1.6L V6 turbo engines | FerrariChat
Buy

1.6L V6 turbo engines

Discussion in 'F1' started by Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Page 1 of 2
  1. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #1 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012
    There is quite a chat going on one of the technical formula 1 websites and some interesting numbers regarding power outputs are beginning to float around by way of engine output modeling etc.

    I'm looking forward to the new engine as I believe it will change a fundamental performance that F1 has not seen in quite some time, and that is low-end torque. Turbo engines as a general rule provide immediate torque as when they spool up they installed alter the dynamic characteristics of the engine stroke. Current F1 engines see around 200lbs of torque.

    according to the fuel rules, we will see as follows:

    regulation:
    5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5


    344 ft/lbs tq @ 8000rpm 76 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
    344 ft/lbs tq @ 9000rpm 86 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
    344 ft/lbs tq @ 10000rpm 95 kg/hr limit .32BSFC
    344 ft/lbs tq @ 10500rpm 100 kg/hr limit .32BSFC

    I'm guessing 650-700bhp will be the max bhp figure we see. The torque interests me more tough.


    This torque change will be monumental in the way we see aerodynamics on the cars. I believe we will see a lot more emphasis on medium and low speed capabilities. Potentially ludicrous Monaco lap times......
     
  2. TifosiUSA

    TifosiUSA F1 Veteran

    Nov 18, 2007
    8,468
    Kansas City, MO
    Full Name:
    DJ
    #2 TifosiUSA, Jul 26, 2012
    This will be interesting, but I hope they end up getting to the 800-850 HP range. Not sure how possible that will be with the fuel flow restrictions.

    Are you power figures you quoted with or without KERS?
     
  3. crinoid

    crinoid F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 2, 2005
    9,955
    Full Name:
    LaCrinoid
    #3 crinoid, Jul 26, 2012
    How might this change the look of the cars??
     
  4. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    9,724
    #4 Mitch Alsup, Jul 26, 2012
    What causes the 10500 RPM limit?
    Motorcycle engines can get 16K from wire spring based valves.
     
  5. schumacherf2006

    schumacherf2006 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 22, 2010
    9,043
    Full Name:
    Chris
    #5 schumacherf2006, Jul 26, 2012
    Not a fan of the 10500 RPM limit
     
  6. joker57676

    joker57676 Two Time F1 World Champ

    Apr 12, 2005
    23,767
    Sin City
    Full Name:
    Deplorie McDeplorableface
    #6 joker57676, Jul 26, 2012
    I believe its a mandated limit.


    Mark
     
  7. crinoid

    crinoid F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 2, 2005
    9,955
    Full Name:
    LaCrinoid
    #7 crinoid, Jul 26, 2012
    Agreed. It is very un cool.
     
  8. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #8 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012

    minus KERS

    More tightly packaged sidepods and the engine cover area will be substantially lower, I'm guessing we will see some interesting air intakes and exhausts, unless the exhaust rules are further tightened in a very specific manner for these units

    The engines will rev to 15k per the rules. The 10.5k figure above is regarding torque and at what rpm it may take place. These V6 engines could probably spin well north of 21k but the rules will not allow it. If I had to guess, I would bet these V6 F1 pistons will incorporate a thicker piston dome area than before in the interest of making a stout engine which can sustain boost and rpm where intended. Pneumatic valves may not be needed any longer? We'll see.
     
  9. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #9 Fast_ian, Jul 26, 2012
    "May take place?" :confused: ;) Torque doesn't "take place!"..... [Sorry, couldn't resist :)]

    Anyway, the calculations you lifted from the other site are only concerned with the numbers below 10,500 as that's where the restriction on flow applies. From the 2014 regulations;

    Over the 10,500 "idle" power & torque will increase nicely as always. :)

    If allowed, the current engines would also go to well over 20K - I seem to recall Dr Theissen saying 24K is doable when they were still involved. Pretty much the same with the V6's I reckon. The big downside is longevity - **** wears *fast* at those speeds.

    I don't understand what you're getting at with "thicker piston domes to sustain boost & RPM"? - My understanding is you want the pistons as light as possible to allow it rev "freely". Further, crown design will have no effect on either sustaining boost or RPM IMO.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  10. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #10 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012
    As I said, the technical site has a really interesting discussion going on! Some great clever minds over there.


    I believe these engines will probably idle around where they are now, which is right around 6k. Turbo engines make peak torque far lower than a NA engine, so seeing peak torque be higher and at a much lower rpm than a current motor is absolutely possible.
     
  11. schumacherf2006

    schumacherf2006 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 22, 2010
    9,043
    Full Name:
    Chris
    #11 schumacherf2006, Jul 26, 2012
    FIA, "These are the engine displacement size regulations (1.6L Turbo). Each team will be allowed to develop their engines how ever they would like with out exceeding the 1.6L displacement "

    -Quoted from the dream I just had
     
  12. LightGuy

    LightGuy Four Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 4, 2004
    45,580
    Texas
    Full Name:
    David
    #12 LightGuy, Jul 26, 2012
    If fuel is indeed the restraint then RPMs will recline.
    More time to burn the fuel efficiently means longer burn times = lower rpms.

    We no longer live in a world of unlimited resources and if the F1 engineers can help with solutions not create more problems then its good for the sport.

    Wear thinner ear plugs.
     
  13. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #13 Fast_ian, Jul 26, 2012
    I guess I'm in a pissy mood this morning - Sorry! ;) I've gotta disagree there too;

    Sidepod size is limited by radiator demands, and these things are gonna run hot, so I don't see those changing much. Keeping the turbo "cool" is gonna be a challenge too.

