Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

...
The BMW was the first turbo winner of the WDC (1983?), I think they had some naughty fuel, Renault felt robbed, and a discreet fuel war started. I wonder if this will happen again, the same 2 countries ?
(the fuel regs seem to have been opened up)
..

...IIRC it was in 1993 when Toyota ran their turbos on nitro and VW protested, wasn't it?

[pgfpro]

This is a good example of exhaust temperature of a conventional turbo with 1450*F and 1650*F while mantaining the same boost etc on the cold side.

1) 1650*F
-6 engine delta P
16.7 back pressure
15.7 turbine corrective flow
47% wastegated

2) 1450*F
-7 engine delta P
16.7 back pressure
15.7 turbine corrective flow
43% wastegated

[Tommy Cookers]

Why water injection is still forbidden for the new engine formula? Is it still fear for power explosion? But, as the injection of water decreases the noxious emission and helps for fuel efficiency, so it would fit into future "green" policies imo.

I can say that in reality what people call WI is actually and always was a mix of water and methyl alcohol IMO
This is (or was until recently) a standard product for all types of aircraft engines, even some jets, called Methmix ?
The methanol is to stop freezing and has most of the cooling effect

Good question, though !

[Tommy Cookers]

...
The BMW was the first turbo winner of the WDC (1983?), I think they had some naughty fuel, Renault felt robbed, and a discreet fuel war started. I wonder if this will happen again, the same 2 countries ?
(the fuel regs seem to have been opened up)
..

...IIRC it was in 1993 when Toyota ran their turbos on nitro and VW protested, wasn't it?

My (clear?) recollection was that the Brabham-BMW was near the season end found by due process to have used non-compliant fuel but there was no points penalty. The team was then owned by a Mr Ecclestone.
Renault had seemed certain to win the championship, but as well as the above factor also had many failures late in the season.

I hadn't heard of the 1993, but that doesn't mean much !

There now seems to be a rule designed to stop a nitro effect (or peroxide effect), 'only use external Oxygen' clause
I wonder when that appeared ?

[Holm86]

I dont understand why theres all the fuzz about the cost of developing this new engine for 2014.

Just watched the Le Mans 24h race this weekend and came to think of that in the prototype class engine regulations change allmost every year. Often they only race the same engine configuration af few years before changing to at new one.

So i dont get why its all that hard for F1 manufactures to create an engine where there is allmost no design freedom. The LMP engine regulations are much more free.

Noone??

[noname]

I dont understand why theres all the fuzz about the cost of developing this new engine for 2014.

Just watched the Le Mans 24h race this weekend and came to think of that in the prototype class engine regulations change allmost every year. Often they only race the same engine configuration af few years before changing to at new one.

So i dont get why its all that hard for F1 manufactures to create an engine where there is allmost no design freedom. The LMP engine regulations are much more free.

With the engine rules so strict as they are in F1, creating the engine capable of providing competitive advantage is much more expansive.

And, again due the regulations, the outcome of the process will not be that different than what the others can do.

It just makes more sense to spend the money elsewhere.

[Agerasia]

In LMP1 you can think "I wonder if this will work?" You don't have so much freedom in F1 so is more expensive and time consuming to get a better engine.

[Holm86]

Then why have so many restrictions? If the only thing it adds is cost and nothing else.

[matt21]

I can say that in reality what people call WI is actually and always was a mix of water and methyl alcohol

What Ferrari and Renault used in F1 was pure water as no additional substance containing energy was allowed to be sprayed into the engine.

[garrett]

I can say that in reality what people call WI is actually and always was a mix of water and methyl alcohol IMO
This is (or was until recently) a standard product for all types of aircraft engines, even some jets, called Methmix ?
The methanol is to stop freezing and has most of the cooling effect

I think they even used it (or still use it?) in WRC.
My idea concerning WI was the following: It was banned by FISA due to power control during the turbo era I, when they desperately tried to reduce high engine power. Today, as Matt wrote, the engines will face a maximum fuel flow, so a power war should be prevented due to fuel cut-off. Currently, we have an avid discussion about the costs and the price of the developing of forthcoming engines, so why not choose the rather simple and cheap alternative of WI, when they try to save money? Every following point is on the FIA agenda for the new engine formula:
-the mixture of 50/50 water-methanol called MW50 or ADI is cheap and highly effective as a coolant, a second coolant beneath the intercooler;
-the system has the following advatages: higher octane charge, higher pressure, so improving fuel ecenomy (the 102 racing fuel could be used more effectively with the help of WI) and more power, cooling down effectively the heat absorbed inside the cylinder walls, so the engine (remember there will be only 5 in the year 2014) will be better saved from internal damages;
- the sytem can help to reduce NOx or CO.
Please correct if I´m wrong!

