2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

There are plenty of ways to convert fuel to stored electric energy prior to or during a qualifying lap. They can run the K as a genset - 120 kW. Perhaps also retard ignition timing to increase turbine power and harvest from the H.

[ringo]

so imo their engine is roughly twice the size a hypothetical 1.1x AFR engine would be (ie twice the friction and pumping losses)
((ok, such a 1.1x AFR engine would need lower CR to avoid detonation, although LNG is 'high octane')
so theirs is eg a 20 tonne 2.2x AFR 5000 hp engine giving 49% at high power and a lot less at low power (further leaning impossible)
the hypothetical 10 tonne 1.1x AFR 5000 hp engine would give 46% at the same high power and not so much less at low power (via further leaning)

but they don't make the hypothetical engine because ......
their 2.2x engine has naturally almost no NOx (the peak cycle temperature being much lower)
and there's an upcoming ban on NOx in EU waters (for EU operators) etc

which approach (with gasoline fuel of course) is better in eg F1 ? ....... and which approach is better for our road cars ?

wasn't someone saying the mandated F1 engine size (with mandated rpm and mandated car weight) is bigger than necessary for the fuel rate ?

but the lean burn 2.2x will give a bigger headline efficiency figure (so making the politicians look good)
doesn't this sound just like recent Mercedes & FIA PR ?

as I said 4 years ago, the F1 rules are commendably ingenious (but a European stich-up nevertheless)

When you say twice the size, can you explain what you mean?
And you mentioned tonnes and efficiency. Can you relate it to the F1 engine.

As for NOx, im assuming F1 doesn't have limitations on that, so you could assume working for efficiency without concern for emissions.

That Rolls engine is pretty interesting though, and i am assuming this is the next level of engine design that is new to the Sport. It's something that we never suspected at all in these engine threads. That pocket in the cylinder head is quite ingenious. 49% in F1 is really including the MGUH self sustaining. The Bergen engine is using LNG which tends to be more efficient than gasoline. The MAHLE paper does indicate that the gasoline turbulent Jet ignition is slightly less efficient than the LNG as well, so i would put a TJI gasoline engine somewhere around 42% combustion efficiency.

[Tommy Cookers]

in some way (unknown to me) the 2.2x engine must be roughly twice the size of my hypothetical 1.1x engine - for a given fuel rate
eg twice the displacement or twice the rpm or twice the MAP (or some combination thereof) - each has its costs
but apparently the RR Bergen way has parallels with F1 - an ICE efficient at steady high powers at the expense of partial-power efficiency
presumably gas availability is a driver - afaik LNG carriers run their engines on the inevitable boil-off from their tanks
marine gas engines fit well with the EU ship-emission purge

I guess that gas fuel combusts over a wider AFR range than liquid fuel
I guess that the RR Bergen engine has v high boost with its 2.2x AFR
but in F1 our simple and small compressor and turbine cannot be efficient enough to benefit from the v high boost/v high AFR ?
we still don't know what AFR and boost Merc is using ?

I suggested running HP cylinders of a F1 compound on a rich mixture as their exhaust then includes methane and carbon monoxide
handy for automatic combustion in LP cylinders on contact with further air
a rich mixture deters detonation both by cooling and fuel chemistry effects so the HP cylinders CR and mep can be very high

[ME4ME]

Explaining Renault's standpoint, Abiteboul said: "I am a big fan of making sure F1 remains F1. We should not lean towards endurance.

"One of the things that has put F1 in danger, or could be another threat to F1, is if we try to combine F1 and endurance.

"Endurance is about efficiency, sustainability, the capacity to run very long distances without any issues. F1 is about short races, usually being able to attack constantly.

"Frankly, even in the V8 era there was some fuel management. It was part of the tactics, to maximise, to optimise your laptime for the duration of the race from a team strategy perspective.

"It has always been part of F1, without any form of limitation on fuel quantity, so I would remove completely the fuel quantity [regulation]."

The belief is removing the fuel-capacity limit would enable drivers to push more often and for longer, avoiding entering the highly-criticised fuel-saving mode.

"We would see it [removing the regulation] would take all the negativity away from the message regarding this new technology, which is fantastic. We've done an amazing job," added Abiteboul.

"With the engine we use, all the manufacturers - Mercedes in particular - should be given credit for the technology they have been able to introduce, reducing fuel consumption by 30-40 per cent.

"It is just amazing, but this fantastic message is being destroyed by the fact with this fuel limit we are making people believe it is only about managing fuel."

Abiteboul still believes the fuel-flow limitation is "important", and should remain in place to avoid concerns over a potential "arms race" with regard to development.

"You need to also make sure you don't create artificial ways of using the electric motors by burning fuel," added Abiteboul.

"That would be completely opposite to the message we are sending. Fuel flow is sufficient enough, but we don't need a limit on fuel quantity."

Whether a consensus can be reached remains to be seen, but Abiteboul believes the difference in opinion is healthy.

"It's the perfect example that shows we [the engine manufacturers] don't control the sport through engine regulations," said Abiteboul.

"We will always have little disagreements. I have expressed my opinion, Toto [Wolff, Mercedes motorsport boss] has expressed his. That's apparent, and there will be a vote."

-Autosport.com

Honestly this is the most reasonable, logic thing Abiteboul has said since he joined Renault. Good on him. I fully agree.

