,500rpm it would be 523Nm. The fall is explained by the fuel flow limit - it is not directly proportional to rpm as it contains an offset. That is, the formula is 0.009*rpm +5.5.

Power rises from 459hp at 6,000rpm to 771hp at 10,500rpm, where it remains until 10,500rpm.

Without the offset, still assuming constant efficiency, the fuel flow at 10,500rpm would be 94.5kg/h, the torque would be maintained at 494Nm up to 10,500rpm where it falls away.

[godlameroso]

I would wager that combustion efficiency is not a monolith but is actually variable in the RPM range. A consequence of having fixed valve timing. It very well could be that the engine is efficient at over 50% over a certain rpm range, and pedal map condition but less efficient at others. Say between 7,500-8,800 rpm at almost full throttle the engine is actually 56% efficient, but only 47% from 9-10,500, and even less efficient at higher revs. In other words it's entirely possible that peak output actually happens slightly before 10,500rpm, the better engines have a wider plateau because of improved efficiency. This would go along with the assertion of certain people that the difference in peak power isn't tremendously great. Rather it's a matter of area under the curve.