F1 Turbo Engines for 2013

[MajorDanby]

I'm afraid thats a little bit over my head Griz

Whats everybody's thoughts on McLaren bringing their own engine to 2013? After the recent split with Mercedes, and irrespective of the 5 year engine deal they have, there has been talk of McLaren developing their own engine sometime in the future.

Do we think this is just talk and they will continue to buy customer engines into the foreseeable future?

 

[Grizzly]

They definitely did want to build their own. They came to an agreement, Brawn/Merc/McLaren, last year that changed as the season progressed and Mercedes became interested in buying the whole team. From what i understand there is no fall out whatsoever, they have just each decided they don't like sharing the glory and want to do it alone. I think McLaren have been wanting to develop engines for quite some years now. They designed and built the new engine for the MP4-12c.

Whether this will ever happen now with the possibility of one common engine i have no idea

 

[Brogan]

Well if ever McLaren were going to build their own engine, now is the time to do it.

With the rules changing so drastically, everyone will be starting from the same point so there will be no advantage for the existing engine manufacturers.

The current deal with Mercedes works out very well indeed for McLaren.

 

[sportsman]

Whether or not McLaren build their own engine, is dependent on the new technical regulations.
There is so much new techology coming on stream and what is and what is not allowed will be the key.
At present we have no idea apart from a few loose indicators what will be allowed.Will FIAT's multiair valve train be allowed.Will Mercedes DIESOTTO engine technology be allowed.How much fuel will be allowed and at what octane rating.
So until these questions are answered we can only guess at what the future engine perfomance figures will be.

http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921- ... 0-0-0.html

http://www.fptmultiair.com/flash_multiair_eng/home.htm

 

[Flood1]

Without any of the above, a reasonable estimate for a 1600 race engine at 11 000rpm IMO would be 250 - 300hp and the simple maths downgrading the current engines back that figure.

Now, pump 1 Bar (double atmospheric pressure) through it and i would be very disappointed if i did not reach the quoted 500 - 550hp with that alone (265 * 1.9 (assumes 10% loss in VE) = 503), hence my earlier assumption that boost levels will be limited to 1 - 1.5Bar, because it is my educated guess that teams and the FIA would intend to keep similar power levels to today.

Pump 2 Bar through that engine and i would be expecting somewhere in the region of 700 - 750hp. (265*1.9 + 265*0.8 (assumes further 10% drop in VE) = 715)

Pump 3 Bar though that engine and 900hp plus is on the cards. (265*1.9 + 265*0.8 + 265*0.7 (assumes further 10% drop in VE) = 900)



Tell me this is....

Hey Griz,

Let's try an example that I have in my driveway, my 2009 BMW 135i. It is 6 cylinder 3.0 litre. It has twin turbos. The normally aspirated version produces 230 HP. My turbo version produces 300 HP. The boost pressure is 8.8 PSI (.6 BAR). The linear math indicates that I got 70 more hp with .6 bar, so to get 270 more HP (for a total of 500) I would need 2.31 bar. Is the math actually linear, no It depends on may things. But your math was also linear. By the way, this car red lines at 9000 RPM but is almost twice as big as the proposed 1.6 L.

One other thing, according to Dieter Rencken in his autosport article:

According to our source, what has been kicked about for refinement is a set of regulations stipulating relatively crude 1600cc four-cylinder engines using the FIA's Universal Motorsport ('World' – as first disclosed here) Engine as base, but fitted with various advanced technologies such as twin turbos running to 3+ bar boost.

 

[Grizzly]

Hey Griz,

Let's try an example that I have in my driveway, my 2009 BMW 135i. It is 6 cylinder 3.0 litre. It has twin turbos.

Hey Flood,

I should think you have a whole lot of fun in that little car trouble is its not comparable to a racing / F1 engine.

To cover all bases I need to waffle on for some time, to basically attempt to dismiss what you say and bring you back to my thinking on the power figures, but please bear with me people and take the time to digest what I blurt. I failed English at school so im not the best at making things read easily, sorry, but i have tried to brake down my reasoning in the simplest but most complete way possible...

