2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[langwadt]

5.2.4 The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the exhaust turbine of a pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.
The rotational speed of the MGU-H may not exceed 125,000rpm.

that means that mgu-H/turbo rev ratio must be fixed but can be different from 1:1 ?

Yes.

So the turbo rpm are limited just by the gear they select to use and from the mgu-h 125.000 rpm

Do you think they will run the turbo around the 120.000 rpm or faster ? (i have read of turbo spinning at 280.000 rpm)

I would assume making the compressor/turbine work its best at ~100k is easier than trying to make a gear that
works at 100krpm and can handle 100kW

[Blackout]

I think Remi Taffin from Renault, in his ITW with Ted Kravitz, said they run the Turbo a bit lower than 125000.
2 parts AFAIR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9_j5bkCRU4

[.poz]

I wonder if the electronic (not the MCU) is standardized or if the teams can develop their own charger/converter. And also if the battery must be as one big batter or if they can have two batteries.
Because with one battery you can or charge the battery or discharge not both. However if you have two of them, you can use one for charging and the second one for discharging or vice versa or you can charge bot of them or discharge both of them in parallel.

i don't see the utility of charging one battery while discharging the other: you are just trowing in the trash some of your precious 33s/lap of ES use.

[hollus]

I am pasting this here yet again, hopefully for the last time (someone copy it in the team thread, I don't bother going there).
Tobi made a realy naughty misinformation exercise, and seems to not understand german when it is not in his interest. The engineer never said that their engine makes 700HP.

You guys seen this?

Tobias Grüner F1 ‏@tgruener 6m

Mercedes engine chief Andy Cowell admitted the turbo engines are able to deliver around 700 hp - without ERS. AMuS: http://ams.to/hS

So with the ERS that'll deliver 860hp. That's pretty incredible and could mean the 100hp more rumour flying about could be true...especially since Renault's Rob White admitted that they were getting around 600hp from the ICE unit alone.

Sorry, that's not what i get from this article. The first question is:

"AMUS: Wie stark ist der Verbrennungsmotor, wenn Sie in der Qualifikation volle Power erlauben?
How much power does the ICE have when run at maximum power during qualifying?

Cowell: Keiner wird eine genaue Zahl rausrücken. Alles dreht sich um thermische Effizienz. Der alte V8 war zu 30 Prozent thermisch effizient. Wir wollen auf 40 Prozent mit den neuen Motoren kommen.
No team will publish exact figures, but thermal efficiency is king. The old V8 had an efficiency of 30%, we want to reach 40% with the new engines.

AMUS: Lassen Sie uns folgende Rechnung wagen: Vor 30 Jahren gab es aus 1,5 Liter Hubraum bei fünf bar und 200 Kilogramm Sprit pro Stunde Spitzenleistungen von bis zu 1.400 PS. Da müssten bei halb so viel Benzin pro Stunde ohne den Beitrag des Elektromotors doch 700 PS drin sein?
Let's do the following calculation/estimation: 30 years ago with 1,5l displacement, at 5bar turbo pressure and 200kg/h fuel you could achieve peak powers of 1400hp. With half the fuel flow allowed in 2014 the ICE alone should make 700hp?

Cowell: Korrekt. So kann man rechnen.
Yes, that's how you can calculate/estimate."

For me the first question/answer tells much more than the second, as an efficiency target of 40% and 100kg/h fuel translates to

100kg*42MJ/kg/3600s * 40% = 467kW or 634hp

as an upper limit, assumed they do not use fuel with an energy content of 46MJ/kg or more. The second question sounds like a leading question to me. I wouldn't take this as a sign that Mercedes achieves 700hp from the ICE without the MGUH and MGUK.

Even if 1400HP from 200Kg/h was correct, that's taking the peak figure from the time, when the cars were not really fuel limited and it made sense to design for the peak, and comparing it to the now really fuel limited and hence average-ish figure from 2014. Back then you could get more fuel in if the machanical parts could withstand it. Now the rules, not materials, impose a hard (flow) and a soft (amount) limit.
It is also comparing a figure from an engine likely made to last 10Km with the current engines forced to last for about 2000Km.
German media feeding the German rumor about the German engines at its prime.

