2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Abarth]

Good analysis.

I'd just want to add that these V6 can be driven almost at full power in acceleration, as they have full power available from 10'500 to say 12'000min-1, and the engines do not fall considerably below 10'500 when upshifting.

This was not the case with N/A engines, of course.

So the available power can be comparable high even if they are down on peak power.

[stevesingo]

Using what heat content for the fuel and what efficiency for the ICE?

Nothing so detailed I’m afraid.

Based on the following
1600cc (26.66cc/cylinder)
10500rpm
100kg/hr fuel
14:1 AFR
120% VE
Air Density 1.204kg/m3
BMEP 14bar as an N/A Engine
Boost from Air used
100kg/hr fuel @ 14:1 AFR = 1400kg/hr of Air = (1400/1.204) = 1162.8 m3/hr or 116279698cc/hr of air.
116279698cc/hr / 60= 19379844cc/min of air
19379844cc min of air / 6 = 3229974 cc/min/cylinder
10500/2=5250 cycles min
3229974 cc/min/cylinder / 5250 cycles min = 615.233cc of air per cycle per cylinder
615cc / 266.66 = 2.306 *120% VE = 2.77Bar Boost

Power from BMEP
(BMEP*100)*(Eng CC/1000000)*(RPM/60)/2 revs per cycle
(14*100)*(1600/1000000)*(10500/60)/2 = 196kW or 263bhp
Power due to Boost =
Power * Boost= 263*2.77= 728bhp

If we add 10% fuel and keep the rpm the same boost rises to 3.06bar and power to 798bhp
If we add 10% fuel and increase rpm to 12000 power remains at 798 but boost drops to 2.66Bar

For the same boost level and 110kg/hr of fuel we need 11500 rpm.

Where the best point is regarding friction losses vs pumping losses from higher boost I don’t know.

I'm not saying this is the most accurate, but the best this layman can muster. Point out the errors at will

[bhall II]

Good analysis.

I'd just want to add that these V6 can be driven almost at full power in acceleration, as they have full power available from 10'500 to say 12'000min-1, and the engines do not fall considerably below 10'500 when upshifting.

This was not the case with N/A engines, of course.

So the available power can be comparable high even if they are down on peak power.

Maybe. But, I'm not sure it would have much of an effect.

When the older NA engines were operated within RPM ranges that fell outside its power band, it was usually because the car was traveling at a relatively low speed and was more or less traction-limited, anyway. Since reduced downforce levels have increased the period in which current cars are traction-limited, it would seem that any advantage derived from more time spent at full power has been mitigated.

Or so goes my reasoning.

[Juzh]

When the older NA engines were operated within RPM ranges that fell outside its power band, it was usually because the car was traveling at a relatively low speed and was more or less traction-limited, anyway. Since reduced downforce levels have increased the period in which current cars are traction-limited, it would seem that any advantage derived from more time spent at full power has been mitigated.

Or so goes my reasoning.

But time spent in traction limited state is much less than time spent in non traction limited state (aka full throttle). One would assume (obviously) NAs produced max power at max RPM, effectively limiting available max power usage to a split second before upshift had to be performed to either avoid over-rev or hitting the rev limit.
V6T does not have this problem with more or less constant power from 10.5k rpm upwards.

[mrluke]

Good post Bhall,

My only concern is that the V10s appear to be further ahead at the end of the straights than they are at the start whereas your analysis shows the V6Ts are going somewhat faster and catching up the V10s by the end of the straight.

This reminds me of an excellent post made some time ago producing this analysis:







which is taken from this Reca's post on this thread: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... r&start=45

Most of this discussion probably belongs in there but;

It shows that at Bahrain and Hockenheim with DRS open the drag is broadly even between 2004 and 2014.

The Monza analysis is particularly appropriate as it very strongly suggest that the 2004 cars ran less drag at Monza.

Which is all well and good but leaves us in the frustrating position of being unable to calculate engine power from straight line performance.

[stevesingo]

What stands out to me is the difference in low speed corners. Just how much better must the 2004 tyres have been than the tyres used today. Sorry OT

[Moose]

What stands out to me is the difference in low speed corners. Just how much better must the 2004 tyres have been than the tyres used today. Sorry OT

Or, just how good the low speed downforce generation was compared to today. That's not surprising - in 2004 they could use the exhausts to generate downforce. Today, they can't.

[bhall II]

I think I can combine these...

But time spent in traction limited state is much less than time spent in non traction limited state (aka full throttle). One would assume (obviously) NAs produced max power at max RPM, effectively limiting available max power usage to a split second before upshift had to be performed to either avoid over-rev or hitting the rev limit.
V6T does not have this problem with more or less constant power from 10.5k rpm upwards.

My only concern is that the V10s appear to be further ahead at the end of the straights than they are at the start whereas your analysis shows the V6Ts are going somewhat faster and catching up the V10s by the end of the straight.

Unlike acceleration beyond 100kph, which is largely a product of power and drag, acceleration from 0 to 100kph is most greatly influenced by a car's power-to-weight ratio. That means a much lighter, far more powerful V10-era car will be decisively quicker from a dead stop than a current car. But, as speeds increase, and the effects of drag are multiplied exponentially, the lower drag of the current car will start to pay off, and it will eventually overtake the V10-era car if allowed enough distance.


