Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.

Post Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:59 pm

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?
失败者找理由,成功者找方法
raymondu999
 
Joined: 4 Feb 2010

Post Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:43 am

raymondu999 wrote: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.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:50 pm

johnny99 wrote:Heat transfer is neglible. Most if not all heat is generated by compressing the air.


At boost, the compressor is typically cold enough to transfer heat from the compressed air to the turbocharger.

scarbs wrote:I meant the outer compressor casing is CNC Alu. The turbine casing & HERS appeared to be steel\Ti (?)


Compressor housings in CNC machined aluminum is something you usually doesn't see. Cast aluminum or magnesium is more common, usually combined with a CNC machined compressor wheel, typically from a forged billet of 2000-series aluminum. Titanium are used in some high boost applications due to the heat, but with low boost an aluminum wheel is probably lighter. Turbine housings of racing turbochargers are often made as a thinwall casting in HK30 stainless (a material commonly found in jet engine exhausts) while bearing housings can be made of titanium; Garrett offer that option on the TR30R for instance. The turbine wheel is usually investment cast in Mar-M 247, a directionally solidfied superalloy.

Dragonfly wrote:IIRC Ferrari used ceramic coating for the cylinder walls and pistons in their V10's. I remember reading back then about Shell developing special lubricants as the traditional ones lead to the coating delamination.
Lon time since though, may be wrong.
I think ceramic parts were outlawed with the V8 engine rules.


The cylinderwalls are normally coated with Nikasil or similar, which is silicon carbide in a nickel matrix. Coatings on pistons are normally not ceramic. In F1 DLC is the standard for pistons these days. The ones I've seen have had the crown uncoated, that allows the piston to stand on the crown when being coated. The piston is polished before being coated.

strad wrote:Many years ago, Rand made some pistons for my Triumph that were Teflon impregnated. Not coated but actually a mil into the aluminum. It made for fricton on the order of wet ice on wet ice..I wonder if modern F1 does something similar


One main reason for using teflon tend to be to reduce noise.

hardingfv32 wrote:The Jag/Ford Cosworth V10 piston I have has a green coating on the skirts. Not sure what that would be.


Xylan

http://www.metcoat.com/xylan-coatings.htm

strad wrote:Well WB and other people doubted me...
Holm86 wrote:4 bars at idle? dont believe that....

Ok it wasn't 4 Bar,,it was only 3..I found the tape..
click photo for video


The "idle" they mean is a raised engine speed with the 'umluft' system going.

WhiteBlue wrote: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.


You still have to deal with the possebility of turbine choke at high engine speed. Make the turbine large enough to offer a low expasion ratio (less exhaust backpressure) at high speed and the expansion ratio can be a bit too low at lower engine speeds. So a wastegate can still be needed.
Edis
 
Joined: 31 Jan 2010

Post Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:06 am

Edis wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote: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.


You still have to deal with the possebility of turbine choke at high engine speed. Make the turbine large enough to offer a low expasion ratio (less exhaust backpressure) at high speed and the expansion ratio can be a bit too low at lower engine speeds. So a wastegate can still be needed.

Good point. I was trying to summarize it under safety feature to make it clear that under normal circumstances you would design the system for use without a substantial waste gate stream.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:47 pm

One main reason for using teflon tend to be to reduce noise.

It was for friction reduction AND it changes the bearing relationship from being the piston to being the cylinder wall which increases longevity by a ton.
Motorsport without danger is like cooking without salt
Sir Stirling Moss
strad
 
Joined: 2 Jan 2010

Post Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:23 am

WhiteBlue wrote:http://de.zinio.com/pages/RacecarEngineering/August2011/416178379/pg-62

Race car engineering has a nice article

Image

I thought that this would be the best application for F1. Particularly if you use an axial turbine.

Image

This is what RCE thinks was originally intended as the 2013 engine.

Image

Here is some text with data. The engine was supposed to have 580 hp without compounding. After the V6 decision the available power will be less. If they set a boost limit to force the engines from 8,500 rpm up to 15,000 the power will be less again. The simulation shows that the original engine plan called for seriously lower revs.