[mkable1370]

Renaults press release for their engine pretty much stated they will be able to directly drive the MGUK from the MGUH or send the energy to the ES. I don't think this is anything special that only Ferrari is doing.

Remember, just because the regulations allow it and the engine manufacturers say that their engine (PU -sorry) will do that does not mean that one unit will do it equally as well as the other. From the sound of all the Renault issues at Jerez, it seems as if Ferrari and Mercedes have proved to be somewhat better among equals..

[Mr.G]

I wonder if the electronic (not the MCU) is standardized or if the teams can develop their own charger/converter. And also if the battery must be as one big batter or if they can have two batteries.
Because with one battery you can or charge the battery or discharge not both. However if you have two of them, you can use one for charging and the second one for discharging or vice versa or you can charge bot of them or discharge both of them in parallel.

i don't see the utility of charging one battery while discharging the other: you are just trowing in the trash some of your precious 33s/lap of ES use.

You are breaking (charging ES through MGU-K) and you want to cut fuel but keep spinning the turbo with MGU-H (discharging ES), you can't do this.
Well, on some point you can but MGU-K need to generate a lot of energy and even so it will be counted into the MGU-K limit. It will be much easier with two batteries with some clever parallel / independent switch electronic.

[.poz]

and you want to cut fuel but keep spinning the turbo with MGU-H (discharging ES), you can't do this.
Well, on some point you can but MGU-K need to generate a lot of energy and even so it will be counted into the MGU-K limit. It will be much easier with two batteries with some clever parallel / independent switch electronic.

as you can see in the picture some posts above you can exchange power from mgu-k and mgu-h and vice-versa directly without any limitation

[Juzh]

The renault guy confirmed they can do both at the same time. Charge and release energy.

[Mr.G]

and you want to cut fuel but keep spinning the turbo with MGU-H (discharging ES), you can't do this.
Well, on some point you can but MGU-K need to generate a lot of energy and even so it will be counted into the MGU-K limit. It will be much easier with two batteries with some clever parallel / independent switch electronic.

as you can see in the picture some posts above you can exchange power from mgu-k and mgu-h and vice-versa directly without any limitation

Yes you can but as I write before you must:
- brake hard enough to be able spin MGU-H and still harvesting something into the ES
- and there is still limitation for max 120kW from MGU-K

Or may be it is just stupid idea of mine.

[321apex]

Some thoughts on the subject of MGU-H:

- MGU-H is intended to "load up" the spinning turbo, resulting in the choking effect upon the exhaust gases (there is no wastegate)
- all is fine until the exhaust backpressure starts to exceed the inlet manifold pressure at which point internal EGR takes place which usually reduces pumping losses (good for fuel efficiency) as well as power (bad for performance)
- high revving racing engines utilize a lot of valve angle overlap, often well over 100 deg crank angle, at which point internal EGR will become a real issue
- the internal EGR phenomena is not desirable in a racing engine which is designed to harness maximum resonant tuning effects of inlet/exhaust cylinder gas scavenging
- it should not be excluded, that the iEGR effect may/will become a design parameter of this new system
- in my view, this exhaust backpressure will be the limiting factor of how much electrical power the MGU-H will be able to deliver
- gearing down from turbo speed will allow some design freedom to balance out it's power capacity and low inertia

[henra]

Let's do the following calculation/estimation: 30 years ago with 1,5l displacement, at 5bar turbo pressure and 200kg/h fuel you could achieve peak powers of 1400hp. With half the fuel flow allowed in 2014 the ICE alone should make 700hp?

This conclusion would only be valid if the old Turbo cars actually had a technical restriction of the fuel flow of exactly 200kg/h.
I'm not aware of such a device back then. I don't know how he comes to this conclusion.
Therefore deriving that with half the fuel flow you can achieve half the HP is moot, since the actual max fuel flow of the 80's Turbo cars is not known exactly. Could have been easily 250kg/h or more especially in Quali.

For me the first question/answer tells much more than the second, as an efficiency target of 40% and 100kg/h fuel translates to

100kg*42MJ/kg/3600s * 40% = 467kW or 634hp

as an upper limit,

=D>
That's really a much more correct approach to come to a realistic figure.

