2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[mrluke]

That is like what 3,000 horsepower? where did you get that turbo from?

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad10 ... MG1900.jpg

This makes 600-700bhp on 2.5l street cars at up 2bar boost.

As does this:

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... 213408.jpg

Unless my sense of scale is wrong (likely) they dont look much different size to the one on the Merc PU and they are a fairly typical aftermarket turbo size.

That turbo is different from the one you showed first. How sneaky of you....

That second turbo is not maxed out. Smaller turbos can make 700 horsepower. Did you buy it from Fred Fintstone?

This is 750 whp...Garrett GTX3582R turbo at 20psi (this M3 engine is very similar to a F1 engine in that it is high revving). The GTX3582R can flow enough air to support that power (even if you adjust from E85 to petrol, it still can make 700hp).

http://www.speedhunters.com/wp-content/ ... 00x533.jpg

See more of the same here. http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/05/pic ... ula-drift/

Not intentionally sneaky I just couldn't find details of its expected power output so went to a couple that I could.

The assertion was that the F1 turbos are unbelievably huge. Comparable to road or drift cars (as you linked) =/= unbelievably huge.

Again I was not saying that this power could not be achieved with a smaller turbo with a better tune more engine work etc etc. I was merely supplying a reference size for fairly common after market turbo sizing.

Believe it or not Formula Drift now features some of the most powerful race cars competing today. Even in the British championship some cars have in excess of 1,000bhp.

[PlatinumZealot]

A centrifugal compressor operating at PR = 3.5 will have tip speeds > Mach 1.

Yes, the "reality factor" as I like to call it makes the comparison of inducer diameter to pressure ratio very very general (vague) because there are so many compressors out that can achieve that pressure ratio, at various speeds at various inducer diameters (even much much smaller than 95 mm). The speed of sound also has an effect on the air ( it chokes and mass flow cannot increase). You also can see the bigger turbos cannot reach 100,000 rpms. (I did not find any 95mm inducer turbocharger than can go past 80k rpm on Garrets website) So that could certainly be a limiting factor. We also see that these large garret compressors are in a horsepower range much, much higher than 700 horsepower even though Mercedes assumingly has an inducer (though it is covered in the photo) that could close in size these. It is an interesting topic though.
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobyga ... er#GT5533R (2)

95mm is my estimate for tip diameter not inducer diameter, Inducer diameter is indicative of flow, tip diameter (with rpm) is indicative of PR.

Does anyone have an estimate of inducer diameter from photos?

You are the one that mentioned inducer diameter so that is what I worked with.

[PlatinumZealot]

....You also can see the bigger turbos cannot reach 100,000 rpms. (I did not find any 95mm inducer turbocharger than can go past 80k rpm on Garrets website) So that could certainly be a limiting factor.
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobyga ... er#GT5533R (2)......

Wouldn't that suggest an axial flow compressor as a better solution?

I was just about to ask a question about axial turbos
Can F1 benefit from them and can the compressor be of the axial design and be of benefit in F1?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e4KGhLJrJ8
The above video mentions a loss in peak efficiency and I wonder if this the limitation in racing applications?

Pretty good post. That's the first time I am learning about that kind of design. Does a trade of in peak turbine efficiency for reduced inertia and back pressure help a formula 1 finish a race faster? Possibly... that is very interesting.

I don't think that can apply so easily to the compressor though. An axial compressor is clearly for large pressure ratios. They are pretty heavy because of all the rotating blade stages and static guide vanes. They are not as rugged either can't manage quick acceleration changes.

[PlatinumZealot]

Not intentionally sneaky I just couldn't find details of its expected power output so went to a couple that I could.

The assertion was that the F1 turbos are unbelievably huge. Comparable to road or drift cars (as you linked) =/= unbelievably huge.

Again I was not saying that this power could not be achieved with a smaller turbo with a better tune more engine work etc etc. I was merely supplying a reference size for fairly common after market turbo sizing.

Believe it or not Formula Drift now features some of the most powerful race cars competing today. Even in the British championship some cars have in excess of 1,000bhp.

Ahh.. this is the thing now... we haven't seen the compressors on the Ferrari or the Renault engine but becsuse of their location above the clutch pack, I have a feeling they are smaller.

[Vortex37]

snip.......

I don't think that can apply so easily to the compressor though. An axial compressor is clearly for large pressure ratios. They are pretty heavy because of all the rotating blade stages and static guide vanes. They are not as rugged either can't manage quick acceleration changes.

http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/ ... tation.pdf

Have a look at the link above, which I previously posted ages ago, to a paper on the dual boost turbo. That video is not clear enough. In reality the rotating mass is significantly lower. The results are quite interesting for the road car engine shown. The 'turbo acceleration' figures of 450ms, equate with that found in an electrically driven radial supercharger. More information under 'case studies' at http://www.aeristech.co.uk/

Just to throw something else into the conversation. The assumption that the MGU-H is a single motor, could be incorrect. I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent a dual/separated motor/generator unit.

