2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Edis]

PMSM are a popular choice for production cars too, and they are often found in electric and hybrid vehicles

If you watch the Supercar Superbuild Porsche 918 episode , they show a modern 150Hp BLDC motor being constructed for Porsche by ZF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKgFRMEtPM

at 18mins here..
https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/2sKgFR ... showinfo=0

I like the jig they use to attach the magnets , I have some 1" x 1" disc magnets that will quite happily remove any skin trapped between them when they snap together.

Rob

Those are actually PMSM, see Porsche technical specifications.

http://press.porsche.com/vehicles/2015/ ... Spyder.pdf

That motor design looks a bit cheap though, take the single tooth winding as an example, that's a design you select for low cost automated manufacturing.

PMSM are probably the most common automotive traction motors, Prius, Volt, i3, iMIEV and many other cars use them. The other most common options are the synchronous machine (Continental produce these for Renault) and the asynchronous machine (aka. induction motor) used by Tesla.

BLDC and PMSM is basically the same thing. Permanent magnet rotor and a three phase stator
Generally a BLDC will be wound to have a trapezoidal bemf so it can be driven with s simpler waveform, but it's not
always the case

Yes, a BLDC motor is actually not a DC motor as the name implies but a three phase AC motor designed as a replacement for a brushed DC motor - hence the three wire connection similar to AC motors. I don't think there is any difference in the motor itself with BLDC compared to PMSM with exception of the sensor used to detect rotor position; BLDC tend to use hall effect sensors or are sensorless while PMAC typically use a sensor with higher accuracy, like a resolver. The rest of the difference is in the motor control due to the simpler waveform, which is probably where most of the cost saving is with a BLDC compared to PMSM.

[f1316]

ThIs article on sky sports f1 discusses in more detail Martin brundle 's suggestions for improving the formula for 2017 (interesting that they seem to disagree with most of it):

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -wish-list

What interested me most though was this:

Boosting fuel flow above 100kg/hour is easy enough and would increase both power and noise. Although it’s difficult to see how this tallies with the FIA’s assertion that F1 should be more ‘green’, the fact it has already switched to hybrid technology probably already conveys the right message sufficiently well.

I wonder if, even if you do boost fuel flow rate, you could still achieve same max fuel limit by allowing refuelling? I mean how much more fuel efficient would the car be if not always carrying all of its fuel?

Obviously this depends on how much you increase fuel flow and how much smaller you make fuel tanks, but seems as if it's a great pr message to say: "we made the engines faster + louder and didn't use any more fuel".

(Not to mention that you could also then run harder/better tyres because you no longer need to contrive pit stops through tyres)

[FW17]

For the umteenth time, you cant decouple the two parts of the turbo (could somebody quote the rule yet again please?). The turbine and compressor must rotate about the same axis at the same angular velocity at all times.

What are the possibilities of the MGU-H being a duel rotor unit?

[Vortex37]

For the umteenth time, you cant decouple the two parts of the turbo (could somebody quote the rule yet again please?). The turbine and compressor must rotate about the same axis at the same angular velocity at all times.

What are the possibilities of the MGU-H being a duel rotor unit?
http://tmcporch.com/assets/Dual-Rotor-Machines-1.png

Yes, why not? I can't see anything in the rules to stop this. But it doesn't look very efficient. If you are thinking about using the second element as the 'motor', it doesn't require much energy to spin up the turbo. However I think it might reduce the complexity of power switching.

Throwing something else into the pot. How about a coaxial flywheel/motor generator.

[Vortex37]

Audi have just released some information on their new turbocharged DI miller cycle engine. The wiki article assumes a supercharger and normal fuel injection. But the concept of higher cylinder pressures and lower compression ratio, coupled to lower final charge temp, look rather attractive. I am not suggesting a full miller cycle, but a partial phase implementation. Some of what Audi are doing is not allowed under current rules.

Where am I going wrong?

[gruntguru]

The benefit of Miller cycle is chiefly the increased expansion ratio. A turbocompound engine gets the same result (extracting more of the combustion energy) by adding an expander to the exhaust. Audi's engine has a turbocharger but no means of using turbine energy except to drive the compressor.

[wuzak]

ThIs article on sky sports f1 discusses in more detail Martin brundle 's suggestions for improving the formula for 2017 (interesting that they seem to disagree with most of it):

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -wish-list

What interested me most though was this:

Boosting fuel flow above 100kg/hour is easy enough and would increase both power and noise. Although it’s difficult to see how this tallies with the FIA’s assertion that F1 should be more ‘green’, the fact it has already switched to hybrid technology probably already conveys the right message sufficiently well.

I wonder if, even if you do boost fuel flow rate, you could still achieve same max fuel limit by allowing refuelling? I mean how much more fuel efficient would the car be if not always carrying all of its fuel?

Obviously this depends on how much you increase fuel flow and how much smaller you make fuel tanks, but seems as if it's a great pr message to say: "we made the engines faster + louder and didn't use any more fuel".

