Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.

Post Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:47 am

As was just discussed about blow off valves. I think a need for a wastegate will be minimal as the MGU will store extra turbine energy as electricity. I think that during upshifts there will be no need for a valve because of the speed of upshift. The car is hardly off the throttle for milliseconds. But undser breaking, or end of straight I think a valve will be needed to purge extra pressure.
RobertPthe3rd
 
Joined: 10 Mar 2012

Post Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:02 am

There will be a lot of water running down the river Thames until the 2014 season is upon us. At the moment the big issue is how to contain and restrict the cost. If that question is not answered in an acceptable way we are not likely to see the V6 turbos at all. IMO there is a high probability that they get canned. F1 has a propensity to shoot itself in the foot and that could well happen again in the drive train issue. The dumbest solution is to keep the freeze and can the turbos. So for the time being that looks like the most likely solution unless they get their heads out of their collective behinds.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:58 am

On engines alone - would the cars be quicker, or slower, do you think? ie if you had a 2.4L V8 which weighed like the 2014 engines and had the power and torque output curves of the 2014 turbo 6'es what do you think will happen in terms of laptimes?
失败者找理由,成功者找方法
raymondu999
 
Joined: 4 Feb 2010

Post Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:42 pm

WhiteBlue wrote:There will be a lot of water running down the river Thames until the 2014 season is upon us. At the moment the big issue is how to contain and restrict the cost. If that question is not answered in an acceptable way we are not likely to see the V6 turbos at all. IMO there is a high probability that they get canned. F1 has a propensity to shoot itself in the foot and that could well happen again in the drive train issue. The dumbest solution is to keep the freeze and can the turbos. So for the time being that looks like the most likely solution unless they get their heads out of their collective behinds.


I hope they carry through with what they started. It would be shame to see F1 become stagnant with currant technology.
RA-168-E
2014 Engine power Predictions
647 HP Engine
807 HP Engine Combine
pgfpro
 
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Location: Coeur d' Alene ID

Post Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:35 pm

pgfpro wrote:I hope they carry through with what they started. It would be shame to see F1 become stagnant with currant technology.

I agree, but history tells you that teams are totally asinine in terms of seeking individual advantages and denying them to other teams. At the moment the new engines give a distinct advantage to the engine manufacturing teams. They can spend unlimited development money. Unless that loop hole gets fixed pretty soon the majority of non manufacturer teams will gang up with Bernie - who is against the turbos for his own reasons - and vote another delay in the F1 commission. They do have the power to do this. The new engines are intrinsically linked with a budget cap or some other form of cost control. Unless they sort it out until summer I fear we are in for another bad surprise.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:16 pm

WhiteBlue wrote:
rjsa wrote:Well WB, a few weeks ago it was set in stone, would certainly run for 2013 and the engine supplies where already deep into the development process. Tow out of these three are not true. It's only the third in need to fail now.

To me they are fading out the concept. And thet will try to make us forget it...

That's rubbish if you allow me this personal opinion. I have never said that the engines are not going to be delayed, although I still think they will not be. This fax vote is just sugar coating to demonstrate that the FiA is listening to all sides.


It started already? :-({|=
rjsa
 
Joined: 2 Mar 2007

Post Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:41 pm

WhiteBlue wrote:There will be a lot of water running down the river Thames until the 2014 season is upon us. At the moment the big issue is how to contain and restrict the cost. If that question is not answered in an acceptable way we are not likely to see the V6 turbos at all. IMO there is a high probability that they get canned. F1 has a propensity to shoot itself in the foot and that could well happen again in the drive train issue. The dumbest solution is to keep the freeze and can the turbos. So for the time being that looks like the most likely solution unless they get their heads out of their collective behinds.


Well they could could all the energy recover gimmicks at least. Those are the most expensive areas. Stringent restriction on turbo charger geometry is also an option.

