2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Juzh]

FIA all but confirms a 2 tier system in how PU are operated in terms of works/customer teams

https://www.racefans.net/2018/02/23/fia ... mpetitive/

This obviously has to be one of the reasons Ron Dennis insited you can't be a championship winning team with a customer PU with these regulations.

[nevill3]

The new technical directive is to ensure that the customer teams have the same access to the "super qualifying modes" and any other performance related settings. The customer teams will always have a slight disadvantage due to integration of engine and chassis rather than any specific hardware difference.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... ty-1008146

[godlameroso]

Anyone want to take a guess at the capacity of the fuel injectors is? The fuel system can only flow ~135 liters per hour, which is ridiculous if you think about it when a Toyota Supra turbo from 1996 had a fuel pump that could flow 300 lph. Granted that's a port injection system, and it goes to show how efficient these cars are, how much turbo technology has evolved. Anyway any guesses? 1,400cc injectors maybe?

Computers getting faster has helped us make more and more precise mechanical systems, the data feeds the minds that interpret the data to make something useful, which in turn shape the programs, which in turn shape the minds, in an endless cycle. The more data the faster this process moves along. It's like evolutionary voltage.

[63l8qrrfy6]

A sixth of the max fuel flow rate plus a wee margin ?

[johnny comelately]

Need 13g/s rating for a 50% acceleration mapping requirement
9 grams per second injector rating for singles per cylinder and direct injection at max flow at max revs of 12K

69 milliseconds available at 250 degrees
75% duty cycle
required delivery = 4.86 grams for max revs (not accel)

My shot in the dark.

[johnny comelately]

What a difference if the FIA allowed an injector before the turbo.

[FightingHellPhish]

What a difference if the FIA allowed an injector before the turbo.

variable valve timing would be much more useful than that.

What sort of valve event timing do you guys believe are being used? I know its a conventional style cam but there ARE things that can be done with how the lobes are ground and such.

[Tommy Cookers]

and this is where I say .....
the MGU-H rather replaces VVT
because it gives continuous variability of the relation between charge mass and temperature with exhaust pressure
and continuous variability of charge temperature is the driver for partial CI

yes, I'd love to know what valve timing they use

[johnny comelately]

What a difference if the FIA allowed an injector before the turbo.

variable valve timing would be much more useful than that.

What sort of valve event timing do you guys believe are being used? I know its a conventional style cam but there ARE things that can be done with how the lobes are ground and such.

valve timing is relatively conservative and is governed more by pressure trace indicators than anything because of the availability of charge. Therefore the need for VVT is minimal in my opinion. VVT is to assist optimisation in transition, these engines a maximum of about 4K rpm range which can be covered by the turbo no problem.
The advantage of "prespraying" is very high charge cooling, with flow on effect for the choice of reduced intercooler sizing etc, and the increased atomisation (old world term). Any loss of air can be compensated by boost.

[Tommy Cookers]

prespraying of fuel throws away all the benefits of DI
and preheats the fuel for longer than desirable ?

the other benefits and disbenefits are a fraction of the those benefits and disbenefits traditionally
because the FAR is a fraction of the traditional max-power FAR

electrical recovery is very sensitive to any increase (or decrease) in compressor power

[johnny comelately]

prespraying of fuel throws away all the benefits of DI
and preheats the fuel for longer than desirable ?

the other benefits and disbenefits are a fraction of the those benefits and disbenefits traditionally
because the FAR is a fraction of the traditional max-power FAR

electrical recovery is very sensitive to any increase (or decrease) in compressor power

Have to disagree with you there Tommy about throwing away the benefits of DI because of the benefit offset of the reasons I said.
Preheating the fuel, I wish, as its an immense help for combustion, but no because the mixture temperature is very cold prior to compression (probably chemists here that can explain latent heat and all that) even at 12K rpm worth of air speed.

This question of lean FAR, a few people have mentioned it and I suppose they are "considering' that for efficiency/economy reasons, but my view is it just cannot produce the power as well as the other associated problems like knock. What am i missing here?

And regarding non-homogenised areas or a version of stratified chamber mix, from what i know it is very difficult to create and maintain repeatedly, in other words not applicable. What am i missing here?

[Giblet]

feeds the minds that interpret the data to make something useful, which in turn shape the programs, which in turn shape the minds, in an endless cycle. The more data the faster this process moves along. It's like evolutionary voltage.

What a great quote

[godlameroso]

prespraying of fuel throws away all the benefits of DI
and preheats the fuel for longer than desirable ?

the other benefits and disbenefits are a fraction of the those benefits and disbenefits traditionally
because the FAR is a fraction of the traditional max-power FAR

electrical recovery is very sensitive to any increase (or decrease) in compressor power

Have to disagree with you there Tommy about throwing away the benefits of DI because of the benefit offset of the reasons I said.
Preheating the fuel, I wish, as its an immense help for combustion, but no because the mixture temperature is very cold prior to compression (probably chemists here that can explain latent heat and all that) even at 12K rpm worth of air speed.

This question of lean FAR, a few people have mentioned it and I suppose they are "considering' that for efficiency/economy reasons, but my view is it just cannot produce the power as well as the other associated problems like knock. What am i missing here?

And regarding non-homogenised areas or a version of stratified chamber mix, from what i know it is very difficult to create and maintain repeatedly, in other words not applicable. What am i missing here?

Predictive modeling, it's what let's you inject different types of fuel at the same time and not destroy the engine.

https://www.sae.org/publications/techni ... 1-01-0363/

[johnny comelately]

prespraying of fuel throws away all the benefits of DI
and preheats the fuel for longer than desirable ?

the other benefits and disbenefits are a fraction of the those benefits and disbenefits traditionally
because the FAR is a fraction of the traditional max-power FAR

electrical recovery is very sensitive to any increase (or decrease) in compressor power

Have to disagree with you there Tommy about throwing away the benefits of DI because of the benefit offset of the reasons I said.
Preheating the fuel, I wish, as its an immense help for combustion, but no because the mixture temperature is very cold prior to compression (probably chemists here that can explain latent heat and all that) even at 12K rpm worth of air speed.

This question of lean FAR, a few people have mentioned it and I suppose they are "considering' that for efficiency/economy reasons, but my view is it just cannot produce the power as well as the other associated problems like knock. What am i missing here?

And regarding non-homogenised areas or a version of stratified chamber mix, from what i know it is very difficult to create and maintain repeatedly, in other words not applicable. What am i missing here?

Predictive modeling, it's what let's you inject different types of fuel at the same time and not destroy the engine.

https://www.sae.org/publications/techni ... 1-01-0363/

Thanks for that. All such papers are appreciated.
We design machine, build dyno and develop different engine types on the smallest (least resources imaginable, hence coming to this forum to learn) and (externally) use GTPower for 3D thermodynamic simulation. But being mechanics and machinists we lack the science, having recognised the limitations of 'suck it and see'.
We are grey hairs and a lot of our thinking is from practical experience starting in the 70's, real skin in the game
Having associates who have some science and big time resources the opinion on stratified charges is not good and seems to be much more theoretical than practical for racing.
But I am regularly wrong

[godlameroso]

I wouldn't say you're wrong, given the amount of time and effort to get flame ignition working is beyond people like you and me. I'm used to installing and tuning turbo kits, rebuilding heads, or engine swaps. I still don't know what any engine manufacturer is doing exactly, but I do know the computer modeling has come a LONG way since the publishing of that SAE paper. Sadly even car manufacturers lack the resources to get this to work on their own. Large petrochemical companies are the only ones with enough super computers to do the type of computer modeling required.