My (clear?) recollection was that the Brabham-BMW was near the season end found by due process to have used non-compliant fuel but there was no points penalty. The team was then owned by a Mr Ecclestone.

I was told that at the time of Piquets WC ceremony at Paris, it was rumoured that the Wintershall fuel of his BMW engine was at least two times charged with fuel beyond the limit of 102, at Monza (102,2) and Kyalami (102,5). But it revealed that meanwhile the tolerance limit had been tacitly doubled from 0,4 to 0,9. So nobody could do anything about it. The Brabham boss´name was Ecclestone...

[Tommy Cookers]

OK !!

Let's say 99.9 % of WI actually was MWI (this was about 50/50 mix)

True WI would of course tend to cool the charge, in principle allowing a higher compression ratio (some gain in efficiency eg some more power from the same fuel), or greater boost (more power from more fuel), or some of each gain.

I'm thinking that WI was used in the turbo era for greater boost, with unlimited fuel.
(presumably the WI was into the compressor)


2014 will be fuel (rate) limited, with unlimited boost.
WI would appear to allow some raising of the compression ratio ie the piston CR, direct water injection would avoid robbing the cylinder of air by displacement, but there would be no evaporative cooling of the boost air.

WI seems less attractive in fuel-limited F1, but still useful ? (but very different to 'usual ' MWI use)

Can turbo fans enlighten us ?

[pgfpro]

OK !!

Let's say 99.9 % of WI actually was MWI (this was about 50/50 mix)

True WI would of course tend to cool the charge, in principle allowing a higher compression ratio (some gain in efficiency eg some more power from the same fuel), or greater boost (more power from more fuel), or some of each gain.

I'm thinking that WI was used in the turbo era for greater boost, with unlimited fuel.
(presumably the WI was into the compressor)


2014 will be fuel (rate) limited, with unlimited boost.
WI would appear to allow some raising of the compression ratio ie the piston CR, direct water injection would avoid robbing the cylinder of air by displacement, but there would be no evaporative cooling of the boost air.

WI seems less attractive in fuel-limited F1, but still useful ? (but very different to 'usual ' MWI use)

Can turbo fans enlighten us ?

IMPO I think that in a fuel-limited but not boost limited F1 that WI would be not very useful. If it was boost limited I could see the engineer's running a smaller compressor on the turbo and running a pre turbo WI. This will increase the efficiency of the turbo and make the compressor act like a slightly larger unit. But with a unlimited boost rule I see the engineer's running turbo's that have high efficiencies all the way to the choke line.

I have ran both post and pre-turbo WI and it was more of just a band-aid for not running a high enough octane fuel and also I ran it when I was running a inadequate inter-cooler system. But it had some disadvantages. One major when road racing I would often end up with puddling and notice surging. This was a 50/50 mix H2O/Meth.

I did use it at one point before adding larger injectors to help with adding more fuel but I experience uneven fuel distribution.

[Tommy Cookers]

Thanks all round for solid information posted !!

The 1983 F1 fuel info I shall print and frame !!
(it looks pretty fair from today's perspective, like arguments against Hunt/McLaren in 1976 over 0.5 Octane)


At this moment I'm thinking .........

102 Octane ?? ......... the rules now (current and 2014) seem to have no Octane limit at all, WHY ??

WI would need policing to avoid cheating under 2014 fuel limit rules (MWI would be cheating fuel limit)

the manufacturers aren't interested in WI for road use
(MWI was in turbocharged Chev Corvairs for road use, ok till the MW ran out, methanol is needed anyway to prevent freezing)

and .......

the main benefit comes from evaporation upstream of the cylinder('pre-cylinder charge cooling' ), but the displacement of air by water vapour is a disadvantage, and makes true WI look unattractive to a fuel-limited F1.
(in petrol/gasoline engines without WI there was and is today control of fuel droplet size to minimise displacement by fuel evaporation without degrading combustion quality, displacement is the price of evaporative PCCC whatever the source)

In-cylinder WI does not displace charge but provides no PCCC (or associated benefit to compressor).
(this is analagous to WW2 aero engine debate, 'fuel into supercharger or into cylinder ?')

In-cylinder WI could in principle be done with fuel/water emulsion (fuel/water premixed, one injection system)
(this is not road-relevant, and problematic to police in F1)

I'm beginning to see why nobody wants WI (as long as nobody else has it)

[aussiegman]

Late to the game, but better late than never…

The MGUH (or TERS) is turbocharger connected to an electrical motor/generator.
It works in response to pressure in the exhaust flow, not to heat as such, thus much of the 'TE' is unrecoverable. Much of the residual cylinder pressure is lost in the 'near-instantaneous' blowdown, and is unavailable to a turbine.