[gruntguru]

Yes, the "reality factor" as I like to call it makes the comparison of inducer diameter to pressure ratio very very general (vague) because there are so many compressors out that can achieve that pressure ratio, at various speeds at various inducer diameters (even much much smaller than 95 mm). The speed of sound also has an effect on the air ( it chokes and mass flow cannot increase). You also can see the bigger turbos cannot reach 100,000 rpms. (I did not find any 95mm inducer turbocharger than can go past 80k rpm on Garrets website) So that could certainly be a limiting factor. We also see that these large garret compressors are in a horsepower range much, much higher than 700 horsepower even though Mercedes assumingly has an inducer (though it is covered in the photo) that could close in size these. It is an interesting topic though.
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobyga ... er#GT5533R (2)

95mm is my estimate for tip diameter not inducer diameter, Inducer diameter is indicative of flow, tip diameter (with rpm) is indicative of PR.

Does anyone have an estimate of inducer diameter from photos?

You are the one that mentioned inducer diameter so that is what I worked with.

Do you normally read only the first paragraph before responding to a post?

There are two fundamental compressor dimensions that are indicative of its performance. First is the inducer diameter - the size of the entry hole. The optimum massflow of the compressor is roughly proportional to the area of this passage. If turbo B has double the inducer diameter of turbo A, it will have 4 times the area, 4 times the mass flow and suit an engine capable of roughly 4 times the power at a given boost.

The second is the impeller tip diameter. The pressure ratio is proportional to the tip speed squared, so if the compressor speed and tip diameter are known, the pressure ratio can be estimated. In this case we have some idea of PR (3.5) and compressor speed (100,000 rpm). The tip speed required to produce this PR is about 500 m/s which leads us to an impeller tip diameter of 95mm @ 100k rpm.

The outer diameter of the housing is not a good indicator of impeller diameter as there are a range of volute or housing designs - many of them aimed primarily at reducing housing diameter to produce a compact turbocharger. The one in the photo above appears to be a no-compromise design targeting efficiency, and so is not very compact. Just looking at it, I would estimate the impeller is half the diameter of the housing (estimated by Blanchimont as 200mm diameter) which brings us very close to the 95mm mark.

I certainly didn't mention pressure ratio in relation to inducer diameter, which is the main reason I commented on your response.

[PlatinumZealot]

snip.......

I don't think that can apply so easily to the compressor though. An axial compressor is clearly for large pressure ratios. They are pretty heavy because of all the rotating blade stages and static guide vanes. They are not as rugged either can't manage quick acceleration changes.

http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/ ... tation.pdf

Have a look at the link above, which I previously posted ages ago, to a paper on the dual boost turbo. That video is not clear enough. In reality the rotating mass is significantly lower. The results are quite interesting for the road car engine shown. The 'turbo acceleration' figures of 450ms, equate with that found in an electrically driven radial supercharger. More information under 'case studies' at http://www.aeristech.co.uk/

Just to throw something else into the conversation. The assumption that the MGU-H is a single motor, could be incorrect. I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent a dual/separated motor/generator unit.

That is the turbine that is axial. Originally talking about the compressor.

Good info though. I had already agreed that axial turbines could make sense for formula 1.

[FW17]

Question on the FIA specified mounting points


FIA had specified common mounting points yet a swap of the engines is not possible in anyway. Manor is planning to use 2014 chassis modified but only a 2014 Ferrari engine will fit this chassis.

> The Ferrari engine had no oil tank at the front of the engine hence Marrusia chassis would not have had the indent required for the fuel tank

> Merc had a turbo inlet and outlet to the front of the engine

> Renault had an oil tank in front of the engine

So what was the point of this common mounting point rule if the front of the engine is completely different

[Facts Only]

Question on the FIA specified mounting points


FIA had specified common mounting points yet a swap of the engines is not possible in anyway. Manor is planning to use 2014 chassis modified but only a 2014 Ferrari engine will fit this chassis.

> The Ferrari engine had no oil tank at the front of the engine hence Marrusia chassis would not have had the indent required for the fuel tank

> Merc had a turbo inlet and outlet to the front of the engine

> Renault had an oil tank in front of the engine

So what was the point of this common mounting point rule if the front of the engine is completely different

Its not just the mounting points that are set, there is an "FIA Box" that the PU has to fit into, so in theory if a team doesn't encroach on the box then any engine should fit in and bolt onto the mounting points.

The problem is that in reality the engine architectures have ended up so different that although an engine would fit you would have to make major changes to the layout of the rear end to actually connect it up and plum it in.

What Merc have done is actually used the bulge in at the front of the FIA Box that was meant for the Oil tank as a space for the compressor, this is why they have the weird mating face on the compressor outlet and the tortured oil tank shape around the compressor inlet.

I think it was a well intentioned idea that was just overtaken by engineering creativity.

[Tommy Cookers]

How do you come to conclude that PR=3.5?
Me thinks in that case the engines would run extremely lean.

