in briEF - Mundo Motorizado

Concerns that Formula 1’s
2014-spec V6 turbo
engines will lack the aural
excitement and muscular
performance of the current
V8s look to be unfounded
COMMENT
pit & paddock
Mark HugHes
grand prix editor
Last week I heard the future of
Formula 1, and it sounds just
fine. At the Mercedes High
Performance Engine plant in
Brixworth, Northamptonshire, there
was a 2014-spec V6 turbo on the
dyno, silent at the time of our
visit, but upstairs we listened to
a recording of the engine being
run at a simulation of Monza.
It’s a very different sound from
the normally-aspirated V8s we’ve
grown used to since 2006, but it’s
anything but dull. Although not
as loud, the pitch is actually higher.
With a 6-4-1 exhaust layout, the
single pipe emits a higher frequency
at the maximum 15,000rpm than
the twin pipes of the 18,000rpm
V8s. Furthermore, from outside it’s
expected you will be able to hear the
turbos spooling up even before the
engine comes on song.
The sensory good news doesn’t
end there, either. Although the
New V6: fast,
yet efficient
combined power of the 1.6-litre
turbo engine with its associated heat
and kinetic energy systems will be
roughly equal to the current 750bhp
of the V8, for much of the rev band
the torque will be considerably
greater. These units will give their
power over a much wider rev band
and will be pushing up harder against
the traction limits of the car.
There has been some reluctance
to embrace the new formula on the
grounds of cost and spectacle, but
it now seems fairly clear that the
latter concern can be put to bed.
These engines are going to be
plenty spectacular and every bit as
quick as those in the current cars.
However, their greater reliance on
energy recovery (both heat and
kinetic) means they will be so on
only two-thirds of the fuel and CO2
emissions. That will bring them very
much in line with the direction of
the car industry, which is downsizing
and downrevving (the forthcoming
Ford Mondeo will be available with
a 1.0-litre turbo engine).
The Mercedes briefing put some
meat on the bones of the new
formula. The current KERS boost of
80bhp for only 6.7s per lap will be
dwarfed by the ERS (heat and kinetic,
hence the dropping of the ‘K’) boost
of 161bhp for 33.3s per lap. A storage
capacity 10 times greater than
currently, the addition of the
heat-derived energy and a harvesting
rate five times greater than at
present make this possible.
In addition to the turbo, but
mounted on a common shaft, will
be an electric-powered compressor.
This can be used to help spool up the
turbo – and thereby reduce turbo lag
– or to send energy in the other
direction. When the energy from the
exhaust heat is more than is required
to turn the turbo blades, this motor
can direct the excess to the battery.
There is no restriction on the
size of turbo and each manufacturer
will be left to work out the
optimum combination of power
(big turbo) and response (small).
The turbos, however, can be only
single stage, and whatever spec is
chosen will have to be used for the
whole season. The engine/turbo
combination will be limited to five
units per year rather than the
current eight. This raises the
necessary mileage of each engine
to around 2500 miles.
A startline fuel weight limit
of 100kg is combined with a
maximum flow rate of 100kg per
hour. As the races last considerably
more than an hour, they will only
be running at the maximum fuel
flow rate for part of the time. The
energy storage cell must weigh
between 20-25kg, thereby
effectively putting a cap on costly
weight-reducing development.
Around 70 per cent of the energy
contained in the fuel of a current
V8 goes out of the exhausts as
wasted heat (a similar figure to
most road cars). With the V6s, that
will be reduced to around 60 per
cent initially. The development war
will be on the efficiency of the
harvesting of recovered energy
(currently around 80 per cent – up
from the 39 per cent of Mercedes’
first KERS prototype in 2007).
It’s a more prescriptive formula
than seen at Le Mans, for example,
but still leaves room for technical
development within a tight
framework, and without artificial
weighting and the resultant
politics. Given the conflicting
demands upon the sport, it feels
extremely well conceived.
‘‘These engines will be plenty
spectacular and just as quick’’
January 17 2013 autosport.com 15