2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Holm86]

You do not believe in 650 bhp from the engine?

Well I'm not so sure. .........So 650 is a very big improvement. 700hp I have no doubt is not thermodynamically possible.

http://speedblog.speed.com/speed/formul ... straights/

Speed thinks different.

However, the top speeds of the new turbo V6s are significantly higher, thanks to reduced downforce and an impressive engine-plus-ERS maximum of almost 900 horse power.

If you take out 160 hp for the MGU-K you need 700 horses from the ICE to come anywhere close to 900 hp.

When did we start believing in jurnos?? I definitely don't believe in 900 hp total.

[wuzak]

15% drag reduction, which I have seen estimated in several articles, correlates to the speed increase at Bahrain when using roughly the same engine power.

[atanatizante]

@wuzak : Thanx a lot man for enlighten me with these things!
1.

The MGU-H could supply 10MJ to the system - if the turbine could provide enough power.

a)Why the turbine couldn`t provide enough power?
b)There are mandatory turbine dimensions/size? coz I didn`t find anything regarding this matter in the rules …
2.

The MGU-K won't be recovering 2MJ per lap on most circuits - at least not from braking.

a)Why can`t MGU-K provide 2MJ per lap?
Coz to cope with 4MJ/lap this year isn`t MGU-K electric generator capability in the same amount with the electrical motor?
From The Renault Energy F1 release technical sheet : “The MGU-K is connected to the crankshaft of the internal combustion engine and is capable of RECOVERING or PROVIDING power (limited to 120 kW or 160 bhp by the rules).”
b) Could MGU-K recover other energy than braking? Your sure it`s not solely from braking?
c) Last year they could recover energy solely from rear brakes, right? This year could they recover even at the front one?
3.

No, the use of the MGU-H to power the MGU-K is not dependent on the ES.

Yeah I know that but was poor in explain it So I know they could “split” the power for ES and for MGU-K ...
4.

It is unlikely that much of the MGU-H energy recovered will be sent to the ES.

a) Are you sure of that? I`m afraid it`s the other way around coz as I understand the MGU-H first priority is to harvest the ES with the remaining 2MJ/lap that MGU-K can`t do it due to the rules and in the end to reach the 4MJ/lap limit in order to get the max. power allowed for the latter …
b) Then what`s the reason behind the imposed rule for max. 4MJ/lap for ES?
5.

And basically any time the engine is at full throttle the MGU-H will be sending energy to the MGU-K.

a) So what you are saying here is that, let`s say, from a 90 sec. lap a driver has 33,3 sec available to release the max. power – 120KW – provided by MGU-K (the max. power mapping scenario) and for the remaining 56,7 sec he could use what power MGU-H is sending to MGU-K ?
b) What power delivers this MGU-H, in general, we don`t know (but we could assume which amount it has, isn`t it?) and manufacturers has a free liberty regarding this matter, right?
c) And if it`s free to develop it then until when they have this liberty? or when MGU-H it`ll become a “frozen” spec?
6.

Some energy will be sent from the MGU-H to the ES, if only to be later used for spooling up the turbo.

So what you are implying is that they`d never use 4MJ/lap from ES solely for MGU-K coz they need energy for MGU-H in order to decrease turbo lag?
7.

The MGU-H is linked via a fixed gearing ratio and clutch to the turbo

a) Where in the rules states which gearing size is mandatory?
b) Or they have freedom with it?
c) In this case why not have the same speed like ICE?

[chip engineer]

15% drag reduction, which I have seen estimated in several articles, correlates to the speed increase at Bahrain when using roughly the same engine power.

Why should we expect 15% drag reduction? (not disputing, just want to know the reasons).
The wings are a little smaller, but radiators are larger, so those cancel to some extent.
The diffuser is no longer exhaust blown which reduces downforce, but does that also reduce drag?

[mrluke]

15% drag reduction, which I have seen estimated in several articles, correlates to the speed increase at Bahrain when using roughly the same engine power.

Why should we expect 15% drag reduction? (not disputing, just want to know the reasons).
The wings are a little smaller, but radiators are larger, so those cancel to some extent.
The diffuser is no longer exhaust blown which reduces downforce, but does that also reduce drag?