Those that can be bothered to read this, please give me your thoughts.

The normally aspirated version produces 230 HP. My turbo version produces 300 HP. The boost pressure is 8.8 PSI (.6 BAR). The linear math indicates that I got 70 more hp with .6 bar

Why does your engine only make 30% more peak power with 1.6x atmospheric pressure pumped through it?

The NA (Naturally Aspirated) engine and FI (Forced Induction) engine will have very different power curves, BMW are well versed in making a NA 3.0l l6 produce the 300hp you that have in FI format, but they chose not to in this case. Why? Cost and driveability. The old E36 thru E46 M3 l6s ranged from 250hp in the early days right up to 345hp, all be it in 3.2l form at that point. Stunning achievement for a road car, nearly 108hp/litre, but the engines are expensive to build, expensive to maintain and the power is delivered more like a race engine, you have to get up the revs to get the high power.

So why use two turbos to achieve less power?

Your engine is cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, longer lasting AND gives a better power/torque spread over a much wider range than a similarly powered M3 engine. Road car engines are all about ‘the area under the curve’. The torque curve on your engine will be as smooth and as flat as possible from about 2800rpm giving great driveability and power in any gear just when you need it. This is all made possible with the turbos…

230 + turbos?

Your engine is not a 230hp engine with two turbos. If you ‘switched off’ your turbos your car would make around 190-200hp. Why? There are several factors when comparing to the NA engine:

Both cams will have milder profiles and overlap to aid low end torque and spool time

Both cams will use slightly less lift to aid port velocity at low revs and spool time

The compression ratio will be lowered to help prevent pre-detonation with low octane fuel

The timing will be retarded a few degrees for the same reasons

The air intake system is a lot more restrictive, with a lot more pipe runs, bends, kinks, diameter changes and necks.

The charge air temperature is much higher (less dense, less air, less power)….

Do the same simple sums you did again and your 0.6 Bar is actually be responsible for 100-110hp, which is actually about 1.6x more power with 0.6 Bar boost, which is exactly what we want to find…

190 x 1.6 (your boost) = 304 (your power)

What BMW have done in doing this though is not just give you 70 more peak HP, they have given you much much more area under the curve, the 230hp NA variant will for arguments sake give 200+hp over a 2500rpm range. Your 300hp engine will give you 280+hp over a 5000rpm range. Do you see how even ignoring the 70hp difference in peak power, you have a lot lot more power overall?

Going back to race engines, screw area under the curve, we don’t need driveability, we can use lots of gears to keep the engine in its peak band of performance so maximum power for available capacity is the goal.

100hp/litre in a NA production engine is a very respectable achievement, very few engines manage it. The M3 engines, M5 v10, the latest Ferrari v8s, the Honda S2000 and one or two others. Go racing and 100hp/L is not going to cut it. 150hp/L is closer to the mark. F1 engines however are currently delivering close to 270hp/L due to the highest VE (Volumetric Efficiency) of any engine in the world. Stunning isn’t it! and it is LINEAR with revs, so half the revs, half the power.

so to get 270 more HP (for a total of 500) I would need 2.31 bar.

Give me your calculated 2.31 Bar to play with on your engine and I will make that thing turn 700+hp, not 5.

How? Ill eliminate most of the restrictions and move the torque peak higher, reducing the area under the curve but releasing more power.

Is the math actually linear, no It depends on may things. But your math was also linear.

My Maths

My maths are certainly rudimentary, if I used more complex calculations it seems absolutely no one would either read, comment nor understand what im saying, but they are not linear, i assumed a conservative 10% compound reduction in volumetric efficiency with each bar of boost added. The reasons for these losses are down to fluid dynamics and air is a fluid, if anyone would like to propose a different compound reduction factor, please feel free and show me how you derived it.

Top teams could possibly make this number slightly lower, increasing the power figures…

By the way, this car red lines at 9000 RPM but is almost twice as big as the proposed 1.6 L.

