2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[monsi]

Not specifically related, but ... does anyone know why the FIA seems allergic to modern engine technology such as variable valves ? It seems odd that we have all this power unit complexity with two modes of power recovery yet the underlying engine technology is constrained not to use widely implemented techniques.

[Tommy Cookers]

......... But in F1 engines, going from af21 to af30 would require 33% more boost. Would the extra power in the compressor cancel the efficiency gain? ......

if/when in the future the fuel allocation is greatly reduced (given that the capacity cannot be less than 1600 cc)
stratified charge lean running reducing coolant losses by 'insulating' the engine from combustion heat could make sense ?
and lean running should avoid dissociation

btw why is there such high unburnt gas loss ? (in the Honda thing)

[ppj13]

Not specifically related, but ... does anyone know why the FIA seems allergic to modern engine technology such as variable valves ? It seems odd that we have all this power unit complexity with two modes of power recovery yet the underlying engine technology is constrained not to use widely implemented techniques.

Yeah, at least they should allow VVT, proper V angles (some that does not force uneven firing) and a little bit of freedom in the turbine.

It would be good to see what a multistage, variable geometry turbine could do. Probably the MCI would just be a combustion chamber for the "turbo".

Also some weight distribution freedom wouldn't hurt, eh?

[autogyro]

I would like to see how a modern sleeve valve engine with a totally different transmission worked it is not going to happen.
Development and innovation in F1 and even in road vehicles is now controlled by a small minority solely for their benefit.

[Tommy Cookers]

at today's (very high) F1 bore:stroke ratio the sleeve valve engine would have less port area than the poppet valve engine ?
the same disadvantage applies with any kind of cylinder-wall porting, ie the conventional 2 stroke
even with poppet valve area somewhat reduced to allow the ideal CR to be physically realised (as the Simon article suggested)
granted the sleeve valve etc has no tendency to limit CR

VVT is not needed, the exhaust pressure is managed by controlled mgu-h loading to match the fixed (exhaust) valve timing
so isolating the cylinder eg from flow reversion at high exhaust pressure

[autogyro]

="Tommy Cookers"]at today's (very high) F1 bore:stroke ratio the sleeve valve engine would have less port area than the poppet valve engine ?
the same disadvantage applies with any kind of cylinder-wall porting, ie the conventional 2 stroke
even with poppet valve area somewhat reduced to allow the ideal CR to be physically realised (as the Simon article suggested)
granted the sleeve valve etc has no tendency to limit CR

I was thinking more of a through scavenged two stroke with electromagnetically operated sleeves turbocharged with start up blow through scavenge supercharging.
Possibly opposed piston with no cranks or rockers but driving oil pumps feeding the first planetary stage of my ESERU.

Edit: The turbo compressor would be electrically driven at start up and clutched to the shaft linking it to the turbine.
It would form part of a similar system device as the ER-H in F1 today.
The electric shift energy recovery unit would form the ER-K as well as providing a multi ratio stepped gearbox with electro magnetic shifting, (no break in torque transfer and virtually no torque loss).
With no crankshafts or camshafts there would be far lower mechanical losses from the ice.
With control over the pump driving the first gear/engagement sun gear of the eseru, complete control would be possible of torque transfer over the complete operating envelope.
It would also operate as an electro-hydraulic starter motor.
The vehicle would be fully capable of electric only drive or drive as a conventional hybrid or range extended hybrid.
Add a plug in and you have the lot for an F1 car or whatever you like.

Sorry just an idea don't want to disrupt the thread.

[tok-tokkie]

^^^ Talking about sleeve valves and ports in the cylinder. Here are links to yet another novel engine. But what is interesting is it has the open port in the cylinder head!.

An axial engine with 5 cylinders in a ring that rotates slowly against a stationary head with 3 inlet ports, 3 exhaust ports & 3 spark plugs. I don't know how to embed a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c19kn3drdFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AbwCbBdVPg

Two difficulties that I see:
1. How do they seal the cylinders against the cylinder head? It has to contain the full combustion pressure.
2. How do they cool the cylinders? It looks like water cooled in the second vid but it is not obvious how the water gets in & out. An aircraft engine so air cooling could be used but it really does not look like that.

[Foyle]

^^^ Talking about sleeve valves and ports in the cylinder. Here are links to yet another novel engine. But what is interesting is it has the open port in the cylinder head!.

