2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

interesting read. It is suggesting that kers harvesting from the engine during acceleration is somewhat a kind of traction control.

[gruntguru]

...
As we covered earlier in the thread, 40% efficiency could be as high as 770 Hp, depending on the exact energy content of the fuel.

Pardon my ignorance, but kindly present those calculations again, which "we" have covered?

100kg/hr x 45,000kJ/kg / 3600s/hr x 0.4 x 1.33hp/kW
= 665 hp
770 hp would require fuel energy density of 52,105 kJ/kg which is unlikely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_den ... ensity.svg

[wuzak]

interesting read. It is suggesting that kers harvesting from the engine during acceleration is somewhat a kind of traction control.

That is not what he is suggesting at all.

He is saying that in order to harvest the maximum allowed 2MJ per lap that they will burn fuel to drive the MGUK. In other words, if the driver demands 250kW with his right foot, the computer gets the ICE to make 300kW while harvesting 50kW from the MGUK. (Numbers used as example only.)

The use of the MGUK to act as traction control is illegal.

Burning fuel to harvest is one tactic to charge the ES. The other is "lift and coast". This is something that many fans thought was fuel saving. Evidently the time lost in the lift-coast regime is less than that gained by having the full allowed 2MJ from harvesting.

I took from the article that the energy strategy depends a lot on the circuit. An example he used was Suzuka - where a lot of the ES is used on the straight at the beginning of the lap, then scrambling for energy for the rest.

I didn't quite get what he was talking about "the cliff".

[Moose]

...
As we covered earlier in the thread, 40% efficiency could be as high as 770 Hp, depending on the exact energy content of the fuel.

Pardon my ignorance, but kindly present those calculations again, which "we" have covered?

See:
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 46#p549846
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 18#p549918
and
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 63#p549963

As you can see, if you assume the energy density for gasoline quoted on wikipedia (which is Thomas George's estimate, and one of the lower), then you get to 40% efficiency being 680 horse power.
If you assume the energy density for gasoline as being the upper limit of Arthur Nommensen's estimated range, then you get to 770 horse power.

It's unlikely that 770 horse power is the right answer, but still, you can not assert things like "660 horse power is 40% efficiency" (that would be based of Reid Harrison's estimate, which is the lowest I can find). Instead, 40% efficiency lies somewhere between 660 horse power and 770 horse power. Somewhere around 700 horse power is likely.

[ringo]

interesting read. It is suggesting that kers harvesting from the engine during acceleration is somewhat a kind of traction control.

That is not what he is suggesting at all.

He is saying that in order to harvest the maximum allowed 2MJ per lap that they will burn fuel to drive the MGUK. In other words, if the driver demands 250kW with his right foot, the computer gets the ICE to make 300kW while harvesting 50kW from the MGUK. (Numbers used as example only.)

The use of the MGUK to act as traction control is illegal.

Burning fuel to harvest is one tactic to charge the ES. The other is "lift and coast". This is something that many fans thought was fuel saving. Evidently the time lost in the lift-coast regime is less than that gained by having the full allowed 2MJ from harvesting.

I took from the article that the energy strategy depends a lot on the circuit. An example he used was Suzuka - where a lot of the ES is used on the straight at the beginning of the lap, then scrambling for energy for the rest.

I didn't quite get what he was talking about "the cliff".

I know what he is saying. But sending the extra power to the batteries by loading the engine with KERS is somewhat of a torque limiter. It's not active traction control, but it still can limit wheel spin.

[xpensive]

...
It's unlikely that 770 horse power is the right answer, but still, you can not assert things like "660 horse power is 40% efficiency" (that would be based of Reid Harrison's estimate, which is the lowest I can find). Instead, 40% efficiency lies somewhere between 660 horse power and 770 horse power. Somewhere around 700 horse power is likely.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 46#p549846

You're making things too complicated for yourself, if gasoline holds 44.2 MWs/kg, 0.0278 kg/s means 0.0278 * 44.2 = 1.23 MW input.

40% efficiency gives 1.23 * 0.4 = 0.489 MW, or 492 kW, which means 669 metric Hp.

So what is it now, still 770 Hp, or is "somewhere between 500 and 900 Hp" perhaps the safest bet?

[Moose]

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 46#p549846

You're making things too complicated for yourself, if gasoline holds 44.2 MWs/kg, 0.0278 kg/s means 0.0278 * 44.2 = 1.23 MW input.

40% efficiency gives 1.23 * 0.4 = 0.489 MW, or 492 kW, which means 669 metric Hp.

So what is it now, still 770 Hp, or is "somewhere between 500 and 900 Hp" perhaps the safest bet?

Congratulations on duplicating the calculation I did with yet another different input number, and coming up with another output in the same range as considered above.

You appear this time to have used an energy density close to Reid Harrison's estimate of how much energy is in gasoline.

No, the range does not become "somewhere between 500 and 900 Hp just to be safe", unless you actually find legitimate estimates of the energy density of fuel that cover that range. The reason I asserted "somewhere between 660 and 770" is because this is the range covered by actual legitimate measurements of how much energy is in gasoline. You can't just say "the answer is 669" because you don't know the energy density of the fuel, you just assumed one that's fairly close to the low end of the range of energy densities of gasoline.

[ringo]

But those calculations are too simple any how you look at. The IC engines don't have that amount of power.
That 40% would account for the electrical aspects as well, and this is where you would see a discrepancy.

So if you want to say that the engine has 670 hp with a 40% efficiency then i would be in slight agreement only if the electrical power is included in that amount. However if it's just the ICE, then i think that is a stretch.

Cosworth's example is what is actually quite accurate.

[xpensive]

Which is xactly my point, an ICE-efficiency of 40% is pure fantasy, 35 would be impressive enough.

[mrluke]

In current issue of race car engineering Andy Cowell is quoted as saying if their ICE was 100% efficient they would get 1,200kw, this would be right at the bottom of your range but is "published" figure so is likely to be somewhat conservative.

[ringo]

That doesn't hold much weight. He could have simply said what the current efficiency is. That looks he was just giving a go around. Niki Lauda is a straight talker, and he said 580hp without any BS circumlocution. I'm more inclined to believe him who has not real interest in protecting the actual power figure. The engine guys themselves will be more guarded with their work.

[Blanchimont]

So, if the 1200kW @ 100% are true, than the heat content is

1,2MW * 3600s / 100kg = 43,2 MJ/kg

and

35% would make 420kW or 571hp
37,5% --> 450kW or 612hp
40% --> 480kW or 653hp

[henry]

Over in this thread , http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ilit=Power, Blanchimont estimated power at the road at around 700hp.

If transmission efficiency is 90% that puts flywheel power at 778hp of which the max electrical is 144. This would put the ICE at 634hp.

At 95% ICE power would be 585hp.

Has anyone got a good handle on transmission efficiency?

[xpensive]

I believe the transmission efficiency is a little more han that, at 90% you would need a 40 something kW gearbox oil-cooler.

[Pierce89]

The Merc engine has a log style exhaust, which in turn is a variable length exhaust

Does Merc have a variable length tuned intake system to compensate/compliment the exhaust system

a couple of systems come to mind

http://www.njstangers.org/members/norm- ... 3-vris.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x79/ ... MG1132.jpg

The log is a variable length exhaust? Care to elaborate?

Bump. Just wanted an answer. Did you simply mean it has unequal length primaries?