2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

Yeah. It certainly isn't as simple as saying "if we use a bigger turbine we will go faster than the other teams". Every PU builder will have selected a turbine that is exactly the right size for their requirements. If MB are recovering more exhaust energy than the other teams, it is via clever design of the entire ICE/turbine combination. Furthermore, the less exhaust energy a team recovers, the more of it they will be sending direct to the MGUK - they simply can't afford to send much to the ES.

[djos]

Oh agreed, the larger turbine is merely one factor in a well designed system.

[ringo]

Do we have any images of the turbines?

[TinoBoost]

Just wanted to drop 2 cents regarding the larger turbo could be inertia.

In another thread, I commented that higher inertia may dampen turbo spins, and controllability of the MGU-H. Maybe higher inertia lets them make better use of that sub-system.

Larger turbines have usually higher efficiency as well.

[gruntguru]

Interesting paper describes a technique allowing stable combustion up to lambda 2.0.
http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-0664/

[Brian Coat]

Interesting paper describes a technique allowing stable combustion up to lambda 2.0.
http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-0664/

Yes, it is Interesting.

Even if we sidestep the lamba debate, the CR/knock benefits are of interest.

There's a big IF ... IF you can get it to run well at F1 2014 BMEP and RPM (and legally, of course).

I'm not saying you can't but the data is not available to us.

[☠ Purple Possum ☠]

Hey all,

I hope that I don't disrupt your discussion to much but as a Newbie I'm afraid to open yet another thread just for this. For a long time I've read along and really appreciate the quality of information here. Nevertheless I lose track with the new regs in which combination the teams use their hardware all to often.

Today in Silverstone we witnessed what looked like an engine failure with Pastor Maldonados car after an incident with Gutierrez. Is it possible that the shock and acceleration of the ground impact damaged the engine by loss of lubrication or mechanical stress exceeding design limits?

Can you recommend an article about the failure types in this season and bottle neck for engine life? Breaking piston rods, worn out bearings, auxiliaries like the oil pump?

Are they allowed to change piston rings to counter the abrasive wear of the bore as well as switch seals and belts between races?

[gruntguru]

Interesting paper describes a technique allowing stable combustion up to lambda 2.0.
http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-0664/

Yes, it is Interesting.

Even if we sidestep the lamba debate, the CR/knock benefits are of interest.

Yes they are - 15 octane points according to this paper and the experiments used a stock combustion chamber - not optimised for the "Jet Igniter" http://papers.sae.org/2012-01-1143/

[Tommy Cookers]

BTW if people Google V Ganesan Internal Combustion Engines
.... Googling dissociation should also get this book at the right pages
they should find Fig 3.6 (page 115 in my copy) showing real engine BTE benefits (from leaning) fall far short of fuel-air theory
and Prof Ganesan's statement .... 'the maximum efficiency is within the lean zone very near the stoichiometric ratio'

Thanks for the reference. Couldn't find the figure in the restricted copy I downloaded. Perhaps you could post an image?

the (part) viewable version seems to be edition 3 c 2007-8
in which the appropriate pages are p151 and p152 Fig 4.6

Googling IC Engines Ganesan will probably get this edition directly
(the CO-related page p540 is anyway not viewable)

IIRC we had a link about 6 weeks ago to a Honda paper on burning a homogeneous mixture at lamda 2
all these papers are surely related to pollution-controlled engines that are run 99% of the time at partial power ie road cars ?
though yes this thread has established that leaning means less peak temp then otherwise, so potentially raising HUCR
CR in F1 would not benefit as we have unlimited-Octane fuel and anyway CR is physically limited by valve size and motion needs ?
Edit - fuel-air cycle predictions of the benefits of raising CR are less favourable/optimistic than ASE-based predictions

[gruntguru]

the (part) viewable version seems to be edition 3 c 2007-8
in which the appropriate pages are p151 and p152 Fig 4.6

Not viewable in my download.

Googling IC Engines Ganesan will probably get this edition directly
(the CO-related page p540 is anyway not viewable)

IIRC we had a link about 6 weeks ago to a Honda paper on burning a homogeneous mixture at lamda 2
all these papers are surely related to pollution-controlled engines that are run 99% of the time at partial power ie road cars ?
though yes this thread has established that leaning means less peak temp then otherwise, so potentially raising HUCR
CR in F1 would not benefit as we have unlimited-Octane fuel and anyway CR is physically limited by valve size and motion needs ?

At 2 - 3 bar MAP I doubt the physical CR limit would be in play.

[Dragonfly]

Saw this photo looking at pictures from from a link to AMuS in the testing thread.
German not my language but this seems to be a complete Mercedes engine and gearbox.

Full link
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/bild ... ow_item=12

But it seems to be some other Turbo V6 although the intercooler is at tghe same location. Twin turbo as far as I can see. There's a MGU-K seen also.

[monsi]

Caption says W196. That will be the 1954 MGU-K then

[Dragonfly]

My reading of the German text is that there has been a W196 on display as well as a complete engine.
The one on the photo does not look to me as 1954 technology, but I may be mistaken. I was born a bit later.
Anf the metal box on the side is a battery pack to me.

[supertweet]

My reading of the German text is that there has been a W196 on display as well as a complete engine.
The one on the photo does not look to me as 1954 technology, but I may be mistaken. I was born a bit later.
Anf the metal box on the side is a battery pack to me.

That's a V6, and not a blown straight 8, so definitely agree, not the W196 engine. The pan on the side not a sump, but perhaps fuel tank.

Any German speakers for reading the AMuS caption?

[FW17]

As written in the back it is a road car engine