2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

I'm surprised you make .... statements knowing nothing at all about the combustion process of the 2014 engines and how it compares to systems you know. Do you really believe that things will even be remotely similar to anything that has run in F1 or comparable categories of motor sport? These engines and the LMP1 engines will be a land slide in technology and everbody who claims he knows all about them must be either involved in one of the projects or he is speaking from an incredible hybris.

I have several times mentioned the potential FWIW that occurs to me for these engines to do something new
by to some extent combining the merits of CI and SI whilst avoiding the demerits
that is (the permitted injection pressure having been greatly raised for 2014) to manage the combustion rate
by managing the rate of injection continuing post-spark
maybe even to the extent of some self-ignition, occurring at a managed rate

amounting to the effect of a higher CR than would otherwise be possible (or the thermodynamic equivalent of this)

this in addition to the long-known ability of suitably fast and late DI to allow higher CR

as I have also repeatedly suggested other ways in which these engines will be different from any previous race engines
I find it bizarre that WB suggests that my eyes are closed to such matters

[WhiteBlue]

I'm absolutely hopping mad to see these things on the test tracks from next month. I hope there will be a bunch of things revealed. It is such a shame that we do not have any freedom in design in F1 any more. It was killed by the cost argument. But now they have frozen it on top because the cost cutting argument never stood up in reality. They could have easily left the displacement and engine config unlimited for 2 years and started to freeze it from the third year. All of this really is a shame.

You're hopping mad? You should be excited, surely?

As for cost savings....

If they didn't define the architecture then they would, by your own reasoning, spent much more on simulations and calculations to get their best result.
Have the potential to require an architecture change if someone stole a march on the opposition.
The engines would cost a lot more to customer teams if more manufacturers were involved.
I dare say that the three manufacturers in F1 at the moment know a thing or two about the costs of these power plants and they are the ones that chose the standard layout.
The frozen engine formula means that costs will be amortized over several seasons, with some developments still allowed for the years to come. If, like the '90s, they basically redesigned the engine every year there would be a cost blow-out.

Excited yes, I can't wait after five years of waiting for them. They have been delayed so often.

It was always stated from the Red Bull side that a very narrow spec would be the primary cost saving mechanism, which turned out to be a red herring when they anounced the future freeze. That will be the real development killer. They should have had the honesty to make it clear from the beginning in 2009 that the engines would be frozen shortly after introduction. With that information in hand they would not have bothered to define such a narrow spec because the gradual freeze will take care of excessive development anyway. It is a bit ridiculous that LMP1 can spend the money and F1 cannot. It has lost the position of pinnacle of motorsport then.

[Juzh]

Sry if this has been said already but this thread is too much to read all of it.
Has the fuel flow been fully explained yet? I know they have 100kg/h, but does that mean they can at any one point use 200kg/h for instant power boost aka overtake, and then save it with 50kg/h next couple of laps?

[Holm86]

Sry if this has been said already but this thread is too much to read all of it.
Has the fuel flow been fully explained yet? I know they have 100kg/h, but does that mean they can at any one point use 200kg/h for instant power boost aka overtake, and then save it with 50kg/h next couple of laps?

the 100kg/h or 27.77g/s is a MAX flow limit. Not an average limit.

[CMSMJ1]

ref the Desaxe situation. The new Kawasaki ZX10 has offset cylinders...that is a 1000cc IL4 - with over 200bhp (in racing trim) and will be revving to 15k.




I'm just looking forwards to these new cars and engines on the track..bring it on!

[ringo]

When will Ferrari be revealing there engine again?

[Holm86]

When will Ferrari be revealing there engine again?

Dec 19.

[Holm86]

ref the Desaxe situation. The new Kawasaki ZX10 has offset cylinders...that is a 1000cc IL4 - with over 200bhp (in racing trim) and will be revving to 15k.




I'm just looking forwards to these new cars and engines on the track..bring it on!

This is why I thought it could be relevant to the new engines.

[Blanchimont]

I searched i bit today on the thermal efficiencies of combustion engines and found a very interesting pdf document that belongs to a lecture of TU Graz, so it's written in German. But have a look at it, it's worth it!

Link to the pdf

The most important diagrams i found are shown on page 42 and 43. The graphs show the real thermal efficiency measured at the crankshaft and the x axis is the average piston velocity.

DS = diesel engine, NA
O4T = petrol engine 4 stroke, NA

DTP = diesel with cylinder injection for cars, turbo
DTL = diesel with cylinder injection for trucks, turbo

[ringo]

Looks informative, but It's not of much use in german.

[CBeck113]

So, I'll take a shot at the translation...

The right slide is 46, which states that higher compression and ignition at 0° with high cylinder pressure leads to the lowest combustion losses, BUT at this point the temperature losses to the cylinder walls is the highest. In the first disciplin the diesel is much better (high compression, high pressure), which makes the cylinder wall losses higher. The gasoline engine is basically the opposite because of the lower pressures. It also says that the cylinder wall losses increase by lower rpms and decreasing load.
Generally it states that the efficiency of large diesel motors is the highest due to the high pressure and can reach up to 80%, while diesels can reach up to 70% theoretically. Gasoline engines can barely reach half, or 35%. The limitation is knocking, so if the fuel makers could increase the ignition point (which is their goal for normal fuels as well I would think), then high pressure ignition (over 1000 bar) would be the way to go to get higher efficiency. Basically the Holy Grail...
If anyone wants something specific translated then let me (or one of the other German speakers) know.

[Tommy Cookers]

TE is in-cylinder efficiency, high TE will not give an overall efficiency (BTE) in proportion to the TE ?
eg 80% TE means only 20% loss in-cylinder, the normal unavoidable losses outside the cylinder will be larger relative to this 20%
(also remember high TE is the enemy of exhaust recovery)

so true Diesels (ie those classified as slow-speed) can reach just over 50% overall efficiency/BTE (from eg 75% TE)
and there's medium-speed compression ignition (aka m-s 'diesel') engines, maybe a bit less efficient ?
and high-speed CI eg railway use, another bit less efficient
and truck-size, a bit less efficient again
and car-size CI( 'diesels'), which have protracted combustion and high cooling losses, so are significantly less efficient again

yes we would like SI (gasoline) with 200 PN (loosely 200 Octane) fuel that would allow CR as high as C has
2013 F1 has 13-14 CR and isn't Octane-critical (actually uses 93-95 Octane)
2014 F1 has a minimum 75 Octane (the means of banning CI engines ?)

the true Diesel contains combustion rate by manipulating injection rate/time, but only runs at max rpms of eg 50-200
how about in the SI/gasoline engine at 10500-12500 rpm ??
given the injection characteristics available within the rules (novel ignition methods having been banned)
(and consider ?, some safe level of self-ignition ('knock') after the spark was anyway often known eg in 24 hr winners ?)

[bonjon1979]

Looks informative, but It's not of much use in german.

it is to a german speaker

[dren]

[Holm86]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbxgwB8CcAAFh6d.jpg

Is this from Renault themselves??

Wanting to show something off before Ferrari reveals their engine tomorrow? Looking forward to that