I would like to contradict here.
A turbine is, if well designed, not only using pressure of the exhaust flow to generate work, but also a certain amount of the temperature.
Furthermore, as BMW has done in 1983 with the M12 and with the actual twin-scroll N55, the turbine is using the kinetic energy by leading seperate exhaust lines into the housing.

A turbo is primarily a waste heat recovery system. This heat energy is 100% wasted in a naturally aspirated engine in so much as it is not captured and utilised.

The turbine wheel marginally (15% to 20% maximum) is driven by the kinetic energy in the exhaust as a result of backpressure behind the turbine (pressure differential across the turbine) blowing through the housing. However, it is primarily driven by the thermal energy imparted to the turbine blades as the hot exhaust gas (1025°C+) expand through the turbine nozzle area and cool. As the gas enters the turbine housing it is allowed to expand in the volute surrounding the turbine blades. As the hot gas expands, it cools and a significant proportion of the thermal energy (anything up to a 200 degree temperature loss can be experienced across the turbine) contained is released through this expansion and thermal release. This is why exhaust temperatures post turbo are typically much lower than those seen on a naturally aspirated engine.

Turbo engineers I have spoken to quote that 80% to 85% of the energy used to drive the turbine (in a single scroll turbine housing) is derived from the thermal energy in the gas rather than the pressure differential across the turbine. The parasitic loss due to back pressure that is incurred by driving the turbine is typically in the range of 0.1% of engine power per psi exhaust back pressure. So 20psi back pressure due to the turbo would result in a 2.0% reduction in engine power as a result of pumping losses transmitted to the crankshaft. When compared to the 15% to 20% parasitic loss of a direct supercharger, it is evident of the advantages of the turbo from an efficiency aspect.

What twin-scroll (TS) turbine housings attempt to overcome is the inherent shortcomings of the single-scroll design, primarily by separating those cylinders whose exhaust gas pulses would otherwise interfere with each other. This provides benefits similar to those of pairing cylinders on tuned length exhaust manifolds to prevent pulse interference and gain an improvement from pulse wave reversion.

TS housings specifically provide an advantage by pairing “like” cylinders to separate sides of the turbine housing such that more of the the kinetic energy (up to 25% or 30% of the total energy derived) from the exhaust gases can be recovered more efficiently by the turbine due to reductions in pulse interference. This means a 5% to 10% improvement in energy recovery from the exhaust gas and allows either earlier boost threshold or faster spool times in the same turbine A/R or the use of a larger A/R housing for increased top end power production without the typically associated increase in lag and poor transient boost response times.

Other advantages are superior scavenging effect from the twin-scroll design which provides more optimal pressure distribution at the exhaust port and more efficient delivery of exhaust gas energy to the turbocharger’s turbine. The effect of which is to allow greater valve overlap, resulting in an improvement in both quality and quantity of the intake charge. Coupled with overall greater VE and improved scavenging, more optimal ignition timing is possible reducing peak in-cylinder temps allowing leaner AFR’s as less fuel is required for evaporative cooling. TS turbos have provided between 7% and 9% increase turbine efficiency coupled with fuel efficiency improvements close to 5%.

I always had in mind that in heat engines there is many relationships between heat and pressure, when heat manifests itself as pressure it can do work via a turbine (or piston). The FIA is creating public confusion with its chosen terminology TES and MGUH.

Agree, heat energy contained in high pressure gases can be harvested through rapid expansion of the gas in a controlled environment. This allows the thermal energy to be transferred through some mechanism (enclosed turbine wheel) through the expansion process.

Certainly turbos are (mostly) designed around trying to catch whatever they can, as you show with the BMW.
The big (philosophical) question is how much (of what) do they catch (when they say KE this may be an intentionally careful claim).
I should love to see a paper that clarifies this, ie with real time measurements from port to tailpipe.

As above, 70% to 85% of the energy used to drive the turbine is derived from thermal energy in the exhaust gas (depending on the type of turbine design) with the rest coming from kinetic energy resulting from the pressure differential across the turbine due to back pressure. The increase BMW quote in likely the increase in kinetic energy recovery through the use of a twin scroll turbine housing, which could be in the order of 5% to 10% of total energy used to drive the turbine. A substantial improvement.