The majority or R&D is in the TERS systems and how they integrate with engine and gearbox.
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:52 pm

Budget caps are for the missus so she doesn't get all bent out of shape while hubby goes out and spends all of their money anyway.
bhall
 
Joined: 28 Feb 2006

Post Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:37 pm

bhallg2k wrote:Budget caps are for the missus so she doesn't get all bent out of shape while hubby goes out and spends all of their money anyway.

Are we talking engineering and economic issues here or taking the piss?

ringo wrote:The majority or R&D is in the TERS systems and how they integrate with engine and gearbox.

How do you get this rather specific knowledge? Can you let us in on the sources or are you having an educated guess here? I would instinctively take an oposing position here. According to my knowledge there is only one fairly simple TERS system, opposed to systems that you are talking about. It is just one MGU sitting on the turbocharger shaft. That is not terribly different from the KERS MGU that the teams know already. What is so complex about such a system?

The most complex item is probably the control software and that is likely to be provided by Microsoft Electronic Systems (McLaren) anyway as part of the SECU package.

I don't believe that designing a brand new F1 racing engine is child's play compared to the relatively straightforward TERS system. The many components of the engine have to be optimized and tested since they run under considerably different load and stress balances than the previous V8 components. For instance rpm and torque ratio is going to be much different. Compression will be different. The injection, combustion, recirculation issues will be completely new and will have to be optimized to minimize fuel use under F1 conditions.

I believe that there will be an awful lot of bench testing on the engine itself which will not be negligible compared to TERS.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:22 am

Largely transporting urine, but I'd venture to guess that there's virtually no way to implement a budget cap fairly and in such a way that it cannot be grossly abused by creative accounting. Corporations have spent the better part of the last 100 years perfecting such tactics. Moving on...
bhall
 
Joined: 28 Feb 2006

Post Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:04 am

F1 moved from no solution of the problem in 2008 to an improvement from 2009-2012. It does not need a perfect solution but something that is better than what we have at the moment, particularly something that will replace the engine freeze with a cost restriction mechanism beyond restrictive specs and allows for carefully managed development on power trains at affordable costs. Even if a budget cap may not be perfect it would be better than doing nothing. Resource restrictions including the power train would also be better than doing nothing. We will not get interesting power train developments unless a new cost race is prohibited. This is why technical solutions will depend of solving the cost problem.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:28 am

Let me ask the proponents..
WHY,,Should we have a budget cap at all?
"To race is to live. But those who
died while racing knew, perhaps,
how to live more than all others."
~ Juan Fangio
strad
 
Joined: 2 Jan 2010

Post Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:49 am

strad wrote:Let me ask the proponents..
WHY,,Should we have a budget cap at all?


To stop car makers coming in and doing a BMW/Toyota/Honda and then vanishing - if a sensible budget cap is in place (eg 150 million) it makes the sport more sustainable and you dont end up with Ferrari etc spending 400 million per year!

I'd like a budget cap and more technical freedom to spice things up.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
djos
 
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:13 pm

strad wrote:Let me ask the proponents..
WHY,,Should we have a budget cap at all?

That's a question I ask myself too. And have not seen a satisfactory answer.

Better have big names coming and going than jokes like HRT and the rest who only spoil the races.
F1PitRadio ‏@F1PitRadio : MSC, "Sorry guys, there's not more in it"
Spa 2012
Dragonfly
 
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Bulgaria

Post Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:32 pm

Dragonfly wrote:
strad wrote:Let me ask the proponents..
WHY,,Should we have a budget cap at all?

That's a question I ask myself too. And have not seen a satisfactory answer.

Better have big names coming and going than jokes like HRT and the rest who only spoil the races.

Even the big names don't want to spend money to enter F1.
If you see that Peugeot (which wasn't bad at Le Mans) just stopped because it cost them too much money.

Only some caps can make sure that they remain in the sport.
fenix4life
 
Joined: 15 Mar 2008

PreviousNext

Return to Engine, transmission and controls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Twitter [Bot] and 4 guests