2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

the Galmer G92 used a setup like this to win in Indy .I´m not quite sure if it is this car .
As this used a Chevy engine and we see a Cosworth below ...this hints at others using similar packaging .

wish i could find more pics.

edit:
lotus 910 espirt turbo 4 cyl. year: 1983

[xpensive]

Do we know anything for sure on how the fuel-limitation will work out, volumeflow-control, massflow control, tank-size?

[autogyro]

The compressor drive motor idea's a pretty good one, but it requires electrical energy, for such a small rev range, with maybe a difference of milli seconds in boost response difference. I think it would be better to have the simple turbine compressor relationship.
The motor inbetween them, i would just use that to generate power to power the wheels.
Putting the power back into the compressor makes sense off boost, but it will still take considerable power to spool the compressor unless the compressor is in a vacuum. If the compressor is in a vacuum so it can speed up with minimal power, then no boost for the engine since no compressed air is flowing.
So it's back at square 1, the turbine is the best accelerator for the loaded compressor.
If the motor can't accelerate the loaded compressor faster than the turbine it makes no sense. It has to be able to do that for it to be viable.
If it can assist the turbine, instead of work independently, then all the better.

The compressor would not have to spool up ringo, it would always be at high rpm, thats the point.

[747heavy]

what car is this? =D>

Sorry Ringo don`t know for sure, but I was under the impression (maybe wrongly) that it was the standard layout during the time when Cosworth was the sole engine supplier towards the end of the Champcar era. (that would make it a Panoz chassis)
I don´t know who was the first one to use it.

Other interpretations of the concept:

Panoz Champcar with Cosworth engine


Ferrari Indycar concept



on another note:
carbon housing of the compressor turbine in the BMW F1 turbo:

[ringo]

@ Autogyro

But why power a compressor with less efficient energy, when that electric power can do something more effective?

this is the conversion:

80%turbine--> 80%generator---> 94%inverter---> ??%battery---> 80%generator ---> 76%compressor.

total efficiency 0.36% excluding the battery.

While all it takes is this:

80%turbine--->76% compressor, with variable vane turbine.

2 times more efficient! 0.608% and simpler lighter.


Lets say that the engine is at full rev, the turbine providing all the power the compressor needs.
Now the engine goes off throttle and the turbine power reduces by 50%. The generator will have to deliver that power at 100,000 rpm to maintain the previous state.

It's not a free lunch.
If the compressor needs 100 hp to deliver a certain boost and cfm, it wont matter if it's a turbine or generator providing the power. the compressor requires it.

If a compressor requires 100hp, that has to be provided by the turbine and or generator. If the turbine lets up and generator has to compensate for 30hp or even as much as much as 90.
Your taking 90hp that could be used for something more direct with less, more efficient, conversion steps.

plus, with the limited fuel flow, all that excess air at lower engine speed will be for naught.
I would agree with speeding it back up, but i wouldn't waste power maintaining boost that wont be used when the throttle is closed, and is excessive for the fuel limits.

I think we are going off topic. This is a good discussion for the turbo expert thread.

[PlatinumZealot]

It will already have some level of spool. Even at low rpms when the gas velocity is not high enough, you turn on your motor to give it some kick. You don't need to give it spool when it needs 100hp. By that time the turbo is already spooling it.

And the concept is already proven. All it does is add energy to what the turbine is giving it.

I think it was porsche, maybe audi or some truck company who have a design like it (with the intermediate shaft of the turbo being a motor).

This is an industrial one with a generator on the outside. (mitsubishi).




The patented one. this is an electric machine so it can be motor or generator. which is in between.



Another one;

[ringo]

That generator doesn't power the compressor, it powers the batteries.
I agreed that it does not need to spool, when at full power, but any other time it is off boost, the energy has to be coupled with the turbine's.
Whichever way you look at it, it's not free. And how fast does a low boost turbo spool nowadays? Why the extra effort just for a millisecond's worth of difference.

That power is better of driving the wheels for added acceleration, instead of going through the engine again to give that same acceleration; which would be limited by the fuel flow anyway.
Powering the wheels directly is not limited by fuel flow.

[mpower]

with turbo's, all the energy from an exhaust gas turbine does not come for free............ it creates exhaust gas back pressure, which reduces engine power.
Also generating electr. power from an engine, in order to use it somewhere else.

Done quite some turbo work from early 80's saloon race/rally cars (gr.A /dtm...) till modern day VGT/VTG, sequential turbo competition engines matching...........mapping etc.

