2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

In F1 torque demanded by the driver through accelerator pedal cannot result in sometimes completely different engine throttles positions because ''while car is on the move relationship between accelerator pedal travel and engine throttles positioning must remain fixed'' and as regards electric power/torque supplied to crankshaft through 'K'. When and at which point around a lap the team decides upon for a particular track will be locked for the whole race weekend as only one single mode is permitted. That said chosen electric deploy is added at certain points around a lap to the crankshaft and the driver torque demanded is that which the crankshaft can produce at any given time around a lap.

Saviour, once again you have a very narrow minded intepretation of the rules. The rules don't even mention the engine throttles when it comes to torque demand.

5.6 Power unit torque demand

5.6.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is
via a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.

5.6.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified
by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.

5.6.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing
for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

5.6.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map
must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

As long as the F1 ICE makes use of cylinder intake throttle valve my narrow mind points me to them, even if not mentioned by the rules, as to what controls the output of what the crankshaft has been meant to produce. "5.6.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single accelerator pedal'' - The torque to the driving wheels the driver may control is the torque (which is the most important thing in car acceleration) produced by the engine crankshaft. . . .

This is where you are getting confused. Torque to the wheels comes from the crankshaft and the MGUK. MGUK output varies with SOC, strat setting etc but TOTAL TORQUE at a given pedal position and rpm must not vary. The only way the ECU can maintain constant total torque is to adjust the ICE output.

This is why the rules make no mention of the relationship between pedal and throttles. It is entirely about pedal vs torque.

[saviour stivala]

Saviour, once again you have a very narrow minded intepretation of the rules. The rules don't even mention the engine throttles when it comes to torque demand.

As long as the F1 ICE makes use of cylinder intake throttle valve my narrow mind points me to them, even if not mentioned by the rules, as to what controls the output of what the crankshaft has been meant to produce. "5.6.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single accelerator pedal'' - The torque to the driving wheels the driver may control is the torque (which is the most important thing in car acceleration) produced by the engine crankshaft. what is produced by the engine crankshaft depends on what the cylinders can produce, and what the cylinders can produce will in turn depend on what the cylinders throttle valves allows to enter said cylinders.

There are passenger cars driving around at 10% power with their throttle blades near fully open or fully open to avoid pumping losses.

As I pointed out to you, Superbike tuners have those blades near full open to control engine braking, and the engine braking can be tuned through the whole sequence of a single corner.

The pedal is a torque demand device, how that torque is applies is dictated by the ECU and it’s programming. This holds true for all throttle by wire applications. It really opens up A LOT of tuning abilities.

Once again all that you are saying is all facts and I confirm that not only all that had became the norm in use in F1, but a lot more which in some cases was leading the teams to also make gains from other things that came about as a result of being able to run the ICE with a deference of 90% in relationship between ICE throttle valves and accelerator pedal travel. Please go over my previous post touching upon engine braking/brake balance baise and K harvesting advantage. All that was in the past, maybe even as far back as 13-15 years ago. Today it is no more, because the FIA not only made a stop to all that, but also managed to be in a position to police much more than all that stuff. While the engine torque-map is configured on the test stand to the tuners preferred configuration, simply through ignition/fueling control, that torque configuration output at the crankshaft, called the engine torque-map, must today be the only one used during a race weekend, and also translate into the driver's torque demand by use of accelerator pedal travel ''MONOTICALLY INCREASING'' (A function of sequence - in such a way as to generate progressively higher or lower values consistently with no reversal). And all of this 'fixed' relationship translates into a fixed position between throttle valve, the final controllers of what goes inside the cylinders, and the accelerator pedal travel position.

[saviour stivala]

Saviour, once again you have a very narrow minded intepretation of the rules. The rules don't even mention the engine throttles when it comes to torque demand.

As long as the F1 ICE makes use of cylinder intake throttle valve my narrow mind points me to them, even if not mentioned by the rules, as to what controls the output of what the crankshaft has been meant to produce. "5.6.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single accelerator pedal'' - The torque to the driving wheels the driver may control is the torque (which is the most important thing in car acceleration) produced by the engine crankshaft. . . .

