Page 374 of 668
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 20 Feb 2014, 13:36
by Tommy Cookers
wuzak wrote:Porsche's Le Mans car has a turbo and a free power turbine to drive an MGU-H type recovery device.
Obviously not legal for F1, but I wonder if it is more or less efficient.
Control should be simpler too, with the turbo acting normally with the wastegate directing the exhaust to the power turbine. No assistance spooling the turbo, though.
chip engineer's useful link seems to expect a seperate recovery turbine
turbo lag should then be no problem to the racer ? (ie when it hasn't an oversize turbine and a motorgenerator hanging on it)
BTW the link also says that exhaust recovery is possible with NA engines
and that exhaust recovery is pressure and kinetic energy related (so the term mgu-h is misleading)
pleasing to me
the link also refers to an mgu type device used for torque enhancement and some limited electric-only driving
maybe it could eliminate the mechanical reverse gear ?
is this of value to F1 ?
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 20 Feb 2014, 20:00
by CottrellGP
Kobayashi: Renault cant compete...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112590 Maybe this has already been posted but i thought i would add it anyway.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 21 Feb 2014, 17:31
by Owen.C93
Ferrari definately cutting more fuel on braking than Merc or Renault. Compare: 7sec on vid 1, 11sec on vid 2
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpm3qdILp0#t=7[/youtube]
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKgFXgIEpqg#t=11[/youtube]
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 21 Feb 2014, 18:18
by Holm86
I actually believe what Ferrari is doing is what I have written in this topic :
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 4+exhausts
But I suggested something earlier this year which would also remove much of the need of running a blow-off valve.
I suggested that they should run cold blowing of the engine if that is allowed in 2014. This means when the driver lifts off the throttle pedal the throttle plates should open 100% instead of closing as normal. This would keep a higher flow through the turbo so you can harvest more energy with the MGU-H. It would decrease pumping losses which would decrease natural engine braking effect which allows the MGU-K to harvest a larger procentage during braking. And last it would prevent the shockwave moving backward from the throttleplate to the compressor when the throttleplate closes. The fuel and ignition would off course be cut.
IMO it should be legal as there is no aerodynamic advantage from cold blowing next year with the new exhaust exit regulations.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 21 Feb 2014, 18:32
by 321apex
This is the first time I had a chance to observe different cars drive thru the same section of the track. In general those cars sound a bit like Indy Lights from years past, not "mouth watering sexy".
Ferrari seems to be short shifting in comparison to others. Perhaps, they are not revving the engine as high. Could be their test agenda to do so, as opposed to a routine mode.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 21 Feb 2014, 19:41
by Tommy Cookers
@ Holm86
as one who has also suggested keeping turbo rpm high on the over-run .....
(bearing in mind that Renault have talked about allowing pulling down of turbo rpm in generating a burst of mgu-h power)
do we really know when the cars last closed their throttle plates on the over-run ?
cold blowing didn't mean zero-fuelling, it meant running the engine with normal (ie not retarded) ignition timing
anyway at eg 60% rpm the throttling will be effectively zero at what % cs area ? .... 60%, maybe (the 100% position is not needed)
the mapping rules won't allow all over-run options ? eg pulling the turbo rpm down sometimes, the opposite at other times
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 21 Feb 2014, 19:56
by atanatizante
Some misunderstandings :
- From the picture above MGU-H could transfer power directly to MGU-K in an unlimited amount.
- The 4MJ/lap limit refers to the power which is coming from the ES -battery- only, right?
- Then the only limit in energy transfer from MGU-H to MGU-K is the 120kW power limit.
- So the additional power coming from MGU-H, let`s say 30kW for 20 sec/lap, could be used
apart from those 120kW and 33,3 sec/lap generated by MGU-K?
-
So we could infer that this season (or maybe until 2016) will be (beyond the usual stuffs) a battle between PU manufactures who gets the most powerful MGU-H and also which one could be used more time over a lap?