[Tommy Cookers]

EGR (ie dilution) is beneficial in road use, to reduce losses from the throttling that is used for partial power operation
modern F1 is largely unthrottled even at partial powers, and otherwise WOT or 'off throttle', so EGR seems undesirable

2014 F1 can benefit from backpressure running without exhaust recirculation occuring as a side effect of the BP
appropriate timing of exhaust valve closure will isolate the cylinder contents from unwanted EGR with backpressure

in principle backpressure is helpful in an fuel-efficiency ruled engine
if /when the fuel allowance is reduced backpressure will surely be increased
the limit on increased recovery from increased backpressure comes when it starts to force a reduction in CR, or in reliability

research in the 1940s showed efficiency gains from various backpressures was related to the timing of EV closure
combined power remained broadly constant, but crankshaft power was reduced and recovery turbine power correspondingly increased
for this constant power, fuel consumption fell most with higher BP eg 0.25 bar BP and relatively early EV closure
BP causes exhaust blowdown pressure (the turbine-useable part of the energy) to be better conserved than exhaust to near-ambient

[ozzimark]

Some thoughts on the subject of MGU-H:

- MGU-H is intended to "load up" the spinning turbo, resulting in the choking effect upon the exhaust gases (there is no wastegate)
- all is fine until the exhaust backpressure starts to exceed the inlet manifold pressure at which point internal EGR takes place which usually reduces pumping losses (good for fuel efficiency) as well as power (bad for performance)
- high revving racing engines utilize a lot of valve angle overlap, often well over 100 deg crank angle, at which point internal EGR will become a real issue
- the internal EGR phenomena is not desirable in a racing engine which is designed to harness maximum resonant tuning effects of inlet/exhaust cylinder gas scavenging
- it should not be excluded, that the iEGR effect may/will become a design parameter of this new system
- in my view, this exhaust backpressure will be the limiting factor of how much electrical power the MGU-H will be able to deliver
- gearing down from turbo speed will allow some design freedom to balance out it's power capacity and low inertia

I believe a change of thinking has occurred within the engine development teams. Normally racing engines have really aggressive cams because they're trying to squeeze every last gram of air into the cylinders. This is no longer the case!

Internal EGR only reduces power in a traditional ICE setup because the power is effectively constrained by how much oxygen is in the cylinders.

With the fuel flow limit and a turbocharger, it's quite easy to get the required oxygen mass to match the limited fuel mass without employing the traditional aggressive cam profiles. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the intake valves are nearly the same size or smaller than the exhaust valves.

The cam timing will most definitely be optimized for the high levels of exhaust backpressure that will be seen during normal operation. Efficiency is king; with a limited amount of energy flowing through the fuel injectors, better efficiency means more power to the ground.

[321apex]

.... the controlled turbo/recovery turbine having anyway largely eliminated pumping losses

That makes no sense!
Besides, you seem to cut and paste loosely gathered bits of information that doesn't present your argument very well. Can you give it another try?

When you move gases in and out of a cylinder, you have to deal with pumping losses - regardless of whether it's TURBO or ATMO. Pumping isn't free. Turbo gives you displacement augmentation, or artificial cubic inches, but you must still pay to pump the stuff in and out.

[beelsebob]

Let's do the following calculation/estimation: 30 years ago with 1,5l displacement, at 5bar turbo pressure and 200kg/h fuel you could achieve peak powers of 1400hp. With half the fuel flow allowed in 2014 the ICE alone should make 700hp?

This conclusion would only be valid if the old Turbo cars actually had a technical restriction of the fuel flow of exactly 200kg/h.
I'm not aware of such a device back then. I don't know how he comes to this conclusion.
Therefore deriving that with half the fuel flow you can achieve half the HP is moot, since the actual max fuel flow of the 80's Turbo cars is not known exactly. Could have been easily 250kg/h or more especially in Quali.

For me the first question/answer tells much more than the second, as an efficiency target of 40% and 100kg/h fuel translates to

100kg*42MJ/kg/3600s * 40% = 467kW or 634hp

as an upper limit,

=D>
That's really a much more correct approach to come to a realistic figure.

Except that it appears that the energy density of the fuel is not correct.