2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[PlatinumZealot]

Its difficult to get a sense of scale from the image but as turbos go, that doesn't look particularly big.

Believe me, it's fooking huge. And the turbine wheel beggars belief.

It actually looks a bit smaller than it should because the main outlet tract is attached to the chassis and not the compressor housing (due to the limit of the FIA box that the PU has to fit inside.

Bigger or smaller? http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/uploads/galle ... 150752.jpg

That is like what 3,000 horsepower? where did you get that turbo from?

[Tommy Cookers]

....... So in a way, engine braking with the throttle open but with no fuel going in ought to turn the ICE into a "heat engine" whereby the inherent heat of the cylinders causes an expansion that provides some little push on the turbine. I'm sure the valve overlap could indicate an optimum RPM-span where the compression isn't too great (doesn't break too much.)

yes the heat residue would produce a residual power, but primarily at the crankshaft
that partially at least offsets the engine braking (though WOT/zero fuel surely ? also reduces engine braking)
and could usefully (at most circuits) be absorbed by MGU-K generation and stored

any crankshaft power flow corresponding to no more than zero net crankshaft torque is permissible at zero torque demand
via the zero torque rule containing overrun push to no more than engine braking (about 50 kW)
(within this rule some conventional engine running might anyway be done on the overrun to boost stored energy)

at worst this route would give a free supply of low energy, low pressure exhaust to the turbine
its benefits seem to outweigh concerns over minimising the MGU-H motoring energy on the overrun

[mrluke]

That is like what 3,000 horsepower? where did you get that turbo from?

This makes 600-700bhp on 2.5l street cars at up 2bar boost.

As does this:



Unless my sense of scale is wrong (likely) they dont look much different size to the one on the Merc PU and they are a fairly typical aftermarket turbo size.

[Moose]

To me, those look substantially different sizes. The first looks to be about 4 times the width of a human hand, while the second looks to be about 2.5 times.

[Blanchimont]

In this picture http://www.motorsportchannel.com/wp-con ... resize.jpg the two upper connection points engine<->monocoque have a horizontal distance of 350mm. The vertical distance between the two upper and lower connection points is 405mm. See article 5.3.5 of the technical regulations if you want to know more about this. My quick estimation would be a diameter of 230mm for the compressor.

[gruntguru]

There are two fundamental compressor dimensions that are indicative of its performance. First is the inducer diameter - the size of the entry hole. The optimum massflow of the compressor is roughly proportional to the area of this passage. If turbo B has double the inducer diameter of turbo A, it will have 4 times the area, 4 times the mass flow and suit an engine capable of roughly 4 times the power at a given boost.

The second is the impeller tip diameter. The pressure ratio is proportional to the tip speed squared, so if the compressor speed and tip diameter are known, the pressure ratio can be estimated. In this case we have some idea of PR (3.5) and compressor speed (100,000 rpm). The tip speed required to produce this PR is about 500 m/s which leads us to an impeller tip diameter of 95mm @ 100k rpm.

The outer diameter of the housing is not a good indicator of impeller diameter as there are a range of volute or housing designs - many of them aimed primarily at reducing housing diameter to produce a compact turbocharger. The one in the photo above appears to be a no-compromise design targeting efficiency, and so is not very compact. Just looking at it, I would estimate the impeller is half the diameter of the housing (estimated by Blanchimont as 200mm diameter) which brings us very close to the 95mm mark.

[Facts Only]

All VGT veins do is put a blockage in the system which reduces efficiency at peak operating conditions, on a truck or road car or non-MGU controlled turbo they are useful to improve the operating window of the map but that's not needed in F1.

Fixed vanes would be allowed tho, they will also increase blockage and thus reduce the operating range but peak efficiency will be improved.

Any blockage in the compressor reduced efficiency, absolutely everything is done to improve the flow efficiency through the diffuser and volute. This included thing like polishing, blasting and even directional machining.

I know for sure that on the turbos we did, no fixed veins would be added for efficiency reasons.

[Mesteño]

According to Carlos Miquel who was the first to announce Alonso was leaving Ferrari, these are the 2015 figures.

Carlos Miquel reported in The Party of 12 the evolution of the engines of the main teams. The powers are among the 849 hp Mercedes and Renault 801. McLaren can reach 829 hp.

