2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

Is it allowed during mid corner to inject fuel into the combustion chamber(to have that behaviour when throttle is below 30%) but not ignite it? It could be useful in qualy.

It would just be pumped out by the engine, and you have just wasted fuel.

[godlameroso]

Given the much shorter braking distances this year, what are the chances that any engine manufacturer is attempting to implement some clever way to get the full 2MJ from the MGU-K per lap? How big of an advantage would that be?

[erikejw]

Is it allowed during mid corner to inject fuel into the combustion chamber(to have that behaviour when throttle is below 30%) but not ignite it? It could be useful in qualy.

It would just be pumped out by the engine, and you have just wasted fuel.

Ok, so what about inject it into the prechamber and have a prechamber design that keeps some of the fuel until ignition, preferably in a way that does ignite all of it at once(is that even possible)?

For qualy or pit inlaps.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Thanks, gg. The point about high speed control limits makes sense. Keeping in mind the efficiency formula, one wonders what is left to be optimized in the valvetrain. Do springless, captive cam (desmodromic) systems consume less engine power? On one hand, they have more cam-riding surfaces. I assume a spring loaded valve, while consuming energy to compress the spring, returns some energy to the system upon valve closing. I'd wager an F1 optimized convential cam drive is pretty efficient & lightweight as-is. Maybe roller bearings are employed in the current formula.

These camless systems would surely have been considered if they are as efficient as they claim to be, although durability & development payoff are considerations as well. To the latter: how many HP does it take to spin the camshafts?

I am convinced that all manufacturers still use pneumatic valves - they still offer a significant power advantage with even just 6 cylinders. Desmodromic valves were really just a way of side-stepping spring dynamics problems in the past - today these issues are well understood and everyone can design reliable 15k rpm valvetrains with springs.

As for cam bearings - again, pretty sure the cams have no bearings, running right no the head material - this seems to work just fine on high speed motorcycle engines. Remember that at operating temperatures the friction differences between roller and plain bearings are negligible. Yes the exhaust lobe loads will be much greater due to the high cylinder pressures but I have no doubt that relatively 'normal' bearing specific pressures can be achieved.

[hurril]

Thanks, gg. The point about high speed control limits makes sense. Keeping in mind the efficiency formula, one wonders what is left to be optimized in the valvetrain. Do springless, captive cam (desmodromic) systems consume less engine power? On one hand, they have more cam-riding surfaces. I assume a spring loaded valve, while consuming energy to compress the spring, returns some energy to the system upon valve closing. I'd wager an F1 optimized convential cam drive is pretty efficient & lightweight as-is. Maybe roller bearings are employed in the current formula.

These camless systems would surely have been considered if they are as efficient as they claim to be, although durability & development payoff are considerations as well. To the latter: how many HP does it take to spin the camshafts?

I am convinced that all manufacturers still use pneumatic valves - they still offer a significant power advantage with even just 6 cylinders. Desmodromic valves were really just a way of side-stepping spring dynamics problems in the past - today these issues are well understood and everyone can design reliable 15k rpm valvetrains with springs.

As for cam bearings - again, pretty sure the cams have no bearings, running right no the head material - this seems to work just fine on high speed motorcycle engines. Remember that at operating temperatures the friction differences between roller and plain bearings are negligible. Yes the exhaust lobe loads will be much greater due to the high cylinder pressures but I have no doubt that relatively 'normal' bearing specific pressures can be achieved.

I don't think its allowed.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Thanks, gg. The point about high speed control limits makes sense. Keeping in mind the efficiency formula, one wonders what is left to be optimized in the valvetrain. Do springless, captive cam (desmodromic) systems consume less engine power? On one hand, they have more cam-riding surfaces. I assume a spring loaded valve, while consuming energy to compress the spring, returns some energy to the system upon valve closing. I'd wager an F1 optimized convential cam drive is pretty efficient & lightweight as-is. Maybe roller bearings are employed in the current formula.

These camless systems would surely have been considered if they are as efficient as they claim to be, although durability & development payoff are considerations as well. To the latter: how many HP does it take to spin the camshafts?

I am convinced that all manufacturers still use pneumatic valves - they still offer a significant power advantage with even just 6 cylinders. Desmodromic valves were really just a way of side-stepping spring dynamics problems in the past - today these issues are well understood and everyone can design reliable 15k rpm valvetrains with springs.

