2014-2020 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.
User avatar
henry
258
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:06 pm
henry wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:28 am
J.A.W. wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:19 am
Not sure if this has been posted here earlier, but if it hasn't, & for anyone who is interested,
here's an analysis of the "energy flows" of a currentish F1 lap around Monaco (2018),along with
discussion of proposed changes, by Boretti:

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j ... 8-0171.pdf
It was raised in the TERS thread.

Here’s my, personal, response

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/view ... 36#p862036

Summing up, the author, Borretti, hasn’t a scoobie.

He also dabbles in climate change with, what appears to be, similar acumen. (Often under another name and university)
Care to provide a more technically meaningful response here, Henry?

Monaco is certainly a track which appears to offer rather limited regen' braking opportunities.

It’s in the post I referenced.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
87
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

So, Henry - apart from a "personal response" - can you provide a technical rationale, here?
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

User avatar
Mudflap
219
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

He also ignores the fact that that the MGUK can be used for part load harvesting and calls jet ignition illegal.

Just because it is written in a similar manner to a scientific paper I doubt his babble was ever peer reviewed as thoroughly (or at all).

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
87
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Mudflap wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:35 am
He also ignores the fact that that the MGUK can be used for part load harvesting and calls jet ignition illegal.

Just because it is written in a similar manner to a scientific paper I doubt his babble was ever peer reviewed as thoroughly (or at all).
Boretti "...calls jet ignition illegal"? I don't think so.

The transcript linked from 'Nonlinear Engineering 2020' does read as though it has been
translated from, & now back to English, so needs a proper proof-reading by a motorsports
engineering credentialled reviewer (which would cut out the jarring "babble" aspects),
but I think your understanding of how Boretti perceives jet-ignition is missed in translation, too.

The fact that FIA technical scrutineers do accept the multi-function process of jet ignition,
(despite rules apparently being aimed at proscribing such synergistic complexity of including
the fuel injector/spark plug functions), & thus may be technically "illegal", yet FIA-tech is duly
'turning a blind eye' to it - as a fait accompli - & this the basic point he is making there, surely?

But as we know, beating restrictive 'letter of the rules' norms by 'fudging' the reading thereof
to win a competitive advantage (& it aint outright 'cheating' - well, not 'til deemed so by the FIA*),
is 'always on'...

*Even the FIA's reaction to exposing 'cheating' seems to be 'soft-pedalled' these days,
given the response to oil-burning/electrickery/fuel mass-factor reveals, we've seen lately.
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

Zynerji
Zynerji
76
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

I just want too know:

What are the numbers on the "dumbed down" , 200hp, cast aluminum versions that are cheap enough to put in mass produced road cars? Could we still stay above 42% and get 300k miles? And if so, when?

User avatar
Mudflap
219
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:31 am
Mudflap wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:35 am
He also ignores the fact that that the MGUK can be used for part load harvesting and calls jet ignition illegal.

Just because it is written in a similar manner to a scientific paper I doubt his babble was ever peer reviewed as thoroughly (or at all).
Boretti "...calls jet ignition illegal"? I don't think so.

The transcript linked from 'Nonlinear Engineering 2020' does read as though it has been
translated from, & now back to English, so needs a proper proof-reading by a motorsports
engineering credentialled reviewer (which would cut out the jarring "babble" aspects),
but I think your understanding of how Boretti perceives jet-ignition is missed in translation, too.

The fact that FIA technical scrutineers do accept the multi-function process of jet ignition,
(despite rules apparently being aimed at proscribing such synergistic complexity of including
the fuel injector/spark plug functions), & thus may be technically "illegal", yet FIA-tech is duly
'turning a blind eye' to it - as a fait accompli - & this the basic point he is making there, surely?

But as we know, beating restrictive 'letter of the rules' norms by 'fudging' the reading thereof
to win a competitive advantage (& it aint outright 'cheating' - well, not 'til deemed so by the FIA*),
is 'always on'...
Actually his premise is that jet ignition implies more than one injector which is completely false. See the second quote below.

