F1's 2014 turbo engines explained

This year is a watershed for Formula 1 technology. Every area of the car is affected by the new regulations, none more so than the engine. As much as engines have changed over recent decades, never have the rules demanded such huge alterations in one sweep. The FIA's desire for fuel-efficient, but powerful, engines has been met with a move to 1.6-litre turbocharged power. This means that the 2014 season will be dominated, and most likely decided, by engine technology. BACKGROUND F1's engine rules have been relatively stable for decades. Since the 1960s, the 3-litre formula has changed to turbos, 3.5l normally aspirated, then back to 3.0l and finally the 2.4l category we have now. Aside from the dalliance with the turbos and the move towards fixed specifications, the base engines have never been that different. With this stability, the normally aspirated engine speeds rose to 20,000rpm and power neared 1000hp. When the economy suffered, engines moved towards a fixed specification and development was frozen from 2006. The units used last year ended up as 2.4l V8s revving to a maximum of 18,000rpm and producing some 780hp. With the specification and development freeze, engines became utterly reliable.

Renault introduced turbos into F1 in 1977 LAT

As a result, engine manufacturers' costs were slashed due to both the reduced number of units needing to be built and through development saving. Despite losing Honda, BMW and Toyota, F1 managed to retain four engine manufacturers through to the end of this year. A new engine formula has been mooted for some time. Various factors drove the FIA to this year's change, but a desire for a 'green' image was perhaps the over-riding influence. Hence the move to a smaller, more efficient, engine with similar power output to the 2013 units. As the plans evolved, the originally mooted format of a 1.6-litre four-cylinder engine was revised to a V6. This helped to tie in Ferrari and Mercedes in marketing their road car programmes and also closely matched the World Endurance Championship's LMP1 rules. When first published, the 2014 technical regulations set out a very different engine and operating conditions from the current V8s: 1.6 litres with a single turbocharger, no boost limit, a 15,000 rev limit and a fuel flow limit.

Further restrictions on design affect each of these areas, as well as a reduction to just five engines per driver through the year. These are far-reaching changes and require an entirely different engine - or 'power unit' as the regulations now describe it - due to the wealth of energy recovery systems involved. ENGINE ARCHITECTURE Historically, F1's engine manufacturers have had a wide choice of formats to choose from in terms of number of cylinders, V angle and piston size, all within a set capacity limit. As car companies started to fight for supremacy in the early 2000s, the technology battle led to engines getting ever smaller physically, lower, lighter and able to rev higher. The FIA imposed a cap, with a set of fixed specifications, and this approach has been taken even further with the new rules. Because the major decisions on engine design are fixed, teams will have to innovate within these constraints. As already mentioned, the engines must be a V6 format with a 90-degree angle, the pistons must be 80mm diameter and at a fixed spacing. Immediately, this presents a challenge for the engine builders. The previous huge 98mm bore has been used since the V10 era and the switch to V8s kept these dimensions, so this new smaller size requires all-new development on the test benches. The smaller piston also crowds the valves into the

V12 engines disappeared after 1994 combustion temperatures, means that new, smaller spark LAT
plugs are required. Probably a bigger challenge is that the pistons will run very hot and with higher pressures. Piston cooling with engine oil will be an area of focus, as will stronger pistons, and it's possible that steel rather than aluminium may be employed for reliability. Rules also dictate a fixed volume in which the entire power unit must fit. This goes as far as specific standard mounting positions, the theory being to prevent overly compact engine installations and also allow teams to switch engines. Theoretically, it means the team could fit any power unit to the car. The new engine would probably bolt to the chassis and gearbox adequately, but there would still be a host of details to work on to modify one car for another engine. As with the current rules, the maximum engine weight is set - albeit at a far heavier 145kg than the current 95kg with the ERS hardware to be added on top of that. This is what's driving teams to seek lighter drivers as there is a finite amount of weight they can pull from the chassis to meet the minimum

combustion chamber which, along with the higher

weight and weight-distribution targets. Lastly, the engine's centre of gravity is again fixed. This is to prevent teams spending money shedding weight from the top of the engine to lower the centre of gravity for handling benefits. This CofG height is up 35mm from last year to 200mm, but as the crankshaft centre height is also raised, this accounts for some of the increase. Having a crankshaft mounted some 32mm higher will have knock-on effects in clutch and gearbox design. TURBOS The return of turbochargers is one of the reasons these tiny engines can produce enough power to match the current V8s. Renault introduced the turbo into F1 back in 1977, kicking off a format that lasted until it was banned in 1988. During this period, the ubiquitous 3-litre Cosworth V8 and Ferrari flat-12 engines became outgunned by new 1.5-litre turbo units. A good F1 engine used to produce 550bhp, but during the turbo era, with freedom in fuel formulation and boost, they pumped out 1500bhp! F1's return to turbos will not mean a revival of the high-boost, flame-spitting units from the '80s. Instead, as with the current direction in road cars, the boost will be lower, lag will be managed and fuel will be conserved. The installation is tightly controlled: a single turbo with caps on variable geometry must be fitted. It will be positioned in line with the car's centreline and fed by exhausts exiting on the outside of the engine's V. It won't be possible to have exhaust exiting inside the V, as with Audi's LMP unit or Ferrari's early F1 turbo engine. Although wastegates are allowed, the power unit's exhaust gasses must all exit through a single exhaust tailpipe. With aerodynamic blowing by the exhaust will be severely limited. Aside from Renault's early F1 turbo engine, a single centrally mounted turbo has not been employed in F1, so we're used to seeing the turbo's air inlet protrude snorkel-like upwards from the sidepod. With the 2014 turbo being mounted slightly behind the engine, there's space for the airbox to reach up to the current roll-bar inlet, so in many respects the cars will not look so different.

