2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

...
I would not like to speculate about higher caloric fuel values in this thread.
...

Well you don't have to, perhaps myself and TC can manage on our own?

sources apparently at least as reliable as yours show 47 and even 48.5 MJ (this seasonally)
ERC will sell you A-19A at 47 MJ quite cheaply

please feel free to e mail the numerous other manufacturers of race gasoline
and use Google

gasoline is a mix of hundreds of constituents with selection driven by economics ie minimal
if you pay people $1000/litre they can do some real cherry picking
how could this not be gainful ?

This is the interesting part TC, the difference between 46 and 48.5 MJ/kg at the flywheel with 35% efficiency is 33 Hp.

Also what I tried to say earlier on this thread, I'm certain that the lab-rats at Total and Shell is very busy at the moment.

[ringo]

I have to ask Ringo, what is the factor 0.0417?

That was a fuel rate of 41.7 g/s which I proposed for the current V8. But with hindsight it was probably too high. We had a lot of discussion about the BTE of the V8s and everybody agreed on 29-30%.There is a dedicated thread to it if you search.

I would not like to speculate about higher caloric fuel values in this thread. I would increase confusion with the figures if we do so. There are no published indications that fuel will exceed 46 kJ/g next season. We should treat it the same as engine power. Only reliable sources should be considered.

Oh yes, i need to make a correction, i was so tired last night i was using the wrong fuel flow to do the efficiency calcuations.
However it still stands that...
Yes using the equation i posted earlier and not the typical one the i am getting 29 to 30% for the current V8





Take note of the fuel, temperature and compression ratio. You compression ratio dictates more of your thermal efficiency than anything else. This is why F1 engines and diesels are so efficient. You can ignore the turbo part, this section is set to zero so the engine is operating NA.
Volumetric efficiency is over 1 as well.

edit: made a change, the flame temps and pressure were updated. not much change in overall efficiency.

[ringo]

Well guys, Mercedes are aim at 40% efficiency.

so that's 0.4 * 46000 * 0.0278 = 511kW = 685hp.

And as said before, the fuel value is a mystery.

edit: for the above images, the fuel flow cells were hide, sorry about that, flow was 127.53 kg/hr

I want to point out something.

The fuel heating value in my spreadsheet is only used to find the efficiency. But it is not used to find the combustion energy.
I get this from a flame temperature program where i select a fuel.
I selected this fuel:
Gaslonine C7.76H13.1

[WhiteBlue]

Ringo, do I read it riht that you see the V8 with an AFR of 14,7? My information was always that such a racing engine runs a rich mixture for optimum power closer to 11 than 14.

[pgfpro]

Well guys, Mercedes are aim at 40% efficiency.

so that's 0.4 * 46000 * 0.0278 = 511kW = 685hp.

And as said before, the fuel value is a mystery.

edit: for the above images, the fuel flow cells were hide, sorry about that, flow was 127.53 kg/hr

I want to point out something.

The fuel heating value in my spreadsheet is only used to find the efficiency. But it is not used to find the combustion energy.
I get this from a flame temperature program where i select a fuel.
I selected this fuel:
Gaslonine C7.76H13.1

What BHP at this fuel flow???

[ringo]

that was over 750, however i did not update the in cylinder conditions so it's slightly off.
the flow for the image currenty is 130kg/hr
this is the most accurate.

i tinkered with intake temps, compression ratio and volumetric efficiency to try to attain 750bhp.

What is the typical fuel pressure on the V8 engine?

[ringo]

Ringo, do I read it riht that you see the V8 with an AFR of 14,7? My information was always that such a racing engine runs a rich mixture for optimum power closer to 11 than 14.

I am using stoichometric because in theory it gives hottest temperatures. The calculations are theoretical. but let me use 11.5 and then see what i get from the combustion conditions.

on second thought i think to accurately represent that is beyond me, there are a lot of things at play there that i do not fully understand. But if i work with a lower A:F the temps in theory goes down and you get considerably less power and lower efficiency. there is some reasoning behind the lower A:F that gives better burning.