For F1... it would be nicer if the regulation left something open for innovation..
1.6 blown engine (turbo superch whatever....just leaf out the chemicals NO2/alky/nitro/tolu)..
FIA wil not boost limit the engines.........but just put an air restrictor in the turbo inlet
actually lost my fait in FIA/F1 after the f1 turbo era

[mpower]

racing should be about so much fuel for so many circuit rounds.... by class engine/vehicle/suspension/efficiency..airo............and the real world 1.6 Euro/ltr


downsizing......someth the US forgot

there are many....many.... other means of "blowing" the engine
http://www.swissauto.com/swissauto-webs ... 2000H5.pdf

[riff_raff]

747heavy,

One thing you should note about that BMW I4 turbo picture, is the location of a throttle body both ahead of the turbo compressor and downstream of it. The throttle ahead of the compressor always closed slightly more than the ones downstream (on the intake runners), in order to create a slight vacuum at the compressor and keep it spinning at high speed.

If you want to use the turbo compressor as part of a KERS system, a better approach (from a throttle response standpoint) would be a hydraulic assist turbo. Hydraulic assist turbos, using a pelton wheel on the turbo shaft, can deliver more energy, more rapidly, to the turbo system than a (much heavier, higher inertia) electric compound device.

http://www.devileye.net/catalog/infusio ... ystem.html

riff_raff

[bill shoe]

Hi, I've been gone a while. Good discussion here. Ringo kind of hit on this point without quite hitting on it--

If fuel flow limits power then the engine becomes approximately a constant power device across its RPM range. In this manner you could use a single gear ratio for most tracks and still achieve perfectly optimized acceleration at any speed.

By functional standards of engineering and cost efficiency this is an ideal solution. Unfortunately, I think the world has come to identify gear changes as being intrinsic to high performance cars. Therefore I assume there will be some as-yet-unannounced rule that will prevent the engines from being constant power devices in order to continue the sound of shifting. The most obvious such rule would limit fuel flow as a linear function of rpm. This means all engines would be regulated to a similar peak power at 12000 rpm and a similar flat torque curve below that.

Half step back to explain. I assume in the absence of fuel flow restriction that modern engine technology could produce 1800 hp from the 2013 regs. Fuel flow restriction will limit power (as others have calculated) to around 600 hp. This is 1/3 of my assumed maximum. Therefore an engine with fuel flow restricted to an absolute value (not proportional to engine speed) could produce peak power from around 1/3 of the rev range (4000 rpm) to the redline (12000 rpm). If top speed at a track was 300 kph and min speed was 100 kph then you would never need to shift. Fine tune the final drive ratio and go racing!!

[Formula None]

racing should be about so much fuel for so many circuit rounds.... by class engine/vehicle/suspension/efficiency..airo............and the real world 1.6 Euro/ltr


downsizing......someth the US forgot

there are many....many.... other means of "blowing" the engine
http://www.swissauto.com/swissauto-webs ... 2000H5.pdf

I have no idea what the first part of your post is about, but yes, a pressure wave supercharger is not explicitely outlawed yet. According to Wikipedia Ferrari tried installing one on the 126C. I'd love to hear about any other turbo alternatives anyone knows of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_126_C

[machin]

That power is better of driving the wheels for added acceleration, instead of going through the engine again to give that same acceleration

I think Auto's idea was to use the KERS for added downforce in the braking zone (by utilising the compressor to draw air from under the car), rather than to add power to the engine...

Its an interesting idea.... but how much air goes under the car? The compressor flow might be such a tiny amount that it doesn't add much downforce...???

[Formula None]

That, and I doubt FIA's game for another fan car.

[WhiteBlue]

If you want to use the turbo compressor as part of a KERS system, a better approach (from a throttle response standpoint) would be a hydraulic assist turbo. Hydraulic assist turbos, using a pelton wheel on the turbo shaft, can deliver more energy, more rapidly, to the turbo system than a (much heavier, higher inertia) electric compound device.

Good point riff_raff. Hydraulics have a much greater energy density than pneumatics or electro magnets, but hat comes with other disadvantages. Hydraulics are awfully inefficient when it comes to transmitting power in rotational devices. Machine tool manufacturers have known that a long time ago. That is why they have switched to heavy electric servo motors a long time ago. The advantage of fluid cooled electric induction controlled motors is the ease you can control the motion with unmatched precision. The inertia is not such a big deal when you optimize the design of the motor.