2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Isn't this because initially the intention was to drive the cars on electric power only in the pit lane?

That sound more like a point against the decision to put the electric torque through the engine.

[Dragonfly]

Yep, but you said you thought the MGU-K was supposed to drive the wheels (independent of the ICE if I understood it right). And this might have been the case in earlier state of the rules. Then they abandoned the idea of electric only drive, I am not sure what the reasons were.

[autogyro]

Yep, but you said you thought the MGU-K was supposed to drive the wheels (independent of the ICE if I understood it right). And this might have been the case in earlier state of the rules. Then they abandoned the idea of electric only drive, I am not sure what the reasons were.

Mainly because with the MGU-K on the front of the crankshaft it was not possible to use electric drive without also turning over the ic engine.
You would need an electric system as part of the gearbox transaxle for that to work

[xpensive]

I think you should consider that the energy storage is 1 kWh at the most, to compare with a Tesla's 70+, why passing through the pits in 30s electric driven might be a challenge, how embarrassing would it be to run out of electrons like that?

[ringo]

http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/2014 ... 62936.html

The engine makers Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari are understandably holding their cards close to their chests, but Schmidt reports that Pirelli is expecting cars with full boost next year to be propelled in qualifying by up to 900 horse power.
And torque is set to increase dramatically, to 600 newton-metres.
Pirelli’s Paul Hembery said: "At the moment we don’t know exactly what to expect. "But the numbers we are hearing are enormous"

Maybe the torque numbers are enormous, but not the power numbers i suspect.

[xpensive]

What would be of a concern to Pirelli is of course the wheel-torque, which is dependent on power and nothing else.

[WhiteBlue]

What would be of a concern to Pirelli is of course the wheel-torque, which is dependent on power and nothing else.

So what do you think of the numbers that I have put together? 600 Nm IMO implies that they will be well over 800 hp which you have doubted so far. In fact I'm getting 885 bhp for 600 Nm @ 10.500 rpm. One possible explanation is the inclusion of a safety margin in the torque figure. I would include at least 10%. That would indicate they were expecting 800 bhp.

[xpensive]

I take it that the 600 Nm and 885 Hp is including the MGU-K at full blast, which means 722 engine Hp?

That would be 530 kW from 27.8 g/s, an efficiency of 41.4% at 46 kJ/g.

It would be most impressive indeed.

800 Hp, total, should call for 637 engine such, asking for an efficiency of 36.6%, which would make a little more sense?

[WhiteBlue]

800 Hp, total, should call for 637 engine such, asking for an efficiency of 36.6%, which would make a little more sense?

Yes, agreed. I think the torque figures would include a safety margin that you would have to deduct. But 800 bhp is right in the zone that Marmorini from Ferrari predicted. Hence I believe that we will be seeing it during the next year.

[ringo]

They will get nowhere near 41% efficiency. Maybe around 27% thermal efficiency. It cannot be greater than the Carnot efficiency if i'm remember correctly.
I feel whoever is coming up with that high power number is using a simple form of calculating the peak pressure and temperature in the cylinders, which will give astronomical power values. it usually works okayish with very low presure ratios like that of a gas turbine.
It doesn't work so well with compression ratios as seen in motor vehicle engines.

I'll stand by 640hp between 10500 and 15000rpm. Peak torque from the engine alone could be around 420lb.ft at lowe engine speeds, which is much more than today's values.
Anyhow, the torque is almost doubled compared to the current engines and this is before the electrical motor torque comes in.
So pirelli do need to create very good tyres to handle all that twisting force.

One thing to note though, is that combined with all the energy recovery there is a 59% improvement in specific fuel consumption. 19.2 hp/g of fuel with the engine by itself to a virtual equivalent of 30.6 hp/g of fuel with the energy recovery systems.

[ringo]

What would be of a concern to Pirelli is of course the wheel-torque, which is dependent on power and nothing else.

So what do you think of the numbers that I have put together? 600 Nm IMO implies that they will be well over 800 hp which you have doubted so far. In fact I'm getting 885 bhp for 600 Nm @ 10.500 rpm. One possible explanation is the inclusion of a safety margin in the torque figure. I would include at least 10%. That would indicate they were expecting 800 bhp.

Remember it's a turbo engine, so things won't be linear. The peak torque wont be in the same area as the peak power.



This graph is ignoring turbo spool time and lag, but i suppose the ters will eliminate that.
What is does take into account is the fuel flow limits. That determines the shape of this graph basically, as the engines will be programed to stay on that limit to maximise power.
If the torque is excessive they might tone it down in the lower rpms, maybe use the extra energy to charge batteries or something.

[xpensive]

What should be interesting to Pirelli here is obviously the wheel-torque, or rather the shear-force on the contact patch.

This can be calculated in two ways:

A) With 588 kW (800 Hp), the wheel-torque will of course taper-off with the speed, but at 30 m/s (108 km/h), two 660 mm dia wheel will spin with 14.5 Rps (868 Rpm) and 6470 Nm, resulting in a shear-force of 6470/0.330 =19.6 kN on the two wheels.

B) With 588 kW at 30 m/s, the total shear-force will be 588 000/30 = 19.6 kN as Power is Force times speed.

But as I recall, Brembo showed xamples of braking-zones where they could hit 2000 kW, why that should be a bigger concern?

[ringo]

Oh we forgot about the brakes. lol

[WhiteBlue]

They will get nowhere near 41% efficiency. Maybe around 27% thermal efficiency. It cannot be greater than the Carnot efficiency if i'm remember correctly.

I think you have missed some of the efficiency discussions we had on this and other threads. The V8s had 29% according a broad agreement by several people familiar with the issue.
35% seemed pretty certain according to the bhp figures that were released before last week. All of those figures were ICE figures only.
as it stands we now think that the brake thermal efficiency of the ICE will rise to 36.6% and the electric power will reach 120 kW which is the legal limit.
together they should reach 800 bhp. Ferrari have quoted even slightly higher figures.

[ringo]

Well, we can wait and see. 29 to 32% is ok as well, it's all going to vary with compression ratio, and temperatures etc.
But thermal efficiency is not something that increases easily.
I doubt 40%, though if i'm wrong i'll accept that.

Worse when we have that 27.8g/s flow rate to deal with. you just can't get 900hp out of it.

your thermal efficiency will be your actual indicated power in Kj/kg divided by (fuel lower heating value * fuel to air ratio)

I'm getting 33% thermal efficiency with 13:1 compression ratio, somewhere near the calculated maximum. Oh yes the carnot efficiency in this case is about 65%.

Again i don't think the 40% figures being mentioned are realistic. It's ignoring realistic combustion.

By the way, what is the compression ratio of the current v8s?
What ratios do we expect with the new engines?