An axial engine with 5 cylinders in a ring that rotates slowly against a stationary head with 3 inlet ports, 3 exhaust ports & 3 spark plugs. I don't know how to embed a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c19kn3drdFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AbwCbBdVPg

Two difficulties that I see:
1. How do they seal the cylinders against the cylinder head? It has to contain the full combustion pressure.
2. How do they cool the cylinders? It looks like water cooled in the second vid but it is not obvious how the water gets in & out. An aircraft engine so air cooling could be used but it really does not look like that.

Have reviewed this engine in past.
1/ Sliding face seals with spring loading and gas pressure loading to keep them pressed against face.
2/ water enters and exits through round shaft at middle.

Z-Cranks are very complex design. Needs spherical joints or similar at each end of conrods and a tricky CV joint to prevent rotation of the spider that rotates on the crankshaft. This one in particular needs a highly loaded reduction gear between cylinders and crank. And almost no advantages. Conventional designs way cheaper/easier, and poppet valves are way more efficient.

In small sizes the modern IC engine is almost unbeatable. For efficiency, longevity, cost and power to weight.

[TinoBoost]

i believe those (lean burn) technologies do apply to this new era F1.

Turbines with MGUH is a mass flow energy producer.
ICE is pressure energy producer.

Burning lean means you can potentially burn all your fuel while putting the same amount of fuel energy, and keeping more air and cooler components (apart from like pistons and cyl walls)

burning lean in an ICE means you still have more air, so you might as well add more fuel, or downsize your engine.

burning lean in a turbine is great, you pass more air, producing more work with less fuel.

In F1, a big part of this turbine work is lost as compressor work. Or is it?

Well its not lost when you consider the ICE.

You have centrifugal compressor, piston compressor, combustion, piston expansion, turbine expansion. Pretty complex, so it might actually be useful to burn lean.

Last, at any non-full throtte setting the teams have really multiple ways to produce the required power. for example, if the driver wants 400hp and the engine at those RPMs can produce 500, they can either produce 400 from the ice, or 500 from the ice and store 100 from either the MGUH or the MGUK or any combination of both :S. Now all the gotta do, is control those three things smoothly as the driver changes his input :S.

So much room for activities

[Tommy Cookers]

all gas turbines induce surplus air because otherwise they would melt (though the US DoD is working on this for the future ?)

2014 cars still have cylinder cutting ? and the new ways of avoiding throttling
WOT even piston engines have combustion so close to complete there's no point in going more than maybe 2% lean
stratified charge tends to centralise heat release, surrounding air insulating against heat loss to coolant
in a conventional engine SC is disadvantageous at WOT because a bigger engine is needed for the same power (as CI engines)
yes SC is in principle less disadvantageous in F1 as much of the extra air pumping work is in principle recoverable (as gas turbines do)
but not with the rules at present ? (this fixed engine capacity etc and 100 kg of superfuel)
IMO

[trinidefender]

all gas turbines induce surplus air because otherwise they would melt (though the US DoD is working on this for the future ?)

2014 cars still have cylinder cutting ? and the new ways of avoiding throttling
WOT even piston engines have combustion so close to complete there's no point in going more than maybe 2% lean
stratified charge tends to centralise heat release, surrounding air insulating against heat loss to coolant
in a conventional engine SC is disadvantageous at WOT because a bigger engine is needed for the same power (as CI engines)
yes SC is in principle less disadvantageous in F1 as much of the extra air pumping work is in principle recoverable (as gas turbines do)
but not with the rules at present ? (this fixed engine capacity etc and 100 kg of superfuel)
IMO

Don't know how gas turbines got pulled into F1 but the primary air that burns with the fuel is between 12% and 18% in a modern aviation gas turbine. The other 82% to 88% secondary is used to stop the combustion chamber from melting (cooling), flame stability and dilution of the exhaust gasses.

[ringo]

Last page seems very off topic...

[Kiril Varbanov]

Not strictly on the tech side, but Renault warns for engine delivery cease shall payments don't come on time - http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/05/09/rena ... y-on-time/

[techF1LES]

Race Engine Technology thoughts on 2014 crankcase design

[Töm87]

Guys there's really one thing i don't undrstand. All the time Red Bull (Marko) are complaining about their lack of 50-80 Hp to Mercedes.
Yet, if this was true how come Torro Rosso can match the Mercedes top speeds and is constantly some 15km/h faster on top speeds than Red Bull.
So is the Renault engine really that inferior?