In all honesty, a technical paper that references autosport and roadandtrack.com articles can't be anything but a joke.
The different teams have,
however, also developed illegal systems to improve performances, from fuel flow meters out of calibration, to combustion of lubricating oil, to the use of special fuels, and strictly speaking, also the use of jet ignition.
One healthy technical development carried out by the manufacturers has been the introduction of jet ignition,
that albeit strictly speaking illegal – only one direct injector is allowed per cylinder – has permitted stable operation
lean burn stratified.
How much TQ does it make though?

User avatar
henry
258
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:42 pm
So, Henry - apart from a "personal response" - can you provide a technical rationale, here?
What part of
I can’t recommend it. He thinks the H is purely for turbo control and the K is used sequentially during braking, only kicking in when total brake power drops below 120kW. He doesn’t adjust for brake balance. As a consequence he thinks per lap energy recovery at Monaco is zero. There’s more but that’s enough for me.
do you consider to be non technical?

What’s your take from the paper? Did it add anything to your knowledge?
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
66
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:44 am
I just want too know:

What are the numbers on the "dumbed down" , 200hp, cast aluminum versions that are cheap enough to put in mass produced road cars? Could we still stay above 42% and get 300k miles? And if so, when?
Pointless imo.

These engines are 42% efficient at full throttle, great for racing. But since a road car is in partial throttle most of the time, 42% efficient at 50% throttle demand is good enough. Efficiency at full throttle is less important.

Also I suspect NOx emission of these engines are insanely high.

User avatar
godlameroso
371
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Next thing you know, they'll start mandating catalytic converters as a means to BOP the engines.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
66
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

I still remember the obvious odour of kerosene or jetfuel just after the race start of the 2016 Belgian grandprix. Anybody visited recent races en noticed any strange smells after the start?

Zynerji
Zynerji
76
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:25 pm
Next thing you know, they'll start mandating catalytic converters as a means to BOP the engines.
That's an interesting door to open.

What would a formula that was emissions driven instead of fuel flow capped look like? Would it just be a bunch of 500rpm snails?

User avatar
FW17
228
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post



Maybe F1 should consider getting rid of the cam shafts and reduce the weight of the engine

140 kg f1 engine vs an 70 kg road going engine?? The headline looks bad

User avatar
Big Tea
83
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

FW17 wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNqaz9q_0

Maybe F1 should consider getting rid of the cam shafts and reduce the weight of the engine

140 kg f1 engine vs an 70 kg road going engine?? The headline looks bad
This guy always has good stuff, everyone should have him on subscribe.
One test is worth a thousand expert opinions

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
6
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

FW17 wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNqaz9q_0

Maybe F1 should consider getting rid of the cam shafts and reduce the weight of the engine

140 kg f1 engine vs an 70 kg road going engine?? The headline looks bad
Not when you realize that it is false.

1.22 Power unit :
The internal combustion engine, complete with its ancillaries, any energy recovery system and
all actuation systems necessary to make them function at all times.


Firstly, the regulations stipulate 145kg for the 2020 PU(not 140), the mass of the PU includes the batteries and both mgu components (which have a minimum allowed mass of 31kg), and other ancillaries such as the oil and water pumps, fuel pumps, alternator, and probably much more. Also it is a stressed member, which probably further increases it's mass. The engines are not that heavy, especially when the amount of fuel not used is also accounted for. During the v8 era they were using over 200L of fuel, now they are using around 120L.

But electromechanical(Freevalve) or rotary valve actuation, should be something F1 opens up in the upcoming(hopefully) regs for 2025, as well as a hot vee along with biofuels.

That 70kg engine is probably stripped, not counting the turbos or alternator, just a short block.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
517
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:01 pm
....But electromechanical(Freevalve) or rotary valve actuation, should be something F1 opens up in the upcoming(hopefully) regs for 2025 ....
doesn't the footage show hydraulic valve actuation with pneumatic return ? - not the electromechanical 'Freevalve'
electromechanical won't cut it in F1