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 Sat May 19, 2012 6:53 pm

Yes !

(I think this was suggested (by me ) in another thread).
Tommy Cookers
 
Joined: 17 Feb 2012

Post Sat May 19, 2012 7:57 pm

It was actually suggested by Keith Duckworth already in the mid-80s, if Balestre had understood it, then who knows?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Sun May 20, 2012 4:05 am

But no one wants to be wrong. I suspect that everyone is at least a little fearful of such an open rulebook because of the possibility they will royally screw up their design. It is exciting yet scary as hell.
Red Schneider
 
Joined: 17 May 2012
Location: Los Angeles

Post Wed May 23, 2012 8:22 pm

Good evening! Reading about the "turbo delay" I think we shouldn´t exaggerate things. Although Schmidt of auto, motor and sport usually is a well informed jounalist, his comment remains the only source concerning this matter so far. As PURE is almost ready and Renault and Mercedes are likely to test their first V6 in summer everybody can imagine the outcome if the turbos would be postponed to an (uncertain) later date now. The sunk costs (also in past of the abolished four bangers)certainly would excel the costs of the engine development to do. So it is highly unlikely and would be absolutely disgraceful for the sport. I think we see the usual skirmish between the protagonists concerning the new CA, maybe with BE as agent provocateur again. He hates turbos for his owns reasons, but, adding by way of explanation, there is a decision of the European Commission that the sportal and the commercial part of F1 have to be run separated. The decision about the future engine formula is FIA/Jean Todt/team business ONLY, otherwise someone would have to engage the EC again...
garrett
 
Joined: 23 May 2012

Post Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:09 am

Audi has made a mono-turbo diesel for their LMP1.

The solution looks quite intresting for F1 too.
The exhaust layout has to be changed to comply with the rules and VTG has to be removed.

The electronics seem to be quite sophisticated as there is no drop in boost during shifting.

Image

Sorry for the poor translation, but I did not find an english article on this topic.

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motorsport-total.com%2Fmehr%2Fnews%2F2012%2F05%2FAudi_Mehr_Dampf_aus_weniger_Hubraum_12053103.html&act=url
matt21
 
Joined: 15 Mar 2010

Post Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:23 am

Are there examples of the use of air water inter-cooler in the last turbo era
WilliamsF1
 
Joined: 6 Jan 2010

Post Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:00 pm

WilliamsF1 wrote:Are there examples of the use of air water inter-cooler in the last turbo era


Yes, I believe that the 1979 Renault was equipped with such intercoolers?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:38 pm

Grandprix.com suspects the 1.6L turbo might be scrapped before it even makes an appearance.
bhall
 
Joined: 28 Feb 2006

Post Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:39 pm

bhallg2k wrote:Grandprix.com suspects the 1.6L turbo might be scrapped before it even makes an appearance.



I have been repeating this ad nauseum. Like an obnoxious kid.
rjsa
 
Joined: 2 Mar 2007

Post Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:30 pm

I hope they carry out with their original plan. Even NASCAR is trying to move into the future.lol
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 Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:59 pm

F-1 is slowly becoming technically obsolete and disconnected. The pinacle of monkey business and politics... What a shame !
Sombrero
 
Joined: 22 Feb 2012

Post Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:08 pm

It wouldnt surprise me if the 1.6L V6 was switched out for something else.

However i am led to belive the V6s are not cost effective due to the energy recovery systems being employed. And this is one reaso why 2 well know manufacturers dont want to get involved. Its the 30 seconds of KERS and HERS as well as ambiguitys in the budget and cost controls for engines as well.

Personally they should have kept the current KERS system, but made it more powerful and more cost effective. Id have given them 125hp for 12.5 seconds a lap by push button. However id have given the engine manufacturers freedom over the V6, as long as it was between 75 and 80 kilos in weight, and was a standard length of 800mm and was a standard height of between 400mm and 500mm so that manufacturers could have differing V angles, also id allow VVT and all other electronic gubbins for increasing power and efficiency. Id make engine mounting and transmission mounting points standardised as well.

However id do one thing against the manufacturers, id make the turbo or super a standard part and also get a standardised fuel pump that pumps no more than 5 litres of fuel per 5Km, whitch would mean that fuel tanks would need to be no more than 61 kilos, however tanks would have to have a minimum of 65 kilos as to a standardised spec and have at least 3 kilos in them at all times during a event. The turbo would have to be able to give variable boost between 1.5 and 3 bar, so that drivers a tool to push their engines and such, and turbos shouldnt be allowed to be engaged by KERS and the super would have to be able to give 4.5 bar. Exhaust posistioning would be in a aerodynamically neutral posistion no more than 250mm rearward of the rear wheel centre line and no more than 200mm above the rear wheel centre line and no less than 50mm above the rear wheel centre line, and exhausts have to be no more than 85mm in diamater and cut flat.

This would give manufacturers enough to think about.

As for cost, a team that is linmked to their own engines (Mercedes/Ferrari) have to keep a engine budget of €50m a season and engines can go to no more than 2 more teams for a cost of €7m a season. However, engine manufactures that arnt linked to a team (Renault/Cosworth) can supply as many as 5 teams, and also must supply engines for no more than €8m a season. Cars can have up to 5 engines per season, used consecutivly, so an early season blow up will screw you up, same with a late season blow up as new engines require a 10 place drop at the first event of usage and a 5 place at the next event.

As for allowing the engines to be used in other series, why not, if it increases development and also gives the engine manufacturers more of a chance to increase the chances of recouping costs and such and making an actual profit.

Who wouldnt want to see a DW12 with a Ferrari in the back of it at Indy or a LMP1 Lola or old AMR1 with a Mercedes in the back of it at Le Mans? Id also allow for GP2 to use F1 engines, however they get 2 per year and a 2.5 kilo per 5 km fuel pump and a 25% smaller turbo, thus meaning they have better chance to learn F1 tech at a lower level. Cost for outside F1 is unlimited, however GP2 would be limited to €2.5m per team for 6 engines per GP2 season to include GP2 test days as well.

Ideally im looking for a engine to do 3000km in F1, GP2 and Indy spec; 8000Km in LMP spec, however LMP could have bespoke turbos or supers with a bespoke fuel flow limiter.

With theese rules, Manufacurers would have plenty scope for showing relyability and speed, and also plenty of commercial scope to actually make a profit. There is enough to constrict and contrive, but plenty to make the manufacturers to showcase their own tech and have a engine that was different to the other ones in the garrages next to yours.
ESPImperium
 
Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Post Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:41 pm

Ironically, 2014 LMP engine regulation rumours suggest the 1.6T's to stay for F1:
https://twitter.com/RacecarEngineer/sta ... 6353456129
Saribro
 
Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Post Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:25 am

I don't even know how to wrap my head around that. Is an F1 engine an F1 engine if it can do 24 hours of continuous racing?
bhall
 
Joined: 28 Feb 2006

Post Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:03 am

bhallg2k wrote:I don't even know how to wrap my head around that. Is an F1 engine an F1 engine if it can do 24 hours of continuous racing?


Several LMS/ALMS teams have used de-tuned 3.5 & 3.0 F1 Engines in the past.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
djos
 
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Engine, transmission and controls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], Tweetmeme [Bot] and 6 guests