2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[J.A.W.]

Ta for the 'heads-up' on the F1 ign' restrictions T-C, & glad you found some of the links of interest.
About Wright turbo-compound mills being problematic in service, I've read a number of aircrew memoirs
who relate the fear factor involved with the fickle fettle-hungry machines, both in mil-spec service & airliners.

Funnily enough Gene Roddenberry - creator of Star Trek - was one such to suffer a crash caused by W/T-C engine failure.
& another incident with a Neptune maritime patrol W/T-C failing catastrophically, the pilot was lucky to survive,
but had another fiery incident with one later - as an airline skipper..

Poor old Napier missed out with their Nomad, cruelled as NASA put it by the`50s era of cheap fuel & turbine bent buyers, (yet R-R kept operating their old Griffon V12s in RAF maritime patrol - for decades).
& R-R swallowed up Napier along with the other remnants of British aero-makers - in the `60s, but N still make turbos..
http://www.napier-turbochargers.com

[ringo]

why are we comparing old flintstone engines?
Too many new cars today to compare to:

2014 porsche gt3. direct injected, 9000rpm red line. 475hp. 200 bar fuel pressure.
2014 bmw M3. direct injected turbo charged. etct. etc.

Here is where you get your perspective on these new V6 turbo F1 engines. Anything else is a waste of time.

[wuzak]

why are we comparing old flintstone engines?
Too many new cars today to compare to:

2014 porsche gt3. direct injected, 9000rpm red line. 475hp. 200 bar fuel pressure.
2014 bmw M3. direct injected turbo charged. etct. etc.

Here is where you get your perspective on these new V6 turbo F1 engines. Anything else is a waste of time.

Because they are turbo-compound, like F1's engines are (or can be), whereas the GT3 and M3 are not.

[trinidefender]

why are we comparing old flintstone engines?
Too many new cars today to compare to:

2014 porsche gt3. direct injected, 9000rpm red line. 475hp. 200 bar fuel pressure.
2014 bmw M3. direct injected turbo charged. etct. etc.

Here is where you get your perspective on these new V6 turbo F1 engines. Anything else is a waste of time.

Ringo we aren't ignoring new engines, we are just looking these older designs because as wuzak pointed out they contain similarities to what we have now I.e. The turbo compounding.

Either way you look at it the physics back then and the physics now didn't change so we can still learn a lot from those engines. The designers then weren't idiots ya know.

[J.A.W.]

Indeed, they had plenty of well backed facilities to enable determination of nth degree efficiency achievable,
& notably sans the ludicrous artifice of F1 engine design 'rules'..

[Richard]

By the way, the existing thread for the Honda power unit is here http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ead#unread

[olefud]

why are we comparing old flintstone engines?
Too many new cars today to compare to:

2014 porsche gt3. direct injected, 9000rpm red line. 475hp. 200 bar fuel pressure.
2014 bmw M3. direct injected turbo charged. etct. etc.

Here is where you get your perspective on these new V6 turbo F1 engines. Anything else is a waste of time.

Because they are turbo-compound, like F1's engines are (or can be), whereas the GT3 and M3 are not.

Until recently the1940’s aviation ICEs were the high point of the type design. What they were doing without high temp, low mass materials and with analog control systems is pretty much what is being revisited now in F-1. The technology is not all that germane to varying power, low power duty cycle road engines –except maybe trucks. The new F-1 engines are more analogous to the old ICE aviation duty cycle and fuel efficiency than road engines so that is where the continuity resumes.

[gruntguru]

Another point of difference - particularly when considering AFR is the limitations applied to road cars by exhaust emissions regulations. In particular, the spectrum on the lean side of stoichiometric poses difficulties for control of NOx emissions. Because of this it is irrelevant to compare the AFR at which road cars are being operated.

F1 has no such regulations and a BTE formula as we have at present, will operate at the best BTE AFR which will be somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6.

[ringo]

Turbo compounding is distantly related to the in cylinder conditions. In fact it's relevance to the new engines doesn't warrant the other 95% of the old flintstone engines being used as some kind of rosetta stone for these new units.
It's like saying a turbo compounded rc toy car engine is more similar to the current engines than say a modern turbo charged direct injection high revving sports car. Its just categorically wrong to use the turbo compound feature as a justification for similarity. The new turbo sports car engines in fact would have reaped better matetial for discussion.