The beam wing has been removed which was supposedly very draggy. Not sure where the remainder comes from. Aren't the tyres slightly bigger (more drag)?

[techF1LES]

Changes Renault have made since Jerez...

Change of battery cell provider
The individual cells that make up the Energy Store have individual over-charge and over-discharge protection. These were proving unreliable due to thermal/vibration issues. Whilst the energy store is sealed in our fitment, I am informed the cells are now supplied by Panasonic.

Change to MGU-K to Crank drive gearing
The original torque multiplication factor was calculated to give a wider spread of torque on acceleration. Track testing found that this was causing traction difficulties and overloading the gear set and causing failure of the crank casing.

Change to turbocharger wastegate function
Renault had originally intended for the H to regulate Turbine speed in 95%+ of normal running. They facilitated this by allowing the H to pull charge (when the energy store was at capacity) to an air cooled heat sink. This strategy proved ineffective in certain environments and a more conventional wastegate is now being used to supplement the H.

Due to both the change in K gear ratio, boost control strategy and the energy store, most of the software relating to the charge and discharge cycling has been modified daily and continues to be refined. There are still issues relating to turbine speed control via H but these are mostly to do with fine tuning of the control software and the synchronisation between H control and wastegate control.

There has been swift progress and software related driveability now appears to be the main issue.

Re the H to K transfer
There are times when you can't (or wouldn't want to) transfer power from the H to the K but still need to limit turbo speed.

Think along the lines of a short burst of acceleration then slight deceleration then acceleration (such as feathering throttle for traction or in a switch back). The last thing the driver would want is for the K to feed power into driveline.

During those transitional situations Renault wanted to control the speed of the turbo by using the H to maintain shaft speed at or close to max rpm. It turned out (partly because of the driveability issues) that H was dumping to the heat sink far more than had been predicted or modelled. This was causing severe heat related issues in some cars at Jerez and the Renault 'patch' was to disable the H entirely and rely on the mechanical wastegate for the remainder of the test.

Obviously this resulted in dramatically increased lag and reduced performance but allowed some mileage to be put on the ICE.

In the interests of transparency it should be disclosed that we have had no first-hand experience with the original spec PU used in Jerez.

Our running experience started with a version that had basic H functioning and limited K output.


Source: @enotsne/forums.autosport.com

[ringo]

@ ringo ....... (sincerely)
conventionally imep-bmep is equivalent to the 'mechanical' losses eg your 15% that gives a notional 'mechanical efficiency' of 85%
this is easy to declare eg in an NA engine
these losses are a 'package' comprising the friction at bearings and pistons etc , and gas flow work 'pumping losses'

does this fairly account for the analysis of our compound engine ?
where the gas flow work (losses or otherwise) will be contained within the compressor and turbine work terms

FWIW by only small extrapolation of published data for measured engine mechanical friction
IIRC the mechanical friction in our engine will be about 9% (also some real engine mechanical efficiencies support this)

are you sure that (if assuming the 15% value for the 'loss package') that this is not 'double counting' of gas flow work ?

I used 15% as package. To be honest I wasn't so sure of the impact of the turbine with the MGUH, so I decided on a 15% loss maximum. I could input a function related to the engine speed, but I kept things simple and just maintained that percentage across the rev range. So the actual power output could be greater than what I have. If I had a realistic function for an engine like this, that would be great.

[ringo]

You do not believe in 650 bhp from the engine?

Well I'm not so sure. .........So 650 is a very big improvement. 700hp I have no doubt is not thermodynamically possible.

http://speedblog.speed.com/speed/formul ... straights/

Speed thinks different.

However, the top speeds of the new turbo V6s are significantly higher, thanks to reduced downforce and an impressive engine-plus-ERS maximum of almost 900 horse power.

If you take out 160 hp for the MGU-K you need 700 horses from the ICE to come anywhere close to 900 hp.

I am not moved by that article. It doesn't say anything about the power of the ICE. 700hp is not going to be possible with this fuel limit.

[dmjunqueira]

Changes Renault have made since Jerez...

Change of battery cell provider
The individual cells that make up the Energy Store have individual over-charge and over-discharge protection. These were proving unreliable due to thermal/vibration issues. Whilst the energy store is sealed in our fitment, I am informed the cells are now supplied by Panasonic.