Correct. Fuel rate is fixed. Therefore best power = best BSFC.
"SI engines with intake manifold injection achieve the lowest fuel consumption at constant engine output dependent on the engine at 20-50% air surplus (lambda = 1.2 - 1.5)" Bosch Automotive Handbook, 8th Edition Page 559.
The F1 engines are DFI not PFI which allows still leaner operation with stratified charge. High scavenge ratios (benefit is cooling during valve overlap) further increase the air consumption without leaning the actual combustion process.

iirc gg once posted this plot (of bsfc improvement with leaning) from Bosch, but I can't find it right now
any such plot will exaggerate these benefits because it is not normalised for power (which wouldn't help BMWs handbook)

as the mixture is leaned the engine power will fall (to some lower combination of bmep and rpm)
the engines mechanical power loss (frictional and pumping) reduces by a greater proportion than the reduction in output power
(because these losses are linked disproportionately to rpm via the velocity-related and acceleration-related terms)

the reduced losses appear by inference to be caused by leaning, but are actually caused by the reduced rpm and bmep
iirc the BMW plot (for that technology) showed no benefit to bsfc beyond 25% lean
a power-normalised plot would show that point as maybe 15 or 20% lean
ie at higher rpm and bmep the the best-efficiency leaning will be less than that shown by the process BMW has used

and as some or another amount of leaning always will give rpm and bmep values reduced to some or another extent
to combine this with developing the original full power requires the engine to be made bigger to some or another extent
F1 does not allow this

of course partial power running as in road use benefits beyond 25% leaning as throttling is reduced or eliminated by leaning
the reason road cars ran lean in cruise from around 1905 till the mandating of the 3 way catalyst

btw did gg's 3.5 bar induction pressure include the overscavenge he recommends ?
given that 'they' are using less than 3.5 bar
3.5 bar takes a lot of power from the turbine

[Blanchimont]

Does the Bosch Handbook also tell something about direct injected (turbo-)engines?

[SectorOne]

Complete noob-question here,

Is water injection legal?

[dren]

I'm going to say no. I can't view your posted video, but I'm guesing you mean injecting water into the charge air.

7.6 Cooling systems :
The cooling systems of the power unit, including that of the charge air, must not intentionally make use of the latent heat of vaporisation of any fluid with the exception of fuel for the normal purpose of combustion in the engine as described in Article 5.14.

[SectorOne]

Thanks, yep you guessed right.

So say if it was legal, could we see an even higher efficiency of the engines?

[gruntguru]

iirc gg once posted this plot (of bsfc improvement with leaning) from Bosch, but I can't find it right now any such plot will exaggerate these benefits because it is not normalised for power (that wouldn't help BMWs handbook) as the mixture is leaned the engine power will fall (to some lower combination of bmep and rpm) the engines mechanical power loss (frictional and pumping) reduces by a greater proportion than the reduction in output power because these losses rise disproportionately with rpm and bmep rise) these reduced losses appear by inference to be caused by leaning, but are actually caused by the reduced rpm and bmep

BMW? = BOSCH?
1. The published relationship between mixture and efficiency (bsfc) has nothing to do with rpm. The plot is generated by varying fuel quantity only. MAP and rpm are fixed. The relationship holds at a range of load and rpm levels (although we are only interested in full load here)

2. Friction does not rise disproportionately wth engine load. In fact FMEP as a percentage of output is greatest at low loads. This is actually intuitive because FMEP = IMEP for an unloaded engine. So friction works against lean running.

3. The 2nd edition of the Bosch handbook cites 20% excess air as optimum. That has been revised (in line with engine technology no doubt) to the 20 - 50% figure given in the 8th edition

this bsfc/efficiency is only applicable at those (reduced) rpm . . . .

Reference? This contradicts all the evidence I have seen and the logic I have provided above.

. . . and bmep values to achieve with that lean mixture the original full power requires the engine to be made 'bigger' in one or another way (so the mechanical losses at the original full power are always relatively greater than the reduced power engine enjoyed)

The engines have been deliberately made "bigger". The F1 displacement, rpm and boost would normally produce well over 1000 hp without compounding. The ICE crankshaft power is actually below 600hp.

so the best power will not result from using the same amount of leaning as shown by the process BMW has used
iirs the BMW plot (for that technology) showed no benefit to bsfc beyond 25% lean a power-normalised plot would show that point as maybe 15 or 20% lean of course partial power running as in road use benefits beyond 25% leaning as throttling is reduced or eliminated by leaning the reason road cars ran lean in cruise from around 1905 till the mandating of the 3 way catalyst

I did a quick hand calc. At somewhere around 40% load, the total efficiency improvement from best power mixture to 20% leaning is about 15 - 20%. Of that, about 2.5% is due to the reduction in pumping losses.

btw did gg's 3.5 bar induction pressure include the overscavenge he recommends ?
given that 'they' are using less than 3.5 bar, 3.5 bar takes a lot of power from the turbine

Repeat. Any increase in boost pressure creates more additional turbine power than is lost in added compressor power. This is obvious if you look at Brayton cycle efficiency vs PR and recall that the Brayton cycle is nothing more than a compressor, heat addition and a turbine.