[pgfpro]

Ringo, do I read it riht that you see the V8 with an AFR of 14,7? My information was always that such a racing engine runs a rich mixture for optimum power closer to 11 than 14.

I am using stoichometric because in theory it gives hottest temperatures. The calculations are theoretical. but let me use 11.5 and then see what i get from the combustion conditions.

on second thought i think to accurately represent that is beyond me, there are a lot of things at play there that i do not fully understand. But if i work with a lower A:F the temps in theory goes down and you get considerably less power and lower efficiency. there is some reasoning behind the lower A:F that gives better burning.

Thanks for the fuel flow amount. My spreadsheet is pretty much the same as your results, but how I got there and yours are two way different roads.

I think as far as A/F ratio goes from all my reading you will see a faster flame speed at A/F ratios in the 11.0 to 12.0 area. This helps a ton with efficiency when running high rpm engines so you can run less ignition advance and be closer back to TDC.

[WhiteBlue]

Ringo, do I read it riht that you see the V8 with an AFR of 14,7? My information was always that such a racing engine runs a rich mixture for optimum power closer to 11 than 14.

I am using stoichometric because in theory it gives hottest temperatures. The calculations are theoretical. but let me use 11.5 and then see what i get from the combustion conditions.

on second thought i think to accurately represent that is beyond me, there are a lot of things at play there that i do not fully understand. But if i work with a lower A:F the temps in theory goes down and you get considerably less power and lower efficiency. there is some reasoning behind the lower A:F that gives better burning.

A port injected engine will always have a richer mixture because you compress the air fuel mixture. Direct injected engines can at least partially compress before they start injection. That gives DI engines typically a higher AFR and also higher compression ratio. Your compression ratio is probably also way out for the 2013 V8. I thought I read something like 14. That would be pretty unbelievable to me. I will have a look what those racing engines typically have.

Edit: the value I keep coming across is 12.5:1

[ringo]

I did what i could to squeeze out the 750hp.
I had 12.5 for the turbo engine!

[ringo]

Thanks for the fuel flow amount. My spreadsheet is pretty much the same as your results, but how I got there and yours are two way different roads.

I think as far as A/F ratio goes from all my reading you will see a faster flame speed at A/F ratios in the 11.0 to 12.0 area. This helps a ton with efficiency when running high rpm engines so you can run less ignition advance and be closer back to TDC.

Ok so things are kinda clicking together then.

I think with direct injection, they will use the homogenous charge at full load. this is different to stratified which is part load, and this way they can use stoichometric ratios for full load.

[pgfpro]

Thanks for the fuel flow amount. My spreadsheet is pretty much the same as your results, but how I got there and yours are two way different roads.

I think as far as A/F ratio goes from all my reading you will see a faster flame speed at A/F ratios in the 11.0 to 12.0 area. This helps a ton with efficiency when running high rpm engines so you can run less ignition advance and be closer back to TDC.

Ok so things are kinda clicking together then.

I think with direct injection, they will use the homogenous charge at full load. this is different to stratified which is part load, and this way they can use stoichometric ratios for full load.

I agree, I was talking about the V8 engines of today.

[WhiteBlue]

I have looked up the MB target of 40%. It is documented by the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21016926
The question is whether they mean break thermal efficiency or thermal efficiency before internal mechanical losses. At the moment I tend to read it as break thermal efficiency because they also compare it to the V8 which is indicated at 30%. To make this a meaningful comparison they are probably speaking of brake thermal efficiency. It would mean we can set our target power for 2014 even higher than the high estimate by Marmorini.

[xpensive]

40% "Target", why be so shy, go for 50% while you're at it?

Disinformation seems to be the name of the game at the moment.

[WhiteBlue]

You know X , I'm such a pedantic German character that I always want it written down and documented. And is it is not too much hassle for you to read all this disinformation I will keep documenting it.