This is where you are getting confused. Torque to the wheels comes from the crankshaft and the MGUK. MGUK output varies with SOC, strat setting etc but TOTAL TORQUE at a given pedal position and rpm must not vary. The only way the ECU can maintain constant total torque is to adjust the ICE output.

This is why the rules make no mention of the relationship between pedal and throttles. It is entirely about pedal vs torque.

Torque at the crankshaft is the torque that had been configured on the test bed of the ''power unit''. This torque available at the crankshaft is controlled by the throttle valves which in turn are controlled by the driver accelerator pedal travel, a relationship which must remain fixed while car is on the move.

[gruntguru]

As long as the F1 ICE makes use of cylinder intake throttle valve my narrow mind points me to them, even if not mentioned by the rules, as to what controls the output of what the crankshaft has been meant to produce. "5.6.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single accelerator pedal'' - The torque to the driving wheels the driver may control is the torque (which is the most important thing in car acceleration) produced by the engine crankshaft. . . .

This is where you are getting confused. Torque to the wheels comes from the crankshaft and the MGUK. MGUK output varies with SOC, strat setting etc but TOTAL TORQUE at a given pedal position and rpm must not vary. The only way the ECU can maintain constant total torque is to adjust the ICE output.

This is why the rules make no mention of the relationship between pedal and throttles. It is entirely about pedal vs torque.

Torque at the crankshaft is the torque that had been configured on the test bed of the ''power unit''. This torque available at the crankshaft is controlled by the throttle valves which in turn are controlled by the driver accelerator pedal travel, a relationship which must remain fixed while car is on the move.

You clearly didn't understand what I said because if you think about it the relationship between pedal and butterflies CANNOT be fixed.

There are only two ways it could remain fixed:

1. Fix the relationship between pedal and MGUH deployment. We know none of the teams do this.
2. Break the rules by having a variable relationship between pedal and total torque.

The butterflies are NOT controlled by the pedal. They are controlled by the ECU as just one of many outputs that affect engine torque (I listed them in an earlier post).

[FW17]

This is where you are getting confused. Torque to the wheels comes from the crankshaft and the MGUK. MGUK output varies with SOC, strat setting etc but TOTAL TORQUE at a given pedal position and rpm must not vary. The only way the ECU can maintain constant total torque is to adjust the ICE output.

This is why the rules make no mention of the relationship between pedal and throttles. It is entirely about pedal vs torque.

Torque at the crankshaft is the torque that had been configured on the test bed of the ''power unit''. This torque available at the crankshaft is controlled by the throttle valves which in turn are controlled by the driver accelerator pedal travel, a relationship which must remain fixed while car is on the move.

You clearly didn't understand what I said because if you think about it the relationship between pedal and butterflies CANNOT be fixed.

There are only two ways it could remain fixed:

1. Fix the relationship between pedal and MGUH deployment. We know none of the teams do this.
2. Break the rules by having a variable relationship between pedal and total torque.

The butterflies are NOT controlled by the pedal. They are controlled by the ECU as just one of many outputs that affect engine torque (I listed them in an earlier post).

Are there butterflies?

[saviour stivala]

Yes they are controlled by the ECU as a programed selected torque map on test bed, A program/ICE map that must be used for a race weekend, and the ICE throttles that finally manages the called upon torque demand by driver through his accelerator pedal travel, a relationship that must remain fixed as long as the car is on the move on track (an accelerator pedal travel map which must be monotically increasing).

[NL_Fer]

No butterflies, but discs with holes in them.

[Tommy Cookers]

Once again all that you are saying is all facts and I confirm that not only all that had became the norm in use in F1, but a lot more which in some cases was leading the teams to also make gains from other things that came about as a result of being able to run the ICE with a deference of 90% in relationship between ICE throttle valves and accelerator pedal travel. Please go over my previous post touching upon engine braking/brake balance baise and K harvesting advantage. All that was in the past, maybe even as far back as 13-15 years ago. Today it is no more, because the FIA not only made a stop to all that, but also managed to be in a position to police much more than all that stuff. While the engine torque-map is configured on the test stand to the tuners preferred configuration, simply through ignition/fueling control, that torque configuration output at the crankshaft, called the engine torque-map, must today be the only one used during a race weekend, and also translate into the driver's torque demand by use of accelerator pedal travel ''MONOTICALLY INCREASING'' (A function of sequence - in such a way as to generate progressively higher or lower values consistently with no reversal). And all of this 'fixed' relationship translates into a fixed position between throttle valve, the final controllers of what goes inside the cylinders, and the accelerator pedal travel position.