(Not to mention that you could also then run harder/better tyres because you no longer need to contrive pit stops through tyres)

The easiest way to up the power is to extend the fuel flow formula to a higher fixed point - I'd suggest 13,000-13,500rpm. That has the double effect of increasing the operating range of the cars.

There is no way that you can increase the power, reduce lap times, and keep the same race fuel allowance.

I'd suggest dropping the race fuel allowance altogether, which should allow them to push harder for longer.

[wuzak]

As to sharing components, Sauber use the Ferrari PU and gearbox, as do Manor-Marussia.

Haas have stated that everything they are not required to build by the rules will be sourced from Ferrari. So, to a degree, taht is already happening.

[f1316]

ThIs article on sky sports f1 discusses in more detail Martin brundle 's suggestions for improving the formula for 2017 (interesting that they seem to disagree with most of it):

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -wish-list

What interested me most though was this:

Boosting fuel flow above 100kg/hour is easy enough and would increase both power and noise. Although it’s difficult to see how this tallies with the FIA’s assertion that F1 should be more ‘green’, the fact it has already switched to hybrid technology probably already conveys the right message sufficiently well.

I wonder if, even if you do boost fuel flow rate, you could still achieve same max fuel limit by allowing refuelling? I mean how much more fuel efficient would the car be if not always carrying all of its fuel?

Obviously this depends on how much you increase fuel flow and how much smaller you make fuel tanks, but seems as if it's a great pr message to say: "we made the engines faster + louder and didn't use any more fuel".

(Not to mention that you could also then run harder/better tyres because you no longer need to contrive pit stops through tyres)

The easiest way to up the power is to extend the fuel flow formula to a higher fixed point - I'd suggest 13,000-13,500rpm. That has the double effect of increasing the operating range of the cars.

There is no way that you can increase the power, reduce lap times, and keep the same race fuel allowance.

I'd suggest dropping the race fuel allowance altogether, which should allow them to push harder for longer.

So when the car is carrying less fuel, and is therefore lighter, it's not using less fuel? Surely in the final stint of the race, for example, as opposed to the first, the quantity of fuel must be diminishing more slowly?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems logical to me, and carrying all the fuel for your entire journey despite passing a petrol station every 2 miles seems illogical/inefficient .

[Vary]

Very interesting read (italian) on benzing's blog (http://www.formula1benzing.eu/index.html) about fuel density.

Basically, he says that the Merc's engine advantage of last year was due to high density fuel that this year Ferrari also uses. Hugh fuel density (0.8 ) gives more power (in his view) because the FIA read the flow metre values in litres and then convert them in kilos, bit doing that uses a density coefficient differenti from the reality.

[FW17]

Very interesting read (italian) on benzing's blog (http://www.formula1benzing.eu/index.html) about fuel density.

Basically, he says that the Merc's engine advantage of last year was due to high density fuel that this year Ferrari also uses. Hugh fuel density (0.8 ) gives more power (in his view) because the FIA read the flow metre values in litres and then convert them in kilos, bit doing that uses a density coefficient differenti from the reality.

Don't think FIA are that dumb

They would use a density coefficient of the sample fuel submitted

[wuzak]

Very interesting read (italian) on benzing's blog (http://www.formula1benzing.eu/index.html) about fuel density.

Basically, he says that the Merc's engine advantage of last year was due to high density fuel that this year Ferrari also uses. Hugh fuel density (0.8 ) gives more power (in his view) because the FIA read the flow metre values in litres and then convert them in kilos, bit doing that uses a density coefficient differenti from the reality.

The FIA calibrates the meters for each fuel and applie a correction factors for temperature,

[wuzak]

So when the car is carrying less fuel, and is therefore lighter, it's not using less fuel? Surely in the final stint of the race, for example, as opposed to the first, the quantity of fuel must be diminishing more slowly?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems logical to me, and carrying all the fuel for your entire journey despite passing a petrol station every 2 miles seems illogical/inefficient .

If you have less fuel in the tank and are lighter, lap in the same times and use the same maximum fuel flow rate then you will use less fuel.

However, you are increasing the fuel flow rate for more power. And likely taking advantage of the lighter weight to post faster lap times, ending up with the engine at full fuel flow for a higher percentage of time.

If the fuel flow rate is increased, then the race fuel allowance would also likely be increased. I'm sure you've witnessed the bitching and moaning about fuel saving, "lift and coast" on various forums around the web? THis is only going to get worse if they have more power but the same fuel.

[Cold Fussion]

Lift and coast is also part of the harvesting strategy during the race isn't it? LMP1 has a lot lift and coasting and you don't hear too many complaints about it there, so I don't see that as a big problem.

[hollus]

Benzing is taking the art of extrapolation the extrapolation of a single datapoint to a new level, IMO. If you really follow his numbers, he is using top speeds, fuel consumptions in liters and lap times, assuming that the other umpteen parameters are constant and fit his nice models, and deducing dozens of "physical" data from it. In my field of work that's called overfitting. And with enough variables, you can fit an elephant.
Think about it for a moment, if you had an 8% fuel density advantage, how would you use it? And why would the density in Monza change so much? And why are his "measured" induction pressures from past races so similar?