Change to MGU-K to Crank drive gearing
The original torque multiplication factor was calculated to give a wider spread of torque on acceleration. Track testing found that this was causing traction difficulties and overloading the gear set and causing failure of the crank casing.

Change to turbocharger wastegate function
Renault had originally intended for the H to regulate Turbine speed in 95%+ of normal running. They facilitated this by allowing the H to pull charge (when the energy store was at capacity) to an air cooled heat sink. This strategy proved ineffective in certain environments and a more conventional wastegate is now being used to supplement the H.

Due to both the change in K gear ratio, boost control strategy and the energy store, most of the software relating to the charge and discharge cycling has been modified daily and continues to be refined. There are still issues relating to turbine speed control via H but these are mostly to do with fine tuning of the control software and the synchronisation between H control and wastegate control.

There has been swift progress and software related driveability now appears to be the main issue.

Re the H to K transfer
There are times when you can't (or wouldn't want to) transfer power from the H to the K but still need to limit turbo speed.

Think along the lines of a short burst of acceleration then slight deceleration then acceleration (such as feathering throttle for traction or in a switch back). The last thing the driver would want is for the K to feed power into driveline.

During those transitional situations Renault wanted to control the speed of the turbo by using the H to maintain shaft speed at or close to max rpm. It turned out (partly because of the driveability issues) that H was dumping to the heat sink far more than had been predicted or modelled. This was causing severe heat related issues in some cars at Jerez and the Renault 'patch' was to disable the H entirely and rely on the mechanical wastegate for the remainder of the test.

Obviously this resulted in dramatically increased lag and reduced performance but allowed some mileage to be put on the ICE.

In the interests of transparency it should be disclosed that we have had no first-hand experience with the original spec PU used in Jerez.

Our running experience started with a version that had basic H functioning and limited K output.


Source: @enotsne/forums.autosport.com

Thanks for sharing =D> ...I think this is finally a valuable information.

[ringo]

Changes Renault have made since Jerez...

Change of battery cell provider
The individual cells that make up the Energy Store have individual over-charge and over-discharge protection. These were proving unreliable due to thermal/vibration issues. Whilst the energy store is sealed in our fitment, I am informed the cells are now supplied by Panasonic.

Change to MGU-K to Crank drive gearing
The original torque multiplication factor was calculated to give a wider spread of torque on acceleration. Track testing found that this was causing traction difficulties and overloading the gear set and causing failure of the crank casing.

Change to turbocharger wastegate function
Renault had originally intended for the H to regulate Turbine speed in 95%+ of normal running. They facilitated this by allowing the H to pull charge (when the energy store was at capacity) to an air cooled heat sink. This strategy proved ineffective in certain environments and a more conventional wastegate is now being used to supplement the H.

Due to both the change in K gear ratio, boost control strategy and the energy store, most of the software relating to the charge and discharge cycling has been modified daily and continues to be refined. There are still issues relating to turbine speed control via H but these are mostly to do with fine tuning of the control software and the synchronisation between H control and wastegate control.

There has been swift progress and software related driveability now appears to be the main issue.

Re the H to K transfer
There are times when you can't (or wouldn't want to) transfer power from the H to the K but still need to limit turbo speed.

Think along the lines of a short burst of acceleration then slight deceleration then acceleration (such as feathering throttle for traction or in a switch back). The last thing the driver would want is for the K to feed power into driveline.

During those transitional situations Renault wanted to control the speed of the turbo by using the H to maintain shaft speed at or close to max rpm. It turned out (partly because of the driveability issues) that H was dumping to the heat sink far more than had been predicted or modelled. This was causing severe heat related issues in some cars at Jerez and the Renault 'patch' was to disable the H entirely and rely on the mechanical wastegate for the remainder of the test.

Obviously this resulted in dramatically increased lag and reduced performance but allowed some mileage to be put on the ICE.

In the interests of transparency it should be disclosed that we have had no first-hand experience with the original spec PU used in Jerez.

Our running experience started with a version that had basic H functioning and limited K output.


Source: @enotsne/forums.autosport.com

I told you all about the waste gate from the beginning but nooo.....