As for cam bearings - again, pretty sure the cams have no bearings, running right no the head material - this seems to work just fine on high speed motorcycle engines. Remember that at operating temperatures the friction differences between roller and plain bearings are negligible. Yes the exhaust lobe loads will be much greater due to the high cylinder pressures but I have no doubt that relatively 'normal' bearing specific pressures can be achieved.

I don't think its allowed.

it is not disallowed

[Muniix]

Unless there would be a beneficial function to a flexible crankshaft (beyond what is commonplace). Flexing axially or within the throws. The reason for the new crankshaft regs is probably just to limit development costs for ever lighter & thinner cranks. But I wonder if one of the manufacturers was doing something clever beyond lightweighting.

I was picturing something like a whirling jump rope, with the crankshaft throw(s) warping outwards at speed to alter stroke & compression, or provide shock absorbtion.

Which leads me to wonder how the FIA inspects swept volume. By CAD drawings? Or by physical inspection during homologation?

They maybe using a crank offset. This effects the piston liner friction from the side thrust reaction force from combustion, it has other effects like a slight increase of the actual stroke length plus other powertrain dynamics that are still being studied and understood.

This piston liner friction effects the apparent inertia of the cranktrain which effects the friction and vibration and hence fuel use. Since the cylinder pressure varies so much throughout the crank/rod angle of the cycle with the boosted engines this would provide some friction reduction and saving of fuel. Their is also a slight change to the piston velocity and acceleration profiles.

Marc

[wuzak]

Unless there would be a beneficial function to a flexible crankshaft (beyond what is commonplace). Flexing axially or within the throws. The reason for the new crankshaft regs is probably just to limit development costs for ever lighter & thinner cranks. But I wonder if one of the manufacturers was doing something clever beyond lightweighting.

I was picturing something like a whirling jump rope, with the crankshaft throw(s) warping outwards at speed to alter stroke & compression, or provide shock absorbtion.

Which leads me to wonder how the FIA inspects swept volume. By CAD drawings? Or by physical inspection during homologation?

They maybe using a crank offset. This effects the piston liner friction from the side thrust reaction force from combustion, it has other effects like a slight increase of the actual stroke length plus other powertrain dynamics that are still being studied and understood.

This piston liner friction effects the apparent inertia of the cranktrain which effects the friction and vibration and hence fuel use. Since the cylinder pressure varies so much throughout the crank/rod angle of the cycle with the boosted engines this would provide some friction reduction and saving of fuel. Their is also a slight change to the piston velocity and acceleration profiles.

Marc

Surely in a vee engine if teh offset benefits one bank it is detrimental on the other?

[Tommy Cookers]

They maybe using a crank offset. This effects the piston liner friction from the side thrust reaction force from combustion, it has other effects like a slight increase of the actual stroke length plus other powertrain dynamics that are still being studied and understood.
This piston liner friction effects the apparent inertia of the cranktrain which effects the friction and vibration and hence fuel use. Since the cylinder pressure varies so much throughout the crank/rod angle of the cycle with the boosted engines this would provide some friction reduction and saving of fuel. Their is also a slight change to the piston velocity and acceleration profiles.
Marc

Surely in a vee engine if teh offset benefits one bank it is detrimental on the other?

otoh and fwiw at this moment it seems to me .....
friction benefits are detrimental (ie self-cancel) with banks displaced for spatial reasons eg VR6/Lancia (banks outset) and 1970s Morini (inset)
(ie engines where notionally one cylinder bank is displaced in one direction and the other bank in the opposite direction)
otherwise ie if the both cylinder banks are displaced in the same direction the friction benefit is realised (do any production Vs have this ?)

though remember in a high speed engine the friction related to reciprocational inertia may exceed the friction related to the power stroke

and with our highly boosted ultra lean 'heat dilution' engine the benefits available are relatively less than with conventional engines
because the HD engine piston/rod is working unusually hard on the compression stroke the friction there is unusually high
and conventional offset (ie geometrically favourable on the power stroke) is geometrically unfavourable on the compression stroke

[godlameroso]