In facts its quite funny moden afr discussion and wright tc can be said in the same breath. They have nothing at all to do with each other. Absolutely nothing. A turbo compound is simply a back pressure on the exhaust manifold that assists the crank shaft. That's its only link to combustion properties. Nothing else. I think the discussion needs to be further developed than beating the dead mamoth of the wright tc. Its tech. Bears little or no fruit when it comes to the new engines.

[ringo]

why are we comparing old flintstone engines?
Too many new cars today to compare to:

2014 porsche gt3. direct injected, 9000rpm red line. 475hp. 200 bar fuel pressure.
2014 bmw M3. direct injected turbo charged. etct. etc.

Here is where you get your perspective on these new V6 turbo F1 engines. Anything else is a waste of time.

Because they are turbo-compound, like F1's engines are (or can be), whereas the GT3 and M3 are not.

Until recently the1940’s aviation ICEs were the high point of the type design. What they were doing without high temp, low mass materials and with analog control systems is pretty much what is being revisited now in F-1. The technology is not all that germane to varying power, low power duty cycle road engines –except maybe trucks. The new F-1 engines are more analogous to the old ICE aviation duty cycle and fuel efficiency than road engines so that is where the continuity resumes.

Thats a load of hogwash and i think you know it. Nice try though. Well writen but no cigar.

[J.A.W.]

Ringo.. ..rather than florid adjectives that offer no data, kindly show some understanding in rebuttal..
..such as why you imagine that free turbine/turbo-charged/emissions focussed road cars have more in common with F1..
..than efficiency driven turbo-compound ICE units..

[gruntguru]

Turbo compounding is distantly related to the in cylinder conditions. In fact it's relevance to the new engines doesn't warrant the other 95% of the old flintstone engines being used as some kind of rosetta stone for these new units.
It's like saying a turbo compounded rc toy car engine is more similar to the current engines than say a modern turbo charged direct injection high revving sports car. Its just categorically wrong to use the turbo compound feature as a justification for similarity. The new turbo sports car engines in fact would have reaped better matetial for discussion.

In facts its quite funny moden afr discussion and wright tc can be said in the same breath. They have nothing at all to do with each other. Absolutely nothing. A turbo compound is simply a back pressure on the exhaust manifold that assists the crank shaft. That's its only link to combustion properties. Nothing else. I think the discussion needs to be further developed than beating the dead mamoth of the wright tc. Its tech. Bears little or no fruit when it comes to the new engines.

You are right - there has been a lot of progress. Despite being DI, the Wright TC only operated at Lambda 1.2 for best efficiency. The Bosch Automotive Handbook 1986 shows best efficiency for PI at around 1.2. The latest (8th) edition shows best efficiency for PI at 1.2 to 1.5. (DI engines will show best efficiency at leaner ratios still.) There is clearly progress towards leaner ratios.

Do you still think the F1 engines are running at 0.98?

[J.A.W.]

It is true that the Wright T-C was a bit of a dogs breakfast compromise..
Sure direct injection salved the problematic radial fuel mixture distribution..
.. but large air-cooled cylinders running hard in an oil-weeping, hot pressurised gas leaking set-up ..not an ideal..
& the Nomad/NASA Garrett 2T mills never got a fair go..
..however, the conceptual root remains valid..

[ringo]

I am not discrediting the wtc. But the thread seems to have on blinkers against more similar technology with similar performance similar fuels and similar operating environment.
I am sure there is much to learn from any modern turbo charged performance engine with direct injection. You only have to try and look into it.

[trinidefender]

I am not discrediting the wtc. But the thread seems to have on blinkers against more similar technology with similar performance similar fuels and similar operating environment.
I am sure there is much to learn from any modern turbo charged performance engine with direct injection. You only have to try and look into it.

More random words strung together without even answering a question posed to you. Do you still propose that the current generation F1 engines run at lambda .98?

If you do can you, or anybody here, possibly give a reason why the engine manufacturers would possibly want to run the engines knowingly in a condition that that doesn't burn all the fuel and hence release all the fuels energy?

A lot of evidence as to why the engines probably run on the lean side. Do you or anybody else have any evidence that they run on the rich side? Saying road cars run it doesn't count as it doesn't actually explain anything as to why it is done.