There is a fundamental difference with MGUH boost control and a waste gate. One is a load and one is a bypass.
If the MGUH is going to load the turbine to control speed, that kinetic energy is going to change to heat energy, and this is where their heat sink came in apparently; in the case where the battery cannot hold this energy. And even if it does hold this energy, the inefficiencies of the charging will produce a lot of heat.
It is my opinion that Renault got to greedy with harvesting, to the point that there was a lot of heat generated as the back pressure increased.
Just put a waste gate and let it out, you can't capture everything. There is a thermodynamic law relating to what is called "availability" but I can't bother get into that right now.

[dren]

Changes Renault have made since Jerez...

Change to turbocharger wastegate function
Renault had originally intended for the H to regulate Turbine speed in 95%+ of normal running. They facilitated this by allowing the H to pull charge (when the energy store was at capacity) to an air cooled heat sink. This strategy proved ineffective in certain environments and a more conventional wastegate is now being used to supplement the H.

Source: @enotsne/forums.autosport.com

You would think if too much energy to the ES from the MGUH was an issue they would decrease the MGUK to ES charging.

Anybody hear wastegate sounds from any of the PUs during testing?

[Blackout]

Is it illegal to use super-capacitors for the excess energy?
It is a positive sign that they are managing to fill the battery and even have excess, is'nt it ?

[myurr]

Is it illegal to use super-capacitors for the excess energy?
It is a positive sign that they are managing to fill the battery and even have excess, is'nt it ?

I believe so. Didn't the FIA mandate the types of components they were allowed to use for the energy store to prevent excess spending on exotic technologies?

[Juzh]

I don't know all the answers but there are some:

2.

The MGU-K won't be recovering 2MJ per lap on most circuits - at least not from braking.

a)Why can`t MGU-K provide 2MJ per lap?

Because not enough power can be harvested from the braking system on all circuits. This is a brembo braking power chart:

Code: Select all

Circuit        Energy
SINGAPORE      2460
ABUDHABI       1846
AUSTIN         1567
BAHRAIN        1504
MONACO         1517
MALAYSIA       1463
KOREA          1349
HUNGARY        1284
SPA            1292
CHINA          1216
NURBURGRING    1171
CANADA         1159
CATALUNYA      1138
BRAZIL         1064
INDIA          1064
SUZUKA         1061
AUSTRALIA      992
MONZA          938
SILVERSTONE    730

c) Last year they could recover energy solely from rear brakes, right? This year could they recover even at the front one?

Harvesting is still rear brakes only.

And basically any time the engine is at full throttle the MGU-H will be sending energy to the MGU-K.

a) So what you are saying here is that, let`s say, from a 90 sec. lap a driver has 33,3 sec available to release the max. power – 120KW – provided by MGU-K (the max. power mapping scenario) and for the remaining 56,7 sec he could use what power MGU-H is sending to MGU-K ?

Yes

Some energy will be sent from the MGU-H to the ES, if only to be later used for spooling up the turbo.

So what you are implying is that they`d never use 4MJ/lap from ES solely for MGU-K coz they need energy for MGU-H in order to decrease turbo lag?

Some, yes.

[chip engineer]

I told you all about the waste gate from the beginning but nooo.....

There is a fundamental difference with MGUH boost control and a waste gate. One is a load and one is a bypass.
If the MGUH is going to load the turbine to control speed, that kinetic energy is going to change to heat energy, and this is where their heat sink came in apparently; in the case where the battery cannot hold this energy. And even if it does hold this energy, the inefficiencies of the charging will produce a lot of heat.
It is my opinion that Renault got to greedy with harvesting, to the point that there was a lot of heat generated as the back pressure increased.
Just put a waste gate and let it out, you can't capture everything. There is a thermodynamic law relating to what is called "availability" but I can't bother get into that right now.

Yes, it looks like you were right that eliminating the wastegate is more difficult than some here thought, and maybe 'Renault got to greedy with harvesting' too soon. But I disagree than anyone will remain competitive long term if they do not harvest as much energy as is possible.

Renault has apparently replaced their battery supplier; maybe the energy store was not meeting its spec for accepting power. There is no FIA rule or fundamental physical limit to the rate the energy store can accept energy from the MGU-H. How does the 'thermodynamic law relating to what is called "availability" ' have any impact on this?