They maybe using a crank offset. This effects the piston liner friction from the side thrust reaction force from combustion, it has other effects like a slight increase of the actual stroke length plus other powertrain dynamics that are still being studied and understood.
This piston liner friction effects the apparent inertia of the cranktrain which effects the friction and vibration and hence fuel use. Since the cylinder pressure varies so much throughout the crank/rod angle of the cycle with the boosted engines this would provide some friction reduction and saving of fuel. Their is also a slight change to the piston velocity and acceleration profiles.
Marc

Surely in a vee engine if teh offset benefits one bank it is detrimental on the other?

otoh and fwiw at this moment it seems to me .....
friction effect benefits are detrimental (ie self-cancel) only where the V has banks 'spread' for space reasons eg VR6/Lancia type and 1970s Morini
(engines where notionally one cylinder bank is displaced in one direction and the other bank in the opposite direction)
otherwise ie if the both cylinder banks are displaced in the same direction the friction benefit is realised (do any production Vs have this ?)

though we must remember in a high speed engine the friction related to reciprocation may exceed the friction related to the power stroke

and with our highly boosted ultra lean 'heat dilution' engine the benefits available are relatively less than with conventional engines
because the HD engine piston/rod is working unusually hard on the compression stroke the friction is then unusually high
and the offset conventionally favourable (ie favourable on the power stroke) is unfavourable ie detrimental on the compression stroke

That all depends on the EVC event, and back pressure in the exhaust manifold. Seeing as you have complete control over the back pressure(and intake plennum pressure) in these engines, you can reduce pumping losses during the compression stroke with the right exhaust valve timing and MGU-H, relief valve, and wastegate control.

[FW17]

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~lqiao/Public ... bility.pdf

Nozzle profiles of the jet injector also has a huge bearing

[godlameroso]

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~lqiao/Public ... bility.pdf

Nozzle profiles of the jet injector also has a huge bearing

Variable jet nozzle? Piezoelectric control?

[J.A.W.]

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~lqiao/Public ... bility.pdf

Nozzle profiles of the jet injector also has a huge bearing

Variable jet nozzle? Piezoelectric control?

Supersonic nozzle, shaped to cope with shock waves, & not 'choke' at such speed...

'Space cadets' may want to check the NASA 'self-design' nozzle design web page..
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ienzl.html

[Muniix]

Surely in a vee engine if teh offset benefits one bank it is detrimental on the other?

otoh and fwiw at this moment it seems to me .....
friction effect benefits are detrimental (ie self-cancel) only where the V has banks 'spread' for space reasons eg VR6/Lancia type and 1970s Morini
(engines where notionally one cylinder bank is displaced in one direction and the other bank in the opposite direction)
otherwise ie if the both cylinder banks are displaced in the same direction the friction benefit is realised (do any production Vs have this ?)

though we must remember in a high speed engine the friction related to reciprocation may exceed the friction related to the power stroke

and with our highly boosted ultra lean 'heat dilution' engine the benefits available are relatively less than with conventional engines
because the HD engine piston/rod is working unusually hard on the compression stroke the friction is then unusually high
and the offset conventionally favourable (ie favourable on the power stroke) is unfavourable ie detrimental on the compression stroke

That all depends on the EVC event, and back pressure in the exhaust manifold. Seeing as you have complete control over the back pressure(and intake plennum pressure) in these engines, you can reduce pumping losses during the compression stroke with the right exhaust valve timing and MGU-H, relief valve, and wastegate control.

When your​ talking about "reducing pumping losses during the compression stroke" are you referring to compression losses from the effort/negative work or the actual highly dynamic pressure environments​ in pumping available to the engine management.
and the turbo exhaust valve timing or a head exhaust valve?
Do you mean when at full load or part load? The flexibility in these engines and the control strategies should be given 1000 giga flops of compute to do some PDE equations for some realtime physics equations, and calculate some virtual pressure sensors for locations in the system, even implement the bearing friction models into another virtual sensor. Then the engine management may be able to make a decent job of engine control. Virtual sensors​ are a bit lighter! Gigaflop are cheap. They fixed the Hubble deep space telescope this way.

[Tommy Cookers]

now here's a useful reference that I've just rediscovered (originated by another poster)
flame speed measurements in a Ferrari F1 V8 at 16000 rpm etc
http://ltces.dem.ist.utl.pt/lxlaser/lxl ... 12.2_6.pdf