2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[autogyro]

[...]

[Giblet]

A noise maker is silly and the graphic on the screen will tell us where and when kers is being deployed.

As for sound, an engine with it's intake and exhaust for the most part plugged will notbe nearly as loud.

Also, the cars will no longer need large ram intakes they will impede on drag and frontal area. To me this is neither a good or bad thing, just a thing.

[Byronrhys]

Speculating on the sound of them at this stage to me is stupid, we cant compare the previous turbo era with these one, different technology has come about and who knows what the engineers will do with these new engines, we don't even have that much spec on the engines.

[WhiteBlue]

Also, the cars will no longer need large ram intakes they will impede on drag and frontal area.

That is an interesting aspect I have not thought about. Do you think the air box will become very different?

[Giblet]

I would say non existent. I don't have the capacity to figure it out math wise, but since the air gets sucked in, there is no need for a ram air intake. The TC cars just had a roll hoop.



The air could be sucked from somewhere where a small lower pressure area needed to be. There could also be a TC with a huge impeller and intake, geared to a smaller compressor side with a blow through, allowing a larger volume of air to be 'sucked' from somwhere.

There are definitely holes there for rules to be screwed with. It could all happen under the guise of cooling. Manchilds idea of a sucked rear wing upper surface could be the new fduct, only run from the TC impeller and not the engine.

The air volume might not be enough to bother with, but it'w worth exploring.

[Giblet]

Speculating on the sound of them at this stage to me is stupid, we cant compare the previous turbo era with these one, different technology has come about and who knows what the engineers will do with these new engines, we don't even have that much spec on the engines.

It's not stupid at all, what is stupid is trying to stifle conversation under the guise 'who knows what engineers will do'.

I am stating that TC engines, with intakes isolated from the world will be quieter, if you don't want to discuss it, in the appropriate thread, then don't.

[747heavy]

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

That the rev limit is at 12000 rpm, does not mean that all engines will rev that high.

The same goes for the fuel pressure, 500bar is the upper ceiling, not everybody will use that high a pressure, especially not if the rev´s are not all that high.

If there are no other limitations, (such as a max. boost limit, or another fuel flow limit at low rpm´s) I would be surprised if they let the engines rev this high.

If you can make all the power at 8500 rpm, why would you want to rev to 12000 rpm and take all the friction loses and additional stress on the engine, which comes with it.

I would not be surprised to see the engines rev @ ~8000-9000 rpm max. if there is no other limitation such as the onces mentioned above.

[agip]

I would say non existent. I don't have the capacity to figure it out math wise, but since the air gets sucked in, there is no need for a ram air intake. The TC cars just had a roll hoop.

Do you know why other turbocharged formula like F2 or GP3 use them?
More sponsorhip area maybe?

Formula 2


GP3

[ringo]

I would say non existent. I don't have the capacity to figure it out math wise, but since the air gets sucked in, there is no need for a ram air intake. The TC cars just had a roll hoop.



The air could be sucked from somewhere where a small lower pressure area needed to be. There could also be a TC with a huge impeller and intake, geared to a smaller compressor side with a blow through, allowing a larger volume of air to be 'sucked' from somwhere.

There are definitely holes there for rules to be screwed with. It could all happen under the guise of cooling. Manchilds idea of a sucked rear wing upper surface could be the new fduct, only run from the TC impeller and not the engine.

The air volume might not be enough to bother with, but it'w worth exploring.

They'll have a ram intake. The compressor works best with high velocity's at the orifice. Not having a ram intake would be a missed opportunity and will also drop engine power and responsiveness.


If you make to compressor suck, that means you are giving it work; that takes away from performance.

for instance a compressor with a pressure ratio of 2, will can turn 1 atmosphere to 2 bars.
That is when the car is not moving.
If the car is moving at 30m/s head on, that 1 atm + 30^2/2g x 2.
That's free boost.

[747heavy]

Looking more like F1 maybe ???

One thing, which is worth to consider is, does we have a bi/twin -turbo layout or a mono turbo.