V6t


V10

For our hypothetical cars on a 5000m run that begins from a dead stop, that transition begins at around 1333m.

This is why an engine's power band isn't anywhere near as important as peak power. I think current PU regulations created a wide power band mainly for flexibility, because everyone knew gear ratios would be the same at every circuit.

Which is all well and good but leaves us in the frustrating position of being unable to calculate engine power from straight line performance.

One can make a pretty decent estimate by using speed traps. I did it last year when that data was freely available on F1.com.

Speaking of which, --- FOM with a big rubber dick for monetizing that. Seriously.

At some point, I'm convinced those miserly --- are going to attempt to charge people for even talking about the sport.

Then again, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

[OO7]

What stands out to me is the difference in low speed corners. Just how much better must the 2004 tyres have been than the tyres used today. Sorry OT

Or, just how good the low speed downforce generation was compared to today. That's not surprising - in 2004 they could use the exhausts to generate downforce. Today, they can't.

Or, how much of a difference 100kg less weight makes.

[mrluke]

Bhall i'm not sure the analysis supports that the current cars have less drag. In fact it only shows the V6Ts matching the V10 top speeds in DRS zones, elsewhere the V10s have a higher vmax and from the slope of the graphs im not convinced that this is a result of the V6T running out of road.

[Moose]

Bhall i'm not sure the analysis supports that the current cars have less drag. In fact it only shows the V6Ts matching the V10 top speeds in DRS zones, elsewhere the V10s have a higher vmax and from the slope of the graphs im not convinced that this is a result of the V6T running out of road.

Yep, Bahll's post rather reinforces the idea that the V6Ts have a more powerful engine, but more drag too.

He predicts that if the V6s were less powerful, but also less draggy, that we would see them get left behind at the start of a straight, but catch up again at the end. That's precisely the opposite of what we see in the videos.

[bhall II]

Bhall i'm not sure the analysis supports that the current cars have less drag. In fact it only shows the V6Ts matching the V10 top speeds in DRS zones, elsewhere the V10s have a higher vmax and from the slope of the graphs im not convinced that this is a result of the V6T running out of road.

Yep, Bahll's post rather reinforces the idea that the V6Ts have a more powerful engine, but more drag too.

He predicts that if the V6s were less powerful, but also less draggy, that we would see them get left behind at the start of a straight, but catch up again at the end. That's precisely the opposite of what we see in the videos.

EDIT: Please look at the numbers again. The low-power, but slippery V6t needs over 1.3km in order to catch up to the high-powered barn door that is a V10-era F1 car. Currently, that's a distance greater than the sport's longest straight by a margin of over 170m.

[mrluke]

EDIT: Please look at the numbers again. The low-power, but slippery V6t needs over 1.3km in order to catch up to the high-powered barn door that is a V10-era F1 car. Currently, that's a distance greater than the sport's longest straight by a margin of over 170m.

Yes. I understand that is your argument.

However I am not convinced that it correlates with the available information:



The 2nd peak is a good illustration, the V6T is levelling off sooner than the V10, suggesting even given a 10km straight it isnt going to exceed it on top speed.

But furthermore you are suggesting the V10s will top out at 330 whereas at Monza they exceeded 360 and even recorded 370. As this is primarily a function of drag, how can they have much more drag than the slower vmax V6s?

[bhall II]

And that's exactly why I cautioned against making any efforts to achieve maximum real-world accuracy. It's just asking for trouble, especially if it all ends up being compared to other work that wasn't even remotely subjected to any attempts at accuracy.

Keep it trendy.

The 2nd peak is a good illustration, the V6T is levelling off sooner than the V10, suggesting even given a 10km straight it isnt going to exceed it on top speed.

Are you sure you can't think of any other reasons why a car with less downforce might be slower through a chicane?







(I'm really not making this --- up, fellas. It is what it is.)

EDIT: Hey, look. I was right.

At the risk of veering way off-topic...

[mrluke]

Surely the chicane is at the bottom of the trace when the speed drops to 100kph.

Alternatively if you move the second finger down to the point highlighted as 335kph half way between the end of sector 1 and the start of the chicane.

The trace is speed vs laptime in seconds, it isnt a lap delta trace.

Maybe I am missing something but to me that graph shows 100% that the V10 car has less drag than the v6 thats why at the higher speeds the V10 line is much steeper while the V6 line flattens out sooner.

If you really cant see it then okay, im clearly in the wrong

EDIT: as below:



I think I see what you are getting at on the DRS zone on Hockenheim, although the V6 line shallower, it isn't peaking, given a longer straight it would exceed the top speed of the V10 line which has peaked and leveled off. I understand that.

But on the non DRS lines, looking especially at monza here, the V6 is levelling off sooner than the v10, i.e. its never going to catch up with the v10 line.

If you look at the first peak on Monza, as the DRS opens you can see a rapid acceleration suggesting that drag was really starting to limit the top speed, I would even suggest that without the DRS both the 1st and 3rd peaks would be reduced to match the 2nd and 4th peaks.