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 21 Feb 2014, 22:02
by Holm86
Is it just me who thinks the Mercedes has a completely different engine note?? It sounds much much deeper than the Ferrari or Renault engine to me. Im talking acceleration here not off throttle.
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtHDxhWxqq0[/youtube]
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 21 Feb 2014, 22:14
by 321apex
Holm86 wrote:Is it just me who thinks the Mercedes has a completely different engine note?? It sounds much much deeper than the Ferrari or Renault engine to me. Im talking acceleration here not off throttle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtHDxhWxqq0
Indeed, it seems like firing order is different. Something similar to the "big bang" V8 Indy engine Honda ran for 1 season in CART, back in early 90's. It was a dud in terms of effectiveness on the track. I believe it fired 2 cylinders at the same time.
If such is the case here, we will wait and see what will become of it.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 22 Feb 2014, 00:01
by Abarth
Different firing order would mean not using a 3x120deg crankshaft with counterpart pistons not on the same pin, but something more like v6 use in road cars. A bit hard to believe, but this sound is definitely pretty low pitched and quite distinct.
Someone said the McLaren sounds different to the Mercedes, which is strange.
Sound designers at work?
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 22 Feb 2014, 00:05
by Holm86
Abarth wrote:Different firing order would mean not using a 3x120deg crankshaft with counterpart pistons not on the same pin, but something more like v6 use in road cars. A bit hard to believe, but this sound is definitely pretty low pitched and quite distinct.
Someone said the McLaren sounds different to the Mercedes, which is strange.
Sound designers at work?
I highly doubt that anything has been designed with sound in mind. But back when the pictures of the Mercedes engine was revealed the design of the exhaust caught my attention. Mercedes uses a single entry turbine where the others uses a twin entry turbine. I recon this could have something to do with the sound. I don't really know why they choose a single entry turbine.
EDIT** Picture added showing single entry turbine.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 22 Feb 2014, 00:22
by 321apex
Abarth wrote:Different firing order would mean not using a 3x120deg crankshaft with counterpart pistons not on the same pin, but something more like v6 use in road cars. A bit hard to believe, but this sound is definitely pretty low pitched and quite distinct.
Someone said the McLaren sounds different to the Mercedes, which is strange.
Sound designers at work?
Wrong.
You may have more than one firing order with that crank arrangement, and you may have more than one version of 3 x 120 deg crank. So this is still a possible cause for sound difference.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 22 Feb 2014, 00:26
by Holm86
I agree that it should be possible to have more than one firing order with a 3x120° crank.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 22 Feb 2014, 00:27
by 321apex
Holm86 wrote:Abarth wrote:Different firing order would mean not using a 3x120deg crankshaft with counterpart pistons not on the same pin, but something more like v6 use in road cars. A bit hard to believe, but this sound is definitely pretty low pitched and quite distinct.
Someone said the McLaren sounds different to the Mercedes, which is strange.
Sound designers at work?
I highly doubt that anything has been designed with sound in mind. But back when the pictures of the Mercedes engine was revealed the design of the exhaust caught my attention. Mercedes uses a single entry turbine where the others uses a twin entry turbine. I recon this could have something to do with the sound. I don't really know why they choose a single entry turbine.
EDIT** Picture added showing single entry turbine.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/KI0fgWxgYT4/maxresdefault.jpg
You may be on to something here.
I learned from some source, that Ferrari is cooperating with Garrett and it sounded like this is an exclusive cooperation. MB on the other hand I would suspect would have gone with KKK (or Mitsubishi at the extreme end), since German companies tend to cooperate along national lines.
Renault I would suspect may have gone with IHI, since perhaps that's their and Nissan's OEM parter.
Re: Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula
Posted: 22 Feb 2014, 03:14
by Pieoter
Holm86 wrote:Is it just me who thinks the Mercedes has a completely different engine note?? It sounds much much deeper than the Ferrari or Renault engine to me. Im talking acceleration here not off throttle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtHDxhWxqq0
It is a deeper note because it has 100hp more