this .....

by c. 20 years ago the introduction of so-called 'fly-by-wire' tech allowed engines to be made into 'driver-aids'
with wheelspin the accelerator-throttle map gave sudden throttling to reduce engine torque (killing wheelspin)
sudden ie faster/earlier than any driver-commanded torque reduction for wheelspin
so the FIA c.2006 ? limited this effect ..... including
limiting it by limiting the rate of throttling ie rate of torque reduction (relative to the wheelspin rpm increase)
limiting it to a 2-d map (ie throttling only in response to rpm not eg rpm and rate of change of rpm)

and that's what (hybrid) F1 has had for all its 10 years
mapping that enforces a rate of torque reduction of 0.045 Nm/rpm for any amount of fixed accelerator
this is 'fair' .... because .....
the map must (for practicality) contribute to PU stability rather than to instability
the mapped rate 'gradient' plausibly emulates a traditional F1 ICE
the mandated (accelerator-to-PU torque) map provides eg for continuous energy transfer between MGU-K and ICE
(far beyond eg mapping for torque shaping/smoothing so apparent with NA throttle-by-wire ie 'WOT' from 6000 rpm)

this aspect will be huge from 2026 - because the MG (relative to the ICE) will be huge

[saviour stivala]

At least. But prosit all the same TC. Yes. since at least the introduction of the hybrid power unit although the power unit torque output map (output at crankshaft) was still first shaped on the test bed with a torque meter, and than after ECE inputted could also be reshaped/trimmed outside of a test bed to suit particular tracks. But besides all that there where still the use of selectable by the driver power unit modes. Some say up to a dozen modes. All that is now gone as well. With just one power unit mode that can be selected for a race weekend. This resulted in a fixed relationship between accelerator pedal travel (driver torque demand) and ICE throttles position while the car is on the move on track. What the driver is permitted to call upon with the press to pass/defend button is electrical power added to that of the power unit crankshaft at the time of call, and this called-up added power have no bearing on ICE throttle position relationship with accelerator pedal travel.

[saviour stivala]

No butterflies, but discs with holes in them.

All present power units use the individual 'butterflies type' of throttle valves for each cylinder control of what goes in said cylinder.

[Hoffman900]

Might be time to revisit these:

Both co-authored by Ferrari:


Time-Optimal Low-Level Control and Gearshift Strategies for the Formula 1 Hybrid Electric Powertrain

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/1/171

Abstract

Today, Formula 1 race cars are equipped with complex hybrid electric powertrains that display significant cross-couplings between the internal combustion engine and the electrical energy recovery system. Given that a large number of these phenomena are strongly engine-speed dependent, not only the energy management but also the gearshift strategy significantly influence the achievable lap time for a given fuel and battery budget. Therefore, in this paper we propose a detailed low-level mathematical model of the Formula 1 powertrain suited for numerical optimization, and solve the time-optimal control problem in a computationally efficient way. First, we describe the powertrain dynamics by means of first principle modeling approaches and neural network techniques, with a strong focus on the low-level actuation of the internal combustion engine and its coupling with the energy recovery system. Next, we relax the integer decision variable related to the gearbox by applying outer convexification and solve the resulting optimization problem. Our results show that the energy consumption budgets not only influence the fuel mass flow and electric boosting operation, but also the gearshift strategy and the low-level engine operation, e.g., the intake manifold pressure evolution, the air-to-fuel ratio or the turbine waste-gate position.