The Japanese team Honda technicians provide close to 829 hp was the star team last year, according to data provided by Carlos Miquel in The Party of 12. In turn, the German team is believed to have won another 20 CV 2015. Ferrari has increased its power by 30 hp Renault 40 CV.

Despite the progress of Ferrari and Renault, are still far from the power take this World Mercedes. A good preseason could allow the team Alonso be second in power.

MERCEDES (829 hp, 2014; 849 hp, 2015)

Last year, it was lighter than the Renault and 20 more than Ferrari, with the huge gain in stability supposed 18 kilos. This year, they have caught up in that aspect, but have not been matched forces. In Jerez, the tip speed Rosberg was reached 307.6 km / h, a sign that they are still the strongest. Williams and Lotus, with the same engine, brushed those records.

HONDA (829 hp, 2015)

In theory dyno, Japanese technicians recorded values similar to Mercedes 2014. The problem is that still not been able to squeeze in track. In fact, they shot just 10,000 revolutions in Jerez, and broke. If you do not have two next test in Barcelona in giving a minimum of 60 daily returns, will have to lower its outlook for the start of the new season. The next test, in which Alonso will roll on 21 and 22 February, will be crucial. Of the virtues, they say, is the new engine, a great capacity for energy recovery lap speak, and somewhat revolutionary technology. Its top speed at Jerez was very low (277 km / h for Button), a sign that did not run.

FERRARI (775 hp, 2014; 805 hp, 2015)

They have 30 horses increased. The problem found in Maranello was not able to copy the structure of the Mercedes engine. The regulation will not let them change both the drive and therefore have worked on what they could: a larger turbo with which to recover more energy in the race, which was a drama for the team last year, and one of the shorter also escapes with win power. In 2014, the Ferrari defended well in qualifying, but their pilots could not fight in the running for this inability to recharge the electric motor. Consuming and that forced them to slow down. Something less weight in a development that may be insufficient. In Jerez, Raikkonen fell to 7.6 km / h top speed of Mercedes.

RENAULT (761 hp, 2014; 801 hp, 2015)

The French brand, now completely linked in his department F1 Red Bull, 40 HP promises to its customers, the further evolution of the drivers of last year, but could not exploit Jerez by poblemas reliability. Toro Rosso, who shot many kilometers did with version 2014. The team 'B' did not arrive until the second test in Barcelona. The aim of Renault has been working the raw power to back because that's where they lost respect Ferrari. Then in the race, they were much faster for its chassis and much greater ability to recharge. Among them, there are quite equal Maranello respect to motor. In Jerez, the best top speed of Renault was the Toro Rosso of Verstappen, with 303 km / h.

[redoctober89]

All VGT veins do is put a blockage in the system which reduces efficiency at peak operating conditions, on a truck or road car or non-MGU controlled turbo they are useful to improve the operating window of the map but that's not needed in F1.

Fixed vanes would be allowed tho, they will also increase blockage and thus reduce the operating range but peak efficiency will be improved.

Any blockage in the compressor reduced efficiency, absolutely everything is done to improve the flow efficiency through the diffuser and volute. This included thing like polishing, blasting and even directional machining.

I know for sure that on the turbos we did, no fixed veins would be added for efficiency reasons.

I was referring to the turbine stage as you were talking about VGT, but I think you can use guide vanes on both stages to improve peak efficiency. When I say blockage what I mean is reducing the overall throat area of the nozzle (turbine) / diffuser (compressor).

For example two stages with the same nozzle / diffuser throat area, one with guide vanes, the other without.
The stage with the guide vanes will should have a greater peak efficiency.

[redoctober89]

this should be the right link

[frosty125]

According to Carlos Miquel who was the first to announce Alonso was leaving Ferrari, these are the 2015 figures.

Carlos Miquel reported in The Party of 12 the evolution of the engines of the main teams. The powers are among the 849 hp Mercedes and Renault 801. McLaren can reach 829 hp.

The Japanese team Honda technicians provide close to 829 hp was the star team last year, according to data provided by Carlos Miquel in The Party of 12. In turn, the German team is believed to have won another 20 CV 2015. Ferrari has increased its power by 30 hp Renault 40 CV.

Despite the progress of Ferrari and Renault, are still far from the power take this World Mercedes. A good preseason could allow the team Alonso be second in power.

MERCEDES (829 hp, 2014; 849 hp, 2015)

Last year, it was lighter than the Renault and 20 more than Ferrari, with the huge gain in stability supposed 18 kilos. This year, they have caught up in that aspect, but have not been matched forces. In Jerez, the tip speed Rosberg was reached 307.6 km / h, a sign that they are still the strongest. Williams and Lotus, with the same engine, brushed those records.