    The current motor packaging is about as small as they can go. Chopping 2 cylinders off will obviously make 'em shorter & a little lighter, but not by much. They've still gotta be 90deg V. Exhausts must exit to the outside of the V and feed a centrally (longitudinally) mounted, single stage, turbo - So not too much flexibility there either IMO.

    Incidentally, and mentioned before, when they went from the 10's to the 8's I do now believe they simply chopped off two pots;

    3litre V10 = 300cc / cylinder.
    2.4litre V8 = 300cc / cylinder. So, in theory at least and as someone postulated recently the tooling could have stayed the same.

    Extrapolating that, they should have gone to 1.8L V6's and maintained 300cc/pot. As it is they've got to go down to ~267cc each.

    Again, sorry for pissing on your parade! ;)

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  14. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #14 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012
    Heavily boosted engines run thicker piston domes, top fuel is sort of a good example as their pistons as thick and almost bulky. Drifter cars with turbo 4s are another example. I'm not entirely sure of the reasons behind it as it strikes me as 100% opposite of what 'should' be done, but this is a boosted engine and I just don't know tons about them. I just lightened the rotating assembly of my 308 engine by using a 360 crank (11lbs lighter) and it spins massively more freely now, not to mention tons more power. I believe boosted engines run more ring tension as well, which is of course parasitic drag and heat.

    Cosworth stated they managed 22k from their v8 and could probably push a small amount higher but not reliably. With nikasil liners combined with say 1mm-1.5mm thick chrome moly piston rings I believe they could see the longevity they are looking for. Currently I believe they use a .8mm thick top ring, I just don't think that would be doable with a boosted engine though. I would think piston speed would be the major limited factor and perhaps designing a more robust piston is the answer. It depends if the bearings are up to it I suppose.
     
  15. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    49,612
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    #15 tifosi12, Jul 26, 2012
    More torque is great: This way the Pirellis can tear themselves to shreds even faster.
     
  16. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #16 Fast_ian, Jul 26, 2012
    Indeed - No argument there.

    However, given their ability to spin their wheels at any time already, is more torque gonna be a good thing?....... OTOH, more RPM always equals more power, and you can never have enough of that - Until you reach Mark Donahoue's famous quote anyway;

    Loved that guy! :)

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  17. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #17 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012
    No, this is good, that's what it's here for. And F1tech's discussion of this stuff is like watching paint dry.


    Think about it, the turbo will be regulated to be at the front of the V so it will be positioned just behind the fuel tank. The engine is naturally going to be smaller and carry less coolant capacity/volume, but not by much I'm sure. The sidepods and radiators will only be as large as they absolutely are required to be, I expect a different and tighter design as the exhaust manifold path will be first traveling forward to the turbo, and then rearward- this whole area will be very different as the manifold is not going to require the same amount of space it required previously to birth the V8 manifolds.
     
  18. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #18 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012

    I believe it will change the gearing and we will see fewer downshifts.
     
  19. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921
    #19 cheesey, Jul 26, 2012
    electro mechanical actuaters ( think magnet ) for the valve train... unlimited more precise engine mapping when the computer controls... no cams, no hydraulic delays, fewer parts, lighter etc
     
  20. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #20 Fast_ian, Jul 26, 2012
    I don't believe so. From the 2014 regs again;

    I read that as I can put the sucker anywhere as long as it's on the centerline. I don't see any benefits to mounting it forward? My guess would be buried in the V nice & close to the inlets.......


    Yes & no! ;) Agree they'll squeeze it all down as tight as they can - Adrian et al would like nothing more than *no* air intakes as we know!..... I'm not sure about exhausts running "forward then back" though. And the "old" turbo's had some *huge* primary pipes feeding the turbo.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  21. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #21 Fast_ian, Jul 26, 2012
    Possibly. The approach certainly has many appeals as you say.

    But IIRC they tried going down that path a few years back and couldn't make it work for some reason (?)

    Maybe computer / ECU technology makes it feasible today, but I dunno? There doesn't appear to be anything in the 2014 regulations that precludes it.......

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  22. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #22 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Yes, they will bury in the V as deep as they are able, but I believe it will be positioned frontmost as possible to the firewall/bulkhead as well



    We will see creative exhaust manifolds at the very least. The current manifolds curve slightly backwards towards the cab then exit up and over. Future V6 manifolds I believe will be primarily a straight shot to the turbo opening up all sorts of 'room' in the laminar area
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  23. LightGuy

    LightGuy Four Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 4, 2004
    45,580
    Texas
    Full Name:
    David
    #23 LightGuy, Jul 26, 2012
    Each valve would need to be magnetic or have a magnetic structure attached to it.
    (heavy inertially).
    Then each valve would have to have a very powerful electromagnetic coil (heavy).
    Then there would have to be sufficient electricity to power it with an alternator (heavy once again).

    I like the technology and hope they can figure it out.
     
  24. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Owner Project Master

    May 10, 2006
    17,847
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    John!
    #24 Ferraripilot, Jul 26, 2012
    I saw this on a experimental Chevy motor some backyard addict did himself on youtube once. If I remember right regarding the research, the polarity of the magnets could not physically change quickly enough compared to pnuematic or something to that effect. A slotted shaft system not involving valves or camshafts at all is an interesting idea too.
     
  25. Denman_Honda

    Denman_Honda Karting

    Sep 3, 2009
    123
    DFW, TX
    Full Name:
    Chris Denman
    #25 Denman_Honda, Jul 26, 2012
    Are the outboard manifold required? Will rules permit the current BMW turbo mounting method in the V with airflow through the heads coming from the outside toward the center of the motor? That is a clever idea for reducing the volume in the manifolds. Also, since torque is largely responsible for drivetrain breakage, how much re-engineering will be going into gearboxes? I guess I need to start following those forums since I'm into these nerdy-ish things lol.
     
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page