Low-level Online Control of the Formula 1 Power Unit with Feedforward Cylinder Deactivation


https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00372

Since 2014, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile has prescribed a parallel hybrid powertrain for the Formula 1 race cars. The complex low-level interactions between the thermal and the electrical part represent a non-trivial and challenging system to be controlled online. We present a novel controller architecture composed of a supervisory controller for the energy management, a feedforward cylinder deactivation controller, and a track region-dependent low-level nonlinear model predictive controller to optimize the engine actuators. Except for the nonlinear model predictive controller, the proposed controller subsystems are computationally inexpensive and are real time capable. The framework is tested and validated in a simulation environment for several realistic scenarios disturbed by driver actions or grip conditions on the track. In particular, we analyze how the control architecture deals with an unexpected gearshift trajectory during an acceleration phase. Further, we demonstrate how an increased maximum velocity trajectory impacts the online low-level controller. Our results show a suboptimality over an entire lap with respect to the benchmark solution of 49 ms and 64 ms, respectively, which we deem acceptable. Compared to the same control architecture with full knowledge of the disturbances, the suboptimality amounted to only 2 ms and 17 ms. For all case studies we show that the cylinder deactivation capability decreases the suboptimality by 7 to 8 ms.

Written by Honda on their 2021 PU:

Energy Squeezed Through the Whole System

https://www-jsae-or-jp.translate.goog/e ... r_pto=wapp

And this SAE paper from Oxford Brooks Univ. :

Energy Optimal Control for Formula One Race Car

https://www.sae.org/publications/techni ... 2-01-1043/

Formula One (F1) is considered to be the forefront of innovation for the automotive and motorsport industry. One of the key provisions has been towards the inclusion of the Energy Recovery System (ERS) since 2014 in F1 regulations. ERS comprises Motor Generator Unit-Heat (MGU-H), Motor Generator Unit-Kinetic (MGU-K) and an Energy Storage (ES). This has not only converted the conventional powertrain into a hybrid power-split device, but also imposed constraints on the fuel energy available, energy recovered and deployed by MGU-K, and charge stored in ES, along with various other parameters. Although the objective for a F1 race is to minimize lap-time, it is obvious that there is no unique control path or decision to meet this objective. This builds up needs to optimally control the power-split and energy of the system.
In this study, we propose an energy optimal control strategy for a F1 car by constructing a detailed force-balanced mathematical model of the F1 powertrain, identifying state-space variables, as well as regulated constraints and weighted-cost functions and then solving for minimizing cost function based on model-based optimization inside GT-Suite© using Discrete Optimization and Genetic Algorithm. The obtained optimal trajectory is compared to the global optimum obtained by Dynamic Programming. Finally, the results are validated over in our high-fidelity GT-Drive based F1 powertrain simulator and also compared against conventional rule-based controls for added advantage to race performance and energy minimization. The result is the optimal strategy that results in minimal energy consumption for the provided speed trajectory over a single lap.

This isn’t true:

This resulted in a fixed relationship between accelerator pedal travel (driver torque demand) and ICE throttles position while the car is on the move on track. What the driver is permitted to call upon with the press to pass/defend button is electrical power added to that of the power unit crankshaft at the time of call, and this called-up added power have no bearing on ICE throttle position relationship with accelerator pedal travel.

What are you basing this on?

[saviour stivala]

I am basing this, MY OPINION, on what is going on at present in FORMULA ONE, actually have been going on since at least the last "ONLY ONE ENGINE MODE FOR A RACE WEEKEND TD". What is possible, what was or used to be done, and what goes on outside of FORMULA ONE, like road cars and superbikes, although I keep myself up-to-date with, does not influence my opinion of how things are done in formula one nowadays.

[gruntguru]

Unfortunately YOUR OPINION would mean that all teams are contravening the technical regulations so not worth sharing here.

[vorticism]

With wide sidepods in use again, they could tweak this formula. Permit two MGUH. Essentially a TT setup, one per bank. Lower mass center, short 3-1 exhaust collectors. Also permit sidepod snorkel intakes like 80s F1, twin exhaust. This could segue well into the next formula without MGUH; without MGUH you have to wonder why they'd continue with cold vee single turbo and it's long exhaust runs and compromised transmission bellhousing location.

[gruntguru]

Certainly the current formula is better served by a single turbo. The larger turbo has higher efficiencies for both compressor and turbine and as we know - efficiency = power under a fuel-flow restricted formula. The MGUH nullifies any response advantage normally associated with twins.

And then twins will be heavier than a single of the same flow capacity so the new formula will probably also be better off with a large single. Higher efficiency/power and turbo-lag filled using the high-output MGUK.