The non-turbo engine is making these losses anyway, and the turbo doesn't have to be driven by this lossy part of the exhaust energy to work. There are turbos/turbines that are designed to work only on the steady (residual) pressure.
In large part the turbo works by boosting the massflow without increasing frictional losses. Even mechanically driven superchargers can improve efficiency in this way, it's not a mystery.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. There is marginal kinetic energy transferred to the turbine to do work (as a % of power used). Their operation is not based on pressure differential. Again as above, parasitic loss due to backpressure transferred to the crankshaft as pumping losses are typically 0.1% of engine power per psi of exhaust backpressure. Direct drive superchargers incur a 15% to 20% parasitic loss due to their operation. Turbo efficiency comes from the limitation of parasitic pumping losses, no increase in direct drive parasitic loss and recovery of wasted thermal energy from the exhaust gases.

The BMW was the first turbo winner of the WDC (1983?), I think they had some naughty fuel, Renault felt robbed, and a discreet fuel war started. I wonder if this will happen again, the same 2 countries ?
(the fuel regs seem to have been opened up)

With the fuel regs opening up it certainly could be interesting!!

IMPO I think that in a fuel-limited but not boost limited F1 that WI would be not very useful. If it was boost limited I could see the engineer's running a smaller compressor on the turbo and running a pre turbo WI. This will increase the efficiency of the turbo and make the compressor act like a slightly larger unit. But with a unlimited boost rule I see the engineer's running turbo's that have high efficiencies all the way to the choke line.

Not sure I 100% agree. As the maximum fuel flow is a known quantity, a theoretical maximum of air for combustion is known. All other variables will centre on this cap on engine power. What I surmise will happen is that compression ratios will be increased to the point where the fuel used (maximum octane rating) and maximum air flow requirements (compressor sizing) that the fuel flow will support do not result in detonation. The variables such as charge cooling, turbine A/R sizing, lag, boost threshold, compressor spool time etc will be the variables that individual engine suppliers with work through. If WI would allow higher CR’s to be used before onset of detonation then is would be a benefit as the max fuel flow could then in theory be used only for power on not cooling. There are also the packaging advantages in removing or limiting the compromise in space requirements for large, high aero drag and potentially heavy intercoolers and the associated long turbo to plenum pipe work. As the max fuel flow is know, then WI would be advantageous to take full advantage of the fuel for energy production.

I have ran both post and pre-turbo WI and it was more of just a band-aid for not running a high enough octane fuel and also I ran it when I was running a inadequate inter-cooler system. But it had some disadvantages. One major when road racing I would often end up with puddling and notice surging. This was a 50/50 mix H2O/Meth.

I did use it at one point before adding larger injectors to help with adding more fuel but I experience uneven fuel distribution.

In a road cars and amateur motorsports, WI (and 50/50H2O/Methanol) is typically used as a band-aid solution for poor octane quality fuels, inadequate intercooling or excessive CR’s. For a professional race engineer where there are specific constraints due to regulations but no monetary concerns (such as in WRC previously and now F1 from 2014) WI could be used as part of a total solution so as other variables could be maximised, such as CR, or better powerplant packaging could be utilised. Either way, it still carries a number of downsides which you’d need to weigh up before relying on it as an integral part of the engine.

[pgfpro]

Not sure I 100% agree. As the maximum fuel flow is a known quantity, a theoretical maximum of air for combustion is known. All other variables will centre on this cap on engine power. What I surmise will happen is that compression ratios will be increased to the point where the fuel used (maximum octane rating) and maximum air flow requirements (compressor sizing) that the fuel flow will support do not result in detonation. The variables such as charge cooling, turbine A/R sizing, lag, boost threshold, compressor spool time etc will be the variables that individual engine suppliers with work through. If WI would allow higher CR’s to be used before onset of detonation then is would be a benefit as the max fuel flow could then in theory be used only for power on not cooling. There are also the packaging advantages in removing or limiting the compromise in space requirements for large, high aero drag and potentially heavy intercoolers and the associated long turbo to plenum pipe work. As the max fuel flow is know, then WI would be advantageous to take full advantage of the fuel for energy production.

From my dyno experience I have always seen an increase in power with a race fuel with a very high octane verses a lower octane fuel with WI or even the same high race octane fuel with WI. Plus I can run a leaner A/F ratio when running race fuel without WI. Now this is done by increasing boost and not the CR. So maybe you could see gains with WI and race fuel by running a higher CR??? IDK

The packaging issue intercooler verses WI I think would be a wash. Just some quick calculations I come up with around 5.5 gallons for the low side and up to 8 gallons of water for the high side that would be needed for a one hour race. This is based on the 15% to 25% of fuel flow WI rule.

The other thing I don't like about WI being used in the new F1 turbo engine is that induction system will be built around running air mainly with a small amount of fuel, based on the DI that will be used. With the rule... "Over 80% of the maximum permitted fuel flow rate, at least 75% of the fuel flow must be injected directly into the cylinders." So 25% will have some type of endothermic reaction based on fuel.