[Cold Fussion]

Isn't part of the reason for the fuel quantity limit to avoid burning fuel to generate electricity like he worries about?

[ME4ME]

Even if that would be the case, teams don't want to carry more fuel then needed for the start of the race.

[Juzh]

Even if that would be the case, teams don't want to carry more fuel then needed for the start of the race.

They don't want to carry more fuel than needed, true. Which is more than 100 kg.

[erikejw]

Even if that would be the case, teams don't want to carry more fuel then needed for the start of the race.

Maybe not in the race(perhaps for inlap or outlap in the pitstop phase) but it is a valid concern during qualifying as of my idea I suggested 24 hours ago. It would definately fall under burning fuel artificially for electric use.

"My idea is to burn fuel in a non acceleration phase to generate more heat and use that as an extra energy boost during a qualy lap. More heat generates more energy from the MGU-H."

[ME4ME]

Maybe not in the race(perhaps for inlap or outlap in the pitstop phase) but it is a valid concern during qualifying as of my idea I suggested 24 hours ago. It would definately fall under burning fuel artificially for electric use.

"My idea is to burn fuel in a non acceleration phase to generate more heat and use that as an extra energy boost during a qualy lap. More heat generates more energy from the MGU-H."

The fuel allowance doesn't have any inpact on qualifying. Only the fuel flow rate does. Teams can already fuel up more heavily and burn it unefficienty if they wanted to.

[henry]

I think it's possible that fuel is already burned "artificially" to charge the ES during a qualification lap, using the K as a generator and retarding the ignition, whenever the driver power demand is below the ICE power achievable using the maximum flow rate. Typically when the car is traction limited.

If there were no limit on total fuel used this method could be employed during the race. The goal would be to keep the ES charged such that 4 MJ could be deployed via the K every lap.

It might mean diverting more fuel to H power for the ES at the end of straights as well.

[stevesingo]

There is of course a limit to what can be used.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5

The ICE cannot use any more fuel than this.

WRT to MGU-H recovery, I expect there may be a point where reduced ICE power loss from a retarded ignition will be less that MGU-H power gain from increased EGT. for a given fuel flow. If such a state exists, I wouldn't expect it to be a particularly wide operating window at WOT. At part throttle, it may be worth while attenuating ICE output by retarding ignition advance, not by throttling the ICE. This will generate excess EGT which can be harvested by MGU-H.

WRT MGU-K recovery, the MGU-K could be used to attenuate ICE torque. Driver makes a torque demand of 80%, ECU delivers ICE torque of 100%, MGU-K absorbs 20% to charge battery.

Add both strategies and we have a driver demanding less than 100%, say 400kw. ICE running WOT with retarded ignition delivering 550kw, MGU-H recovering an extra 30kw and the MGU-K recovering 120kw.

As driver demand increases to 100%, the ICE remains at WOT and the MGU-K demand drops to zero and becomes a positive and the ICE moves to the most ignition advance point.

For all the different operating points for all the different PU modes, that will be a lot of modeling and confirmation by mapping.

[Tommy Cookers]

..... At part throttle, it may be worth while attenuating ICE output by retarding ignition advance, not by throttling the ICE. This will generate excess EGT which can be harvested by MGU-H.
WRT MGU-K recovery, the MGU-K could be used to attenuate ICE torque. Driver makes a torque demand of 80%, ECU delivers ICE torque of 100%, MGU-K absorbs 20% to charge battery. .... Add both strategies .....

yes, and .....
would some retarding of the ignition (combustion still completed before EVO) actually increase the pressure at the start of blowdown ??
if so the programming should also increase the electrical load on the turbine (so increase the exhaust pressure) in this operation
the increased load on the blowdown expansion will cause less loss to entropy (than if the exhaust pressure had not been increased)
conserving pressure ahead of the turbine is always better than allowing freer expansion there

[henry]

There is of course a limit to what can be used.
.....

For all the different operating points for all the different PU modes, that will be a lot of modeling and confirmation by mapping.

In addition the potential for these strategies will vary circuit by circuit. The less that can be recovered by direct MGU-K during braking the more useful ICE driven generating mode will be. The whole thing is a very large optimisation challenge. A qualification mode looks like it could be much more complex than simply charging up the ES an opening the wastegate a few times.

[gruntguru]

..... At part throttle, it may be worth while attenuating ICE output by retarding ignition advance, not by throttling the ICE. This will generate excess EGT which can be harvested by MGU-H.
WRT MGU-K recovery, the MGU-K could be used to attenuate ICE torque. Driver makes a torque demand of 80%, ECU delivers ICE torque of 100%, MGU-K absorbs 20% to charge battery. .... Add both strategies .....

yes, and .....
would some retarding of the ignition (combustion still completed before EVO) actually increase the pressure at the start of blowdown ??
if so the programming should also increase the electrical load on the turbine (so increase the exhaust pressure) in this operation
the increased load on the blowdown expansion will cause less loss to entropy (than if the exhaust pressure had not been increased)
conserving pressure ahead of the turbine is always better than allowing freer expansion there

Yes the pressure at EVO would be higher.
Slowing the turbine would probably not increase back pressure. (Depends on the operating point.)
Electrical load on the turbine would typically depend on boost pressure - (actual vs setpoint).

[Sasha]

Got a hot question!

What is the reason or advantage of a fuel injector with heater that adjust fuel temp on the fly?

They say MB is using it and most likely Ferrari(Honda will have it by mid-season 2016)