HONDA (829 hp, 2015)

In theory dyno, Japanese technicians recorded values similar to Mercedes 2014. The problem is that still not been able to squeeze in track. In fact, they shot just 10,000 revolutions in Jerez, and broke. If you do not have two next test in Barcelona in giving a minimum of 60 daily returns, will have to lower its outlook for the start of the new season. The next test, in which Alonso will roll on 21 and 22 February, will be crucial. Of the virtues, they say, is the new engine, a great capacity for energy recovery lap speak, and somewhat revolutionary technology. Its top speed at Jerez was very low (277 km / h for Button), a sign that did not run.

FERRARI (775 hp, 2014; 805 hp, 2015)

They have 30 horses increased. The problem found in Maranello was not able to copy the structure of the Mercedes engine. The regulation will not let them change both the drive and therefore have worked on what they could: a larger turbo with which to recover more energy in the race, which was a drama for the team last year, and one of the shorter also escapes with win power. In 2014, the Ferrari defended well in qualifying, but their pilots could not fight in the running for this inability to recharge the electric motor. Consuming and that forced them to slow down. Something less weight in a development that may be insufficient. In Jerez, Raikkonen fell to 7.6 km / h top speed of Mercedes.

RENAULT (761 hp, 2014; 801 hp, 2015)

The French brand, now completely linked in his department F1 Red Bull, 40 HP promises to its customers, the further evolution of the drivers of last year, but could not exploit Jerez by poblemas reliability. Toro Rosso, who shot many kilometers did with version 2014. The team 'B' did not arrive until the second test in Barcelona. The aim of Renault has been working the raw power to back because that's where they lost respect Ferrari. Then in the race, they were much faster for its chassis and much greater ability to recharge. Among them, there are quite equal Maranello respect to motor. In Jerez, the best top speed of Renault was the Toro Rosso of Verstappen, with 303 km / h.

I have not heard of this guy before is he expected to be accurate?

[PlatinumZealot]

That is like what 3,000 horsepower? where did you get that turbo from?

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad10 ... MG1900.jpg

This makes 600-700bhp on 2.5l street cars at up 2bar boost.

As does this:

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... 213408.jpg

Unless my sense of scale is wrong (likely) they dont look much different size to the one on the Merc PU and they are a fairly typical aftermarket turbo size.

That turbo is different from the one you showed first. How sneaky of you....

That second turbo is not maxed out. Smaller turbos can make 700 horsepower. Did you buy it from Fred Fintstone?

This is 750 whp...Garrett GTX3582R turbo at 20psi (this M3 engine is very similar to a F1 engine in that it is high revving). The GTX3582R can flow enough air to support that power (even if you adjust from E85 to petrol, it still can make 700hp).



See more of the same here. http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/05/pic ... ula-drift/

[PlatinumZealot]

There are two fundamental compressor dimensions that are indicative of its performance. First is the inducer diameter - the size of the entry hole. The optimum massflow of the compressor is roughly proportional to the area of this passage. If turbo B has double the inducer diameter of turbo A, it will have 4 times the area, 4 times the mass flow and suit an engine capable of roughly 4 times the power at a given boost.

The second is the impeller tip diameter. The pressure ratio is proportional to the tip speed squared, so if the compressor speed and tip diameter are known, the pressure ratio can be estimated. In this case we have some idea of PR (3.5) and compressor speed (100,000 rpm). The tip speed required to produce this PR is about 500 m/s which leads us to an impeller tip diameter of 95mm @ 100k rpm.

The outer diameter of the housing is not a good indicator of impeller diameter as there are a range of volute or housing designs - many of them aimed primarily at reducing housing diameter to produce a compact turbocharger. The one in the photo above appears to be a no-compromise design targeting efficiency, and so is not very compact. Just looking at it, I would estimate the impeller is half the diameter of the housing (estimated by Blanchimont as 200mm diameter) which brings us very close to the 95mm mark.

Faster than the speed of sound your tips are spinning.. Have you accounted for that?

[gruntguru]

A centrifugal compressor operating at PR = 3.5 will have tip speeds > Mach 1.

[Abarth]

How do you come to conclude that PR=3.5?
Me thinks in that case the engines would run extremely lean.