Turbo engines produced more than 1000hp in the 1980s LAT

the tailpipe's position and the energy the turbocharger will take from the exhaust gasses, the use of

But this is not regulated, so teams may find better places to package one or two inlets, the only stipulation being that they must be above the ground by some 20cm. This might open up aerodynamic possibilities for not having a large roll-hoop or make some aerodynamic use of the negative pressure the inlets produce. The turbo will need a lot of cooling. Both the turbo itself, which is oil-cooled, and the air that passes through the turbo need cooling before it enters the plenum above the engine. So we will see one sidepod dominated by a large intercooler. Teams will want to minimise the pipe lengths between the turbo intercooler inlet plenum to minimise lag. Luckily, overall heat output will be less than with the current engine, so it's likely that the normal oil and water radiators will fit into one sidepod, offsetting the intercooler in the other sidepod. FUEL FLOW RESTRICTIONS Allowing turbochargers back into F1 with no boost-pressure limit initially sounded like a race to produce massively boosted engines with enormous power outputs. But F1's concern with its green image means that this path is closed off by the fuel flow restriction. Rather cleverly, the FIA has introduced a novel cap on instantaneous fuel flow. This means that the engine cannot consume fuel at a rate more than 100kg/hr at over 10,500rpm. At lower revs the fuel flow rate is formulated in line with rpm. This effectively means that above 10,500rpm power is capped by the fuel flow restriction, so reaching the maximum allowable revs of 15,000 will end up producing less power due to the friction created at those speeds. Engines will be most efficient in the sub-10,500rpm range,

Fuel e!ciency will be key again LAT

so perhaps only in qualifying and at the end of long straights with the fixed gearing will the engine run to over this limit.

Aiding fuel efficiency and offsetting a little of the power-robbing effect of the fuel flow limit is the allowing of direct fuel injection for the first time. Previously, engines used indirect injection, with fuel being sprayed from the injectors mounted above the inlet trumpets. Now, the fuel will be sprayed directly into the combustion chamber at high pressure. The rules allow a fuel pressure limit of 500bar, and the parts associated with this are specified by the FIA to prevent expensive development of highpressure pumps. The last part of the new fuel flow regulations is a sensor to monitor the maximum flow rate. This is an ultrasonic device made by Gill Sensors that does not impede the fuel passing through the sensor body. It will be monitored by the SECU to ensure the engine is not using fuel at too high a rate.

IN PRACTICE Most F1 fans are concerned about the noise these new engines will make. Small capacity, a turbo and low RPM is the antithesis of the recent V10/V8 eras, and the worry is that the engines will be too quiet and sound flat. Those with longer memories might recall the '80s, when F1 engines were even smaller capacity, had smaller turbos and revved even lower than the 2014 engines. I was at races in those days and they certainly didn't sound quiet or uninteresting. While there will always be detractors for the new formula, this debate will soon subside after the season starts. Another flashback to the '80s turbo era is the sight of cars retiring from races with flames pouring from their broken engines. I don't expect 2014 to bring such conflagrations, but we have enjoyed an unprecedented spell of reliability in the frozen-spec V8 era. Teams and drivers simply aren't used to managing failing engines or experiencing major championship setbacks from reliability. Next year's title may not be won by the fastest car, but it will certainly be won by a reliable one. Further hampering any team suffering serial engine failures will be the cap on five engines per season. Should additional power units be needed, qualifying penalties will be incurred. This is likely to be a sting in the tail for some teams in 2014. So, with all the restrictions, how will the engines actually perform? It's fair to say that the purely petrol-driven part of the powertrain will not match the current engines in peak power alone. However, with the aid of ERS, they will do so. But laptime is not all about peak power, and drivability or torque is in many cases more important. 2013's F1 engines produce very little power below 10,000rpm, then it comes on in a lumpy powerband producing some 500hp extra in the last 8000rpm. With the turbo boosting bottom-end power, the new engines will nearly halve their power at just 5000rpm, then the curve rises steeply to 600+bhp at 10,000rpm, at which point the fuel flow restriction kicks in and power tapers off. Unaided by ERS (energy recovery systems, which will be explained in detail in a later analysis), the base engine will produce some 600hp; with double the ERS-K power output and aided by ERS-H, the powertrain will push out some 800bhp for the majority of the lap, coupled with huge amounts of torque.

All this produced by a 1.6-litre engine consuming a third less fuel than the 2013 powerplants. When looked at in this context, these power units are indeed impressive.