2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

Well, we can now look through this thread and make some conclusions:

Direct Injection can support a 12,000rpm engine.

The engine limit of 10,000 was seen as too low an engine speed. The FIA were probably considering the sound as well.

5 engines a year, is pretty much an easy accomplishment. Something tells me teams will have all 5 in pretty good condition when the year ends.

The boost pressure wont be 2bar or 2.5, it simply will be variable and at any pressure that agrees with the 12,000rpm limit and the fuel flow limit of 27.8 g/s.

This variability of boost pressure is quite interesting. We may see teams reduing their redline and adjusting the boost mapping to make the full power at say 9000 rpm on tracks like monaco or singapore. Whatever torque characteristics they think are suitable.

I have a feeling we might be in for a very interesting turbo charger system technology war...

Turbos are exciting, the engines may be weak, but the potential loopholes adds to the racing.

[ringo]

I think this might be the new sound of Formula 1 in 2013. The BMW M12 in this video is a 1.5 litre 4 cylinder turbo, reaches 9500rpm, around 400bhp. So, if anything, a less powerful version of what we may see.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIo-aRFg6XE[/youtube]

You can't say it doesn't sound incredible when he floors it at 00:36. I think that this will sound a LOT better on TV than the 'whining' engines that we have today It might not sound quite as amazing in real life, but F1 is a TV sport anyway - I bet that we all watch 95%+ of the races collapsed on the sofa

Sounds terrible to me, for a formula car. Wouldn't sound bad in a street car at all, but Formula 1 engines are supposed to "sing" sweetly.

[ringo]

Would you say that this engine lacked "shock and awe"?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNDrUIWp09g[/youtube]

It is only a 1.5 litre turbo, after all ...

But at what power? The power is very important. If this is qualifying he may be at 1000hp.
If we may only run with 5/8 of that in 2013, it wont sound as good. And good is relative as you say.

[alelanza]

Strange that the press release doesn't mention forced induction, are we supposed to assume that falls under the 'extensive energy management' item?

[autogyro]

http://electrovelocity.com/2010/12/10/b ... -roadster/

This has got a sound generator to produce vehicle noise.
Why not one in F1 cars to enhance the KERS operating.
Turbo plus 'warp engine?' that would sound awesome.

[WhiteBlue]

Strange that the press release doesn't mention forced induction, are we supposed to assume that falls under the 'extensive energy management' item?

An 1.6L 12,000 rpm NA engine would not deliver 650 hp. So the turbo is kind of self evident. What I hate is this ambiguity regarding the other technical details. Thank god for having Craig Scarborough in the loop and giving us some insight last week. I'm kind of impressed by the 12,000 rpm/500 bar figure they have committed to. The boys at Bosch must be fairly busy with those injectors. We are now talking 313 nanoseconds injection time for those spray guided injectors. And going from 200 bar rails to 500 bar is no small feat either. Do we know any other company that might be working on such a project?

[twoshots]

Now we just have to wait for the technical regs. Then we find out what KERS energy can be used to drive, if variable valve timing came through the wrangling and if anything is explicitly banned. Fun stuff.

[ringo]

You have little faith in your german compatriots whit blue. The BOSCH technology was there to begin with. It just hasn't been fully exploited up to now.
The 500 bar pressure is surprising for me though, to be honest.

I don't know much about DI, but i would think the capability is there for other companies. After all their injection systems are based on the same piezo electric principles.

Anyway, 12,000 rpm with 27.8 g/s is about a boost pressure of 1.2 bar gauge. Pretty low boost setup.
If a team plays around with the compressor characteristics they can make maximum power at much lower speeds with max fuel flow, increasing the torque.



This a little chart i made. It should not be confused with a dyno plot.
It's a plot of the possible engine characteristics of where maximum power of 585hp can be produced.
This is maxed out fuel consumption of 27.8 g/s and stoichometric air to fuel.

For instance a team may chose to limit the engine speed at 10,000rpm instead; choosing a turbine and compressor wheel accordingly that will allow them to get maximum power of 585hp at that speed.
This means more air mass (pressure to be increased) would be required to compensate for the reduced volumetric flow of air.
The lower speed and increased pressure also bodes well for increasing the maximum torque.
Theoretically as the power is held constant, the torque should increase with decreasing engine speed. Though realistically the engine wont spin at 2000rpm and make maximum power, the compressor and turbines don't work that way.

I am not sure of what benefits or disadvantages are there with purposely lowering the engine speed range and increasing the boost to increase torque. It could work well at tracks like monaco. But i have a feeling the heat rates would be very high.
Since this chart doesn't take into account the ability of the inter coolers to cool the increasingly hot air to the required intake temperature, much less the ability of the cooling water to drive of the heat from denser more thermally conductive air charge, moving at a slower speed, increasing heat rates, in the cylinders.