Looking at the R18 (Audi) and compare to the R15+/R10 the coupe (R18) uses a top/roof single air-intake (similar to F1) compared with the two periscope snorchels of the older cars.

Most F1 turbos from the "old area" where bi-turbos with an V-engine (except for the BMW)

[ringo]

The height doesn't really matter, as long as the intake is facing the front, exposed to the free stream and is big enough.
Anything that doesn't affect the flow to the wing I guess.

The height can contribute height x density x gravity to the pressure, but a couple cm wont make much of difference.

I think the "Mickey mouse" ears side intakes can be applied though. Those are low drag.

[Formula None]

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?

Lights on the car could also indicate when KERS and wing are activated. I agree, it would be great for fans at the track to have some indication of when these push-to-pass gimmicks are being used.

Executed properly, yes, the sound generator could be cool, but runs the risk of being very cheesy/gimmicky. Maybe a simple alarm klaxon or car horn type sound would be less foreign/alienating. Either way, it could sound epic with the Doppler effect during flyby, combined with the engine noise.

Also:

The more awkward shape of the I4 for a stressed member, along with the Audi R18 release has me wondering if anyone will attempt to go for a full carbon frame, with tubs joined top/bottom, leaving the engine/transmission unstressed or semi-stressed. The engine weight could be reduced, and you'd be replacing that material with CF in the chassis.

Not sure if there would be any weight savings in the end, but you might benefit in terms of engine reliability if it is more isolated from stresses acting on the chassis. FIA ultimately wants to get down to 4 engines/year, with 5/year spec'd for 2013, IIRC.

[Giblet]

Interesting line of thought Ringo. The impeller being exposed to air will help it spin, but will having a hole and increasing the frontal area of the car impose more drag then it is worth?

It will be interesting to see what the cars look like. Like I had pondered before, I wonder if sucking the air in the right location might be a bigger gain?

Maybe we will see the return of NACA ducts?

[747heavy]

The more awkward shape of the I4 for a stressed member, along with the Audi R18 release has me wondering if anyone will attempt to go for a full carbon frame, with tubs joined top/bottom, leaving the engine/transmission unstressed or semi-stressed. The engine weight could be reduced, and you'd be replacing that material with CF in the chassis.

Not sure if there would be any weight savings in the end, but you might benefit in terms of engine reliability if it is more isolated from stresses acting on the chassis. FIA ultimately wants to get down to 4 engines/year, with 5/year spec'd for 2013, IIRC.

I think that this is a very real possibility, keeping the reduced cross section area of an I4 in mind.
It´s (more) difficult to make a I4 as torsional stiff as, let´s say an V4/V6.
The old BMW F1 turbo engine used a subframe to help spread the loads into the monocoque.
O.K. in this case the chassis, was probably compromised, as it had to take a V8 Cosworth as well, as Brabham switched between the two engines in the early stages of the project.

But I would not be surprised to see a chassis/tub extenting to the sides of the engine, and beeing closed by a rear bulkhead, to achieve good torsional stiffness.

[Formula None]

Presumably the intake should be located in a high pressure leading edge, to reduce pressure drag under throttle. If the roll hoop/blade has to stay, then a thin perimeter slit on its leading face could open into a inner cavity piped to the turbo. No need to make it one big void if it doesn't need to be, the goal being reducing frontal area.

The lips of the radiator inlets could be another option. Or a central duct above the tea tray, right below the driver's legs.

The rearview mirrors could take the most advantage of a leading edge intake IMO, as they have no trailing edge.

Imagine something similar to the cabin cooling ducts on the mirrors of the C7.R:



A large perforated surface through which the turbo ingests air could reduce the thickness of the boundary layer on many different components. For example, over a portion of the engine cover. Ferrari did this on their 599 race car, except on the diffuser (which is probably not a good idea for an engine intake, operating in a low pressure zone):





Realistically, though, I see a return to NACA ducts as Giblet mentioned.

Mods: it might be a good idea to split of the last few posts into another thread titled something like "Effect of 1.6L turbo engine on chassis design and aerodynamics".