F1technical.net

WhiteBlue wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:the turbo will be purposely sized by the rules. so they have to use high revs. It will be large enough to kill efficiency at lower revs and force the engines above 10,500 rpm. At that rpm it won't even get full boost yet. This is part of the reason for outlawing variably geometry turbines and variable geometry nozzles. In fact i've read they're leaning towards a spec turbo. I don't remember where though.

We know the rules now. You just have to read them. There is nothing in there about the size of the turbo. So the engine designers can fit the size of the thing to make optimum use of the available exhaust energy.

maybe, but I bet we end up with a spec'd turbo size

xpensive wrote:Fact is you have 38 cc per second to deal with, end of story. What Cosworth can do with that is doubtful, but BMW or toyota?

Cossie were pretty much bullet priif when they ran the 2.65 in CART and Champ car, one of the best engines ever built, if i were the other's i'd be worried about Cosworth 2014 due to the success of thier past turbos

According to the new rules it is allowed to attach a HMGU to the turbo shaft.
In my opinion this could be used during off-throttle phases in order to keep the turbo revs up.
Does anybody have contrary information?

Does somebody know if it is allowed to change the turbo from race to race or is the size fixed for the two-race-period or even the whole season?

Reading through the rather straightforward rules again, Article 5.1, which xplains that you can only have a single turbo and so on, it suddenly struck me that it doesn't say anything about intercoolers. But if 1.0 Bar of boost (2.0 absolute) is enough to make use of 38 cc at 10500 rpm, such things are perhaps un-necessary?

xpensive wrote:Reading through the rather straightforward rules again, Article 5.1, which xplains that you can only have a single turbo and so on, it suddenly struck me that it doesn't say anything about intercoolers. But if 1.0 Bar of boost (2.0 absolute) is enough to make use of 38 cc at 10500 rpm, such things are perhaps un-necessary?

Even at pressure ratio of 2 and compressor with really good efficiency you may have enough charge air temperature rise to, at least, start thinking about intercooler. After all it's about air density. You may find you do not need so much boost which leads to less power used for compressing the air.

It comes with weight and packaging penalty so, as usual, there are trade offs to consider.

I've been wondering about this for awhile and perhaps someone with an engineering background can answer me ; but how much will the future turbo v6 have in common with the previous turbo v6 from the turbo era?

From what I have gathered the previous turbo v6 were 1.5L and the new ones are going to be 1.6L ; does 0.1L really make that much of a difference(since this is F1 and millimetres are important I assume it does) ? The way I see it, it would mean slightly larger pistons and combustion chambers but the rest of the engine wouldn't have to altered dramatically would it? Also If I'm not mistaken the previous v6 and the new one were 90° v angle.

I know that the new turbo v6 will be limited to one single turbocharger whereas the old ones were twin turbo if I'm not mistaken. What I'm really interested in is how much of the previous v6 design will carry over or be re-used for the future v6(granted these designs are now 20+ years old).Apart from pneumatic valves,fancier materials and higher revs will the new engines be that much different? Will the new v6 have to be designed from a blank sheet or will the engineers be able to use some of the old dusty sketches?

Cheers

The only single-turbo-V6 engine was the Renault from 1977/78.
I think there are not really possibilities to take over something from the old engines.

For the intercoolers:
If you have a boost ratio p2/p1 from 2 (2 bar absolute) the charge air temperature is around 100°C. At p2/p1=4 you are at 200°C. So you defefinitely need some intercoolers. Otherwise you will risk knocking, even if at higher revs the risk is decreasing.
As I read the regs they are not specified in number, size and placement but htey are allowed as in paragraph 5.4.5 they are mentioned.

matt21 wrote: ...
For the intercoolers:
If you have a boost ratio p2/p1 from 2 (2 bar absolute) the charge air temperature is around 100°C. At p2/p1=4 you are at 200°C. So you defefinitely need some intercoolers. Otherwise you will risk knocking, even if at higher revs the risk is decreasing.
As I read the regs they are not specified in number, size and placement but htey are allowed as in paragraph 5.4.5 they are mentioned.

- As far as my humble estimations go, with a constant flow of 38 cc/s above 10 500 rpm, boost should peak at 1.0 Bar there and fall off to 0.7 Bar at 15 000, if you wish to go there. It will be interesting to see which manufacturers will use intercooler?

- The regs seems somewhat wrapped up in a haste, today's engine regs are far more detailed, did they forget the intercooler?

I guess we can believe that the current rulebook for the 2014 engines will be modified before 2014.

Many things does not make all that much sense in its current configuration.

Holm86 wrote: ...
Many things does not make all that much sense in its current configuration.

The constant power between 10 500 and 15 000 is really odd, not that I can the reason for anyone to go above 10 500.

If the drop off in efficiency above 10.5k is lower than the drop off in allowable fuel below 10.5k then they will use more than 10,500 rpm because it'll give them more power over more of the useable rev range...

It would of course make sense to keep the gear-shifts between 10.5 and perhaps 12.5, in order to optimize power output.

But what about this, what are you supposed to do with the remaining 25% of fuel?

5.8.2
Over 80% of the maximum permitted fuel flow rate, at least 75% of the fuel flow must be
injected directly into the cylinders.There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted downstream
of the exhaust valves.

injected before the intake valve.

hpras wrote:injected before the intake valve.

Really, I thought that pouring it out on the tarmac would be the wise thing to do?

xpensive wrote:But what about this, what are you supposed to do with the remaining 25% of fuel?

Accumulate somehow during off-throttle periods to gain extra fuel when high power is needed again.