[ringo]

R&D costs will skyrocket. The engine departments will have a lot of work to do; there are too many variables, counting KERS as well.
There are at least 1 million ways to set the engine alone; then fuel saving part comes in.

Do they use Actively variable Turbo chargers?
I'm not just talking about variable vane turbines, i mean like variable or multiple compressor wheels.

Should the gearoxes and engine parts be desinged to take the lower torque at 12,000rpm?
Or over design them in the case maximum power should be made at 8,500 rpm?
This should have an influence on how heavy an engine or gearbox is. A team can take the risk to only make the gear box and driveshafts withstand 346Nm at 12,000, having a much lighter and responsive car, completely ignoring the fact chances are a track may require a characteristic of higher torque and different gearing.

It's too much to think about.

[PlatinumZealot]

See whiteblue.. the calculations we did on the max rpm of DI applications earlier in the thread was a good indication. Looks like 12,000 rpm is really possible.

[WhiteBlue]

See whiteblue.. the calculations we did on the max rpm of DI applications earlier in the thread was a good indication. Looks like 12,000 rpm is really possible.

I'm not sure that 500 bar systems will be shortly available. Perhaps they have simply set themselves a limit which they may later want to exploit.

I could imagine a 10,000 rpm solution with existing injectors and a standardized turbo charger for 2013. The boost would be relatively high because exhaust gas energy would be mainly used for the compressor.

Then in 2014 they intend to kick off the competitive turbo systems. Now you would probably want to go to higher rpms to use less turbine power for the compressor and use the residual potential for the compounding. Just one potential strategy to focus the projects on the core engine and later on the turbo solutions.

[hecti]

Compared to a 3 liter v10 revving to 20,000, yes I would say it does.

Wow, i miss the 3l v10's so much!!!! i wet my pants when ever i here one

[tok-tokkie]

There was discussion about how to cap the cost of engine development two pages ago. MotoGP is currently in bigger trouble than F1. They are bringing in new rules which will allow two classes of similar engines to compete. Expensive factory GP engines and cheaper production-engine based engines. The cheaper engines are allowed 24 litres for the race compared to 21 litres for the factory engines. Only 6 factory engines per season per rider as against 12 for the cheaper engines. What is very interesting is how they are going to limit the money that is spent on the cheaper engines.

The cheaper engines are called Claiming Rule engines. This is the interesting bit where the cost limitation comes in. This quote comes from: http://motomatters.com/analysis/2010/11 ... he_ru.html but was omitted from the main article and is to be found in the first discussion post after it.

What we know so far is that one Claiming Rule Team will be allowed to purchase the engine of another Claiming Rule Team, for a price that is expected to be between 50,000 and 75,000 Euros. The exact conditions of purchase, and the effect that buying an engine off a team will have on the engine allocation is still completely unknown. These details are expected to be decided early next year.

I wrote an analysis of the proposed claiming rule in July last year, if you are interested in the many risks involved in a claiming rule. When I asked Herve Poncharal about this, I was assured that the Grand Prix Commission does not expect anyone to actually claim an engine. The threat is merely there as a sword of Damocles, to keep everybody honest

If you go to the analysis link it is pretty interesting what trickery is possible but, as Poncharal says, it is not anticipated that any claiming will actually be made.

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

Beginning of rant (disregard if your not in the mood for rants):
Just give the engine manufactures a set amount of fuel to finish the race and let them design what ever they want in order to finish! The diversity of engine types would add so much to f1. Why does everything have to be so political, revolve around "greenness" and be restricted by money.

Enough said, really. This with a maximum construction and sale cost, if there is really a need to make the poor billionaires save a couple of bucks, would be great and possibly much more efficient fuel wise. Political correctness is necessary, but making a performance oriented sport look like it's a cost-benefit and diplomatic agreement competition is a huge turn down and also a lie.

But at least the agreed formula seems good and much more interesting for development and competition than the current charity competition locked V8s. I just hope they won't do the same freezing with it.

About the cost measures Cosworth talked about, WB, don't be too excited. It just seems wishful thinking out of them. Sure some stuff will be limited, but as far as was released there's nothing saying it will be anything near the current situation. They should invest what is necessary and make a good engine, then. There's no baby-sitting rules to keep their 5 year old design competitive now and talking about F1 it never should have. They had no problem dominating F1 during decades and they should have no problem making a competitive engine or accepting others might want to instead of just providing nearly standard engines to make they look less worse. What the hell happened to them?

[Tamburello]

Well there we have it. Enjoy the noise for the next two years kids, after that it's all honking and whooshing.

I hope they are lovable. As much as many forumers hate to hear it, the noise is part of the appeal to many of us.

The end of an era is at hand.

Let your mind be at ease as a race engine revving at 12000 rpm is still going to be noisy as hell.