One or two examples of comparable forced induction F1 engines and one Ford Group A spec:

BMW M12/13 – 1
1500cc L4 – 740 – 800hp @8500rpm @3.0 – 3.2Bar Boost

Zakspeed F1
1500cc L4 – 820hp @ 9500rpm @3.5Bar Boost (no 3.0 Bar numbers available to me)

And possibly my favourite engine in the world!
Ford Zakspeed Capri – 1700cc L4 - 640hp @9000rpm @1.5Bar Boost, that's peak power not red line. (>500hp between 4750 and 9750) 5000rpm of more than 500hp

These are the best 4 cylinder examples I can draw on as living ‘proof’ of my figures obtainable with 1600cc, 3 Bar boost and 10 000+ rpms. The Renault and Honda F1 engines were obviously V configuration with two more cylinders so not quite comparable. Its also worth noting all of these examples were built more than 20 years ago! Without many of the technologies we enjoy today.

So, my question again is, which of the quoted figures of Boost, Capacity and Revs are incorrect?

Maybe there is a clue here:

One other thing, according to Dieter Rencken in his autosport article:

According to our source, what has been kicked about for refinement is a set of regulations stipulating relatively crude 1600cc four-cylinder engines using the FIA's Universal Motorsport ('World' – as first disclosed here) Engine as base, but fitted with various advanced technologies such as twin turbos running to 3+ bar boost.

That one word could be the biggest clue yet to my Qs. For an F1 engineer to use the word crude when referring to engines could suggest an (inefficient by comparison) production car type engine.

For examples sake - Linear Maths - 'good' production 1600cc engine - 125hp? - add 3 Bar with zero losses - 125*4 = 500hp...

 

[Brogan]

Superb stuff Grizzly
Some fascinating details there.

I miss my old BMW 330, it really was a superb engine

 

[MajorDanby]

Superb stuff Grizzly
Some fascinating details there.

Ditto, I won't claim to understand everything you said, but I understand more about the torque curve, and can understand that a little bit. I don't suppose you can find torque curves from a sports car and racing engine with comparable powers? Then post them here?

 

[Grizzly]

don't suppose you can find torque curves from a sports car and racing engine with comparable powers? Then post them here?

Well, not easily. Not that you could look at side by side and draw comparison from anyway because they are always different.

Here's an example of a BMW F1 turbo engine dynograph that has been re-built recently.

But i can draw a simple diagram to attempt to show you what you want to know.

Look at the first diagram of Floods example. See how although the Turbo's peak power is only slightly higher, there is a lot more area under the curve. This is what allows you to ease on the throttle in top gear at 2000rpm and still coumfortably pass the guy in front doing 50, whereas the guy in the 230hp NA engine needs to change down to 4th and floor it to get the same power available. This is great in a road car, means less going up and down the gear box, but useless in a race engine.

Now Look at the 2nd example, we will use Floods 3.0l turbo again as a base, but the comparison would now be a 3.0l L6 race set-up. The torque peak is the same but has moved up the rev range, the peak power has taken a hike, but it is available less of the time, not good for daily driving, great for racing if you can keep the engine in the power band.

 

[Flood1]

Hey Griz,

Good work. I lectured tonight until about 20:00 PM US CDST, about 02:00 BST, and I have just read your post. I won't be able to give this a proper response until tomorrow (Wed.) night. But, at first glance I agree with most of what you are saying, if not all. The real point to be made is that the different missions between road cars and F1 cars make comparisons difficult. We are both working at extremes: Road car/F1 car.

But not this extreme- 2.0L 4 banger with turbo at 5 bar and only 300HP (via air flow restrictive orifice). The torque is over the curve. The RPM limit is 8500, but most of these cars never near that limit. Of course you know what engine I'm talking about, WRC. It would be difficult to compare that to either of the two examples above.

So, let me think about this a bit and see if it makes sense. The best bet is to leave the road car out of the pic, leave the 8 banger normally aspirated F1 car out of the pic, and start as you suggested: let's figure this engine from scratch with a standard 1.6L world car block, a standard type of valve control used today, no fuel flow restrictions (or fuel quantity limits), 11,000 RPM, and twin turbos.

The difficulty here is we must start with a pair of assumptions: 1. Target HP? 550 without Kers? 2. No flow rate limit and use of existing fuels.

 

[Grizzly]

Sounds good Flood.

Here are a couple of interesting graphs to mull over before hand. They are not direct comparisons to the particulars we have for 2013, but are from f1s last foray into forced induction.

The Dynograph is of the Honda RA168. Honda's 1988 F1 Engine, @2.5 Bar Boost. The maximum power is 510kw or 685hp.

The 2nd is an overlay of Honda's 1987 engine showing up to 4.0 Bar boost, and 88s max-by-regulation 2.5 Bar boost.

There are two main things to take from this 2nd graph.

Both engines show a linear relationship (once the compound losses are factored in) to boost vs power output (provided all other variables are exactly the same - almost impossible)

Honda managed to improve the 88 engine by lessening the compound losses in the engine due to forced induction, this is shown via the steeper curve of the 88 engine.

 

[johnnoble1990]

I don't know if i'm going slightly off topic here, but i'm wondering about these 1.5litre turbocharged engines they are bringing in for 2013. What will be the impact of these new engines. I wasn't alive during the previous turbo-charged era, but i know that it is considered one of the high points of F1. Last year during commentary, Anthony Davidson said that turbocharges would improve overtaking and i know Coulthard has compared them to the DRS? How do these engines work? I know nothing about turbochargers.

 

[sportsman]

How do these engines work? I know nothing about turbochargers.

This should answer most of your questions about how turbos work.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

 

[Grizzly]

I don't know if i'm going slightly off topic here, but i'm wondering about these 1.5litre turbocharged engines they are bringing in for 2013. What will be the impact of these new engines. I wasn't alive during the previous turbo-charged era, but i know that it is considered one of the high points of F1. Last year during commentary, Anthony Davidson said that turbocharges would improve overtaking and i know Coulthard has compared them to the DRS? How do these engines work? I know nothing about turbochargers.

Hey John. Take a look here: Turbo Engines for 2013 we started talking about them last year....

I'll try and do an article on turbo charger concepts... get us all spooled up so to speak

 

[Grizzly]

Look, Sportsman, can you please stop being one step ahead constantly!

 

[sportsman]

Ooops. Sorry griz.

 

[johnnoble1990]

Ah...thank you guys.

 

[johnnoble1990]

Could someone clarify something for me. Will the turbos include a timed overtaking assist as mentioned in the thread referring to the indycar series? I think this was something that Anthony Davidson was speaking about when i first heard about them. I don't really understand why turbo-engines made the 80s great.

 

[FB]

Turbo's in the 80's were great because there was an "arms race" to see who could make their engines most powerful and we ended up with more than 1000bhp per litre so twice the power of a modern F1 engine. You combine that with super sticky qualifying tyres and you had some astonishing lap times. The down side was that the engines were tuned almost and often to destruction so you were never sure if a car would make it to the end of a race.

The cars, in the early days anyway, had adjustable boost control so as they got up behind a competitor, if they had enough fuel they wound up the boost to try and get past. Problem was the other guy had the same boost control so you had 1,500 bhp monsters trying to trying out drag one another.

The variety of engine configurations was also interesting, straight 4's, V6's and even V8's. The drivers had to learn how to cope with turbo lag, feathering the throttle like the MotoGP guys do to keep the revs up otherwise the turbo speed dropped. Don't forget they still had a clutch and a gear lever to cope with whilst braking and accelerating.

Add into this mix of feet and hands Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Rosberg, Berger and others it was just a very exciting time.

 

[johnnoble1990]

What do you reckon this new turbo-era will be like? Will restrictions stop a new arms race and will driver be able to wind up their boost for overtaking? Also, could we have another reshuffle year like 2008 because it is such a big change or are the big changes these days aerodynamic?