After searching and finding this thread I understand a whole lot more now.

The 100kg/hr rule is going to be a tough one for the F1 engineers. Especially when they apply the Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N (rpm) + 5 below 10500rpm 5.1.5 rule on top of it.

I also can see that there's not going to be much benefit for running anything above 10500rpm. Back pressure is going to increase above 10500rpm do to the fact intake manifold pressure will have to be decreased because of the fuel rule. This will make turbine flow decrease at higher rpm also. In turn less turbine energy to extract.

Now maybe the F1 engineers have figured out a way to run a lower BSFC number at higher rpms. That would be amazing if they did but I doubt it.

Anyway I'm very excited to see this new version. I wish they would have stayed with the I4 engine. It would have made more power and been more efficient.IMO
RA-168-E
2014 Engine power Predictions
647 HP Engine
807 HP Engine Combine
pgfpro
 
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Location: Coeur d' Alene ID

Post Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:59 am

pgfpro wrote:I also can see that there's not going to be much benefit for running anything above 10500rpm. Back pressure is going to increase above 10500rpm do to the fact intake manifold pressure will have to be decreased because of the fuel rule. This will make turbine flow decrease at higher rpm also. In turn less turbine energy to extract.

You are one of the happy few. Most people don't seem to realize that you have to reduce boost and fuel flow per stroke in order to meet the absolute fuel flow limit when you increase the rpm above 10,5000. It means that you have to decrease the torque at the same ratio that you increase the revs.

In an ideal world this will not make a difference to the power. But unfortunately we have increased friction losses and we will be unbalancing the power utilization of the regeneration as you pointed out. I think that the regeneration will not be such a big problem if the inverters are programmed in a clever way.

You will have roughly the same mass flow going through the system but at lower pressures. On the other hand there will be a lower compressor demand due to lower boost pressure. The MGUH inverter control program must recognize this situation and adjust the torque demand from the MGUH accordingly.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:00 am

Joe Saward has an article suggesting that the future 1.6 Turbo units may sound even better than the V8 - http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/on-the-question-of-f1-noise/
Kiril Varbanov
 
Joined: 5 Feb 2012
Location: Bulgaria, Sofia

Post Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:31 am

I'dlove to see that happening, nothing would however ever come close to the 3.5 liter lamborghini, hearing that screamer over ile notre dame in a Larousse is something I will never forget.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:22 pm

Sound is such a subjective issue. We had much emotional debate over it. And now we may have something as impressive as before. It would be almost comical.

I can't wait for the new engines to hit the circuits and I hope they agree to do a fair bit of development on them and the recovery systems.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:01 pm

Anyone have a guess at what the new turbo engines for 2014 will cost the teams?

I'd imagine with the developement cost which will have to go into them, they won't be cheap! Who is looking to produce engines anyway?
grano123
 
Joined: 18 Nov 2007

Post Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:42 pm

Cost will be anyone's guess as the teams have deserted the talks of integrating 2014 engines into the RRA. The original plans called for a price well under the current V8s due to better longevity and reduced development cost. That is probably still achievable considering that the engine suppliers are still in the initial development cycle. But it will need a mechanism soon to stop a development race as soon as the first races commence.

So far Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes, Cosworth and P.U.R.E. are committed to deliver engines in 2014.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:58 pm

I didn't know Cosworth was confirmed?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:19 pm

No way developing a new engine with all new KERS HERS GREZ ect. is cheaper than running a frozen engine I don't care how much RRA you throw at it. My guess is the cost of the entire drivetrain will go up not down. Not that I think this is a bad thing but don't try to act like it will save money.
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."
flynfrog
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2006

Post Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:35 pm

Trying to find and exploit loopholes to add minuscule amounts of performance to a "frozen" engine can cost a lot of money. Potentially more than that required to develop/adapt entirely new devices. Depends, of course, on how far you want to go.
Paul
 
Joined: 25 Feb 2009

PreviousNext

Return to Engine, transmission and controls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest