Jump to content


Photo

Horsepower now and 2014


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 mdaclarke

mdaclarke
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 June 2012 - 21:16

How much horsepower do f1 engines have now? How much horsepower will they have in 2014 with the new rules?

Advertisement

#2 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 June 2012 - 22:38

Enough, the fundamental difference is not power but the method of power restriction. Instead of air restricted the power will become fuel restricted. The more the teams pursue efficiency the more power they can gain. So basically the power is variable but the fuel flow is limited to 27.8 g/s.

#3 mdaclarke

mdaclarke
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 03 June 2012 - 19:44

Do you think the cars will still be as fast then? i was worred that the cars would be slower.

#4 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 June 2012 - 15:43

Do you think the cars will still be as fast then? i was worred that the cars would be slower.


As the rules are now.. They will be slower. Unless F1 suddenly makes engines capable of 50%+ efficiency.

I think the most common hp estimate was around 650hp. Current engines is probably 720-740hp depending on brand. That is the old numbers.. They are tuned down to last now but how much that is having to say i don`t know. guessing 10-20hp.

I don`t think it will be horrible for entertainment as they also lose downforce and gets more low end punch.

The main beef i got with the new rules is that they have a very "fake" fuel limit. It rises with rpm instead of being static. If it was static it would allow higher efficiency and turbo lag would become a bigger engineering challenge.

But most importantly is that they will still probably bang into the rpm limit down the straights.. because at peak rpm is where the power is at... thanks to the new rules..

that does not help overtakes one bit..


Edited by MatsNorway, 04 June 2012 - 15:46.


#5 eta

eta
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:18

@MatsNorway
as far as I know, the fuel limit increases only until 10500rpm and then it is limited to 100kg/h.

I don´t believe that the max power will be at peak rpm, but somewhere between 11.000-13.000rpm because otherwise they would get problems with turbine efficiency at low rpm. Anyway I´m looking forward to finding out

#6 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 June 2012 - 13:01

@MatsNorway
as far as I know, the fuel limit increases only until 10500rpm and then it is limited to 100kg/h.

I don´t believe that the max power will be at peak rpm, but somewhere between 11.000-13.000rpm because otherwise they would get problems with turbine efficiency at low rpm. Anyway I´m looking forward to finding out

If the fuel limit is fixed from 10,500 up, max power will be 10,500 or less since thermal efficiency will be falling as revs increase in that range.

#7 eta

eta
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 June 2012 - 13:23

If the fuel limit is fixed from 10,500 up, max power will be 10,500 or less since thermal efficiency will be falling as revs increase in that range.


I would agree with you if you have said that the brake mean effective pressure decreases above 10500, but the power can still increase due to higher revs

#8 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 June 2012 - 14:12

Details but im mostly with Grunt. I sure hope it gives peak power earlier than 13000. Or the new rules will be flawed by design. easy fix for next season tho.

Edited by MatsNorway, 07 June 2012 - 14:17.


#9 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 June 2012 - 00:25

There will be additional electrical power from the MGUH to the MGUK which can peak at 90 kW.

#10 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 June 2012 - 11:42

So peak Power Could be in the same range as now. But have they raised the weight of the motor?

#11 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 June 2012 - 01:11

So peak Power Could be in the same range as now. But have they raised the weight of the motor?


Yes and no...

The weight of the engine has been raised, but now includes KERS, the turbocharger and various other bits and bobs that aren't included in the weight of the current engines. I believe that the weight saving is about 10kg compared with the current motors accounting for the accesories.

Power wise they could be.

I think it probably will be the same.

If you take a direct proportion of power for the ICE from the current figures you go from 720hp to 540hp. Of course the new engines won't rev as hard and have the fuel flow restriction, which is offset by turbocharging and better efficiency. So let's take that number as reasonable guess.

To that you add 120hp (90kW)of exhaust energy recovery, which brings you up to 660hp - about 60hp shy of now. Then you can added the kinetic energy recovery, which will be allowed to be 160hp (120kW), twice what it is now. That takes it up to 820hp, or about 20hp more than now. However, today's KERS can only use 400kJ per lap. For 2014 2MJ can be harvested per lap, and 4MJ can be used per lap:

5.2.3 Energy input from the MGUK to the ES may not exceed 2MJ in any one lap and energy released from the ES to the MGUK may not exceed 4MJ in any one lap.

The difference between the maximum and minimum state of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track.


ES = Energy Store

The interesting thing is that the 90kW/120hp exhaust energy recovery is not mandated. If one manufacturer can only get 80kW, while another manages 100kW it will bestow a significant advantage. It will be a key area of the engine development.

Edited by Wuzak, 11 June 2012 - 01:25.


#12 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:58

Only 540hp ICE? They gotta be more than just a little slower then.

Will they be more free to tune how the power from the KERS comes out?

Linear to throttle input and so on..

Shame they included the techno bits into the Engine weight.

They will also force every team to run KERS right?

Because i still believe that the current teams could gain on ditching KERS. for aero purposes, Caterham/Lotus has gone nowhere since they added KERS.

In 2014 they will highly likely not be able to gain anything by ditching the techno bits.

if the current KERS system weights 20kg where would the 2014 system be? say same level as today only bigger.

Edited by MatsNorway, 11 June 2012 - 06:00.


#13 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 June 2012 - 07:56

Only 540hp ICE? They gotta be more than just a little slower then.


540hp from the engine (possibly) plus 120hp from the exhaust energy recovery (ERS-H). That totals 660hp.

Pus they have up to 4MJ of energy that can be stored and released per lap - but can only harvest 2MJ per lap. At 120kW (160hp) that gives up to 33s at full power per lap.

As they can only harvest half that amount of energy in a lap I would see that they would tend to use 2MJ per lap, for a total of 16.7s per lap.

The energy recovered from teh exhaust can be directly chennelled to the drive motor, or sent to the energy store, and is unrestricted in its use.


Will they be more free to tune how the power from the KERS comes out?

Linear to throttle input and so on..


The KERS unit will be integral with the engine, so it surely won't be a simple push button device like now.

Also, KERS (or ERS-K as it will be known) will be required to be used for driving through the pitlane.


Shame they included the techno bits into the Engine weight.


Why?


They will also force every team to run KERS right?

Because i still believe that the current teams could gain on ditching KERS. for aero purposes, Caterham/Lotus has gone nowhere since they added KERS.

In 2014 they will highly likely not be able to gain anything by ditching the techno bits.


The 2014 KERS systems will be integral with the engine. You simply won't be able to get the engine without the bits. In any case, you would be giving away the best part of 300hp to the opposition without the systems.

The current KERS systems were developed by the teams and bolted to the motor as best could be done. The new systems will be developed by the engine suppliers, and their suppliers - Renault and Ferrari will be probably running variations on teh same components from Magnetti Marelli, for example.




if the current KERS system weights 20kg where would the 2014 system be? say same level as today only bigger.


Weight wise the new units are expected to weigh less than the original KERS units from 2009. ie under 30kg.

#14 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 June 2012 - 07:57

I would agree with you if you have said that the brake mean effective pressure decreases above 10500, but the power can still increase due to higher revs

Forget revs for a moment.
At any operating condition, power is proportional to fuel flow times thermal efficiency so if TE is falling and fuel flow stays constant, power is falling.

#15 eta

eta
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 11 June 2012 - 12:07

Forget revs for a moment.
At any operating condition, power is proportional to fuel flow times thermal efficiency so if TE is falling and fuel flow stays constant, power is falling.


I know what you mean Gruntguru and that applies under the assumption that the thermal efficiency is decreasing.
We are actually discussing 1/10 % :) , but the max power of the V6 2014 is not necessarily at 10,500 because the efficiency is not necessarily decreasing. It depends on the ignition angle. If the engine is limited to a certain peak firing pressure, the ignition angle can be set a bit earlier after 10,500 and consequently the indicated efficiency would increase.



#16 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 11 June 2012 - 22:54

The 2014 engines will employ a bunch of new technologies including direct injection at super high pressure with spray guided combustion. This combustion mode can be very lean but does not work very well for elevated rpm. The engines can compensate with compressor boost generated torque for the lack of very high revolutions. I'm pretty confident that this will be the general strategy in the light of the fuel flow cap at 10,500. My guess is a working range between 7,000 - 13,000 rpm. The revs above 10,500 will not be used very much, just for convenience.

KERS will not exist in the new formula. They will still have all the elements of KERS but the push to pass button will go away. There will also be added energy regeneration from exhaust gas to electricity. The energy absorption during breaking and the acceleration with electric power will be controlled by the brake and the throttle pedal. So any speculation of not having regenerative systems is completely unfeasible. The cars would be illegal and not competitive.

#17 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:39

Blabla. if it brakes and regenerates energy its KERS with a new bagde on.

#18 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:46

:lol:

#19 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,250 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:40

It won't be done by the brakes though, so will it still be KERS? Or just ERS?

Advertisement

#20 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:52

It won't be done by the brakes though, so will it still be KERS? Or just ERS?


It will be - partially. Of the two systems one is a traditional brake energy-generated kinetic recovery system essentially as presently used, albeit beefed-up, while the other uses exhaust generated (heat) energy. The former version will be known as ERS-K (for kinetic) so the initials have been juxtapositioned for simplicity as the secondary system is known as ERS-H (heat). Push-to-pass buttons do not define a KERS system - ask any Prius owner...

#21 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 17:43

ive heard KERS and HERS and thats doable for most tongues so that probably what the media would be able to state/say on telly.

"heat" energy thank you.. i doubt there is a sterling engine in there somewhere.

Bad manners aside..

Will the flamefront go faster when the engine runs lean? And what speed is it? my memory says 22 something.


#22 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,507 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 June 2012 - 22:06

i
Will the flamefront go faster when the engine runs lean? And what speed is it? my memory says 22 something.

No, lean flames are slower than rich ones, around stoich.

#23 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,283 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:14

Is the plan still to blend ERS power with throttle ?

#24 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:15

Is the plan still to blend ERS power with throttle ?


Drive by wire throttles, yes, with maps making the decision

#25 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 14 June 2012 - 12:39

Blabla. if it brakes and regenerates energy its KERS with a new bagde on.

The point is that Kinetic energy recovery will have a lot less influence on the max horse power situation than the Heat energy recovery. The Kinetic recovery is still restricted just to the rear wheel where you do not have the biggest part of the braking energy. All wheel recovery is still prohibited. The Heat recovery works not only at 27% of the track when you brake but at 70% when you push the throttle and it works particularly well when you are on full throttle (45%). In that situation you are supposed to add 90kW to the engine power on a permanent basis. You are not storing that energy but expending it as you are demanding peak power from the engine. It means you are not burdening the car with heavy batteries for that energy recovery. The Heat recovery will do much more for your net race energy budget than the Kinetic recovery by a huge factor. The added net energy also comes at a much lower weight penalty. It is misleading therefore to call such a system KERS.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 14 June 2012 - 12:53.


#26 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 June 2012 - 14:08

You are not storing that energy but expending it as you are demanding peak power from the engine.


You can if you want to....


#27 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 June 2012 - 15:03

The point is that Kinetic energy recovery will have a lot less influence on the max horse power situation than the Heat energy recovery. The Kinetic recovery is still restricted just to the rear wheel where you do not have the biggest part of the braking energy. All wheel recovery is still prohibited. The Heat recovery works not only at 27% of the track when you brake but at 70% when you push the throttle and it works particularly well when you are on full throttle (45%). In that situation you are supposed to add 90kW to the engine power on a permanent basis. You are not storing that energy but expending it as you are demanding peak power from the engine. It means you are not burdening the car with heavy batteries for that energy recovery. The Heat recovery will do much more for your net race energy budget than the Kinetic recovery by a huge factor. The added net energy also comes at a much lower weight penalty. It is misleading therefore to call such a system KERS.


EERS then :p Exhaust energy recovery system.

What do you mean by "at 70% when you push the throttle"

All this power gets harvested from the exhaust system by the exhaust turbine right? Are they allowed to spool up the turbo with the same system?

Edited by MatsNorway, 14 June 2012 - 15:04.


#28 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 14 June 2012 - 16:04

What do you mean by "at 70% when you push the throttle".
All this power gets harvested from the exhaust system by the exhaust turbine right?
Are they allowed to spool up the turbo with the same system?
Turbo lag increases?


Throttle on is approximately 70% of a lap and full throttle perhaps 45%. Braking is less than 30% of a lap on an average track.

The heat energy recovery is done by the over sized turbine that drives the compressor and the MGUH (motor generator unit heat). It is considerally oversized compared to a simple turbocharger turbine.

The motor/generator can and will be used in to spool up the turbocharger when the revs are low. Energy is then taken from the battery (ES).

Yes, if this were not allowed the turbo lag would increase rather than decrease as it does with the system now.


#29 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:30

Will the flamefront go faster when the engine runs lean? And what speed is it? my memory says 22 something.


No, lean flames are slower than rich ones, around stoich.

I would add that the lean operation modes of a spray guided DI system is essentially "sratified charge" and will have a richer zone (and corresponding flame speed) where the combustion is taking place.

#30 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 17:58

Right, Ive got it

KERS

EERS

HERS

DRS

DDRS

All geniunely interesting tech. ideas but either the whole thing will have to be ignored by TV commentators or the non-tech fans will be deafened by the techno babble.

It slightly reminds me of when I gave some promo tickets to a Sliverstone Formula Renault meeting to a work colleaque so he could take his 13 yr old son to his first motor race.

On Monday morning " did you enjoy it?

"yes but its so hard to know who is leading"

"True"

So why cant they have big display showing all th car numbers in order to help me?"

"Err , well all the cars have transponders so all the race data is real time for the commentators

"Yes but we couldn't hear the commentary because racing cars are noisy"

Dah , what he was asking for is so easy to do now with all the data tracking but it isn't done ( in the UK)

I think we get so wrapped up in our tech interest that the obviuos things to help spectators get missed.

#31 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 19:50

mariner, I think it is a very long time since the spectators were taken into account, outside the USA.

#32 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 23:47

Meanwhile the TV audience get new bells and whistles every season.