2021 Engine thread

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
henry
166
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by henry » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:09 am

Having followed the evolution of power unit discussion on this forum for the last 10+ years I reluctantly feel that for engagement and enjoyment of the average fan the PUs need to be much simpler.

PU power output should be proportional to engine speed, more revs more power. This should include any electrical power, which when demanded by the driver should be fed in proportional to the engine speed.

This would mean that fans can continue to fixate on top speeds and max power outputs and know that they are reflected in the way the cars are engineered.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

AJI
33
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:48 am

NL_Fer wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:48 am
AJI wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:43 am
djos wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:23 am
I'd have liked them to replace the MGU-H with a GU-H Porsche style.
Why not have both?

Because we want close performances, not one that is 100bhp different from the others.
I mean all the PUs could have both, not one or the other...
That said, why we would want to throw away the MGU-H just as it reaches maturity and parity is beyond me...
Also, why the hell are Porsche, who have had literally nothing to do with F1 for decades, even being considered in this equation.

gandharva
191
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Munich

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by gandharva » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:55 pm

johnny vee wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:11 am
I saw this this morning. I for one think the MGU-H must stay but that it could be made a standard part that is the same for everyone...like the Mclaren ecu...

What are your thoughts?
For the engine cartel standard part h would be the same than removing h. Bit unsure about Renault, but for the other two h is simply a performance differentiator they do not want to loose and I think it's about hindering porsches engine development towards 21.

roon
350
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by roon » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:50 pm

As suggested in other threads recently, the H and hybrid tech as-written may have approached a development limit, if some of the power units are able to deploy full K power at any time. Further power gains will necessarily be found within the ICE (combustion and ancillary development).

Which presents the situation to the teams and legislators: modify the electrical powertrain allowances.

Since the H is unregulated, the K and ES are left to modify. If they increase K output, the size of the H will increase by default. They'll have to start regulating H size or live with developing a larger, more expensive H. That may be part of what some want to avoid.

I see two main paths moving forward:
  • Combustion and ICE centered development: maintain existing hybrid rules and/or eliminate H
  • Hybrid and compounding centered development: increase electrical powertrain/hybrid allowances
Honda may prefer the latter because it is more relevant to the types of road cars they make; small ICE, hybridized with electric motors and battery packs. Ferrari may prefer the former as they would not mind selling 6.0L V12s and TTV8s having 60% thermal efficiency averaging 40mpg, without battery pack weight.

An aside--how about the following for a powertrain formula: electric supercharger, K motor(s), ES, no turbine(s), ~1.6L discplacement, and a 100kg/hr fuel flow +/- frictional-loss-factor to allow any arrangement of cylinders.

loner
11
User avatar
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by loner » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm

loner wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 8:49 pm
Mercedes: No performance limit for turbo-hybrid F1 engines to reach
Mercedes' engine chief Andy Cowell
"I personally don't believe there is a limit. I think you can always find gains.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13614 ... ing-limits
It Tolls for Thee.

roon
350
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by roon » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:03 pm

loner wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
loner wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 8:49 pm
Mercedes: No performance limit for turbo-hybrid F1 engines to reach
Mercedes' engine chief Andy Cowell
"I personally don't believe there is a limit. I think you can always find gains.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13614 ... ing-limits
The question isn't if they can improve the performance of power units. The question is which components within the power units have the most development potential within the current regulations.

AJI
33
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:20 pm

roon wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:03 pm
loner wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
loner wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 8:49 pm
Mercedes: No performance limit for turbo-hybrid F1 engines to reach
Mercedes' engine chief Andy Cowell

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13614 ... ing-limits
The question isn't if they can improve the performance of power units. The question is which components within the power units have the most development potential within the current regulations.
The context of Cowell's comment didn't specify a quantifiable number as a gain, just a "gain", be it 2%, 0.2% or 0.00000002%.
A comment that broad can be applied to almost anything.

AJI
33
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:24 pm

roon wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:50 pm
....~1.6L discplacement, and a 100kg/hr fuel flow +/- frictional-loss-factor to allow any arrangement of cylinders.
I like this bit the most. I assume we're getting refuelling?

wuzak
349
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by wuzak » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:26 am

gandharva wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:55 pm
johnny vee wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:11 am
I saw this this morning. I for one think the MGU-H must stay but that it could be made a standard part that is the same for everyone...like the Mclaren ecu...

What are your thoughts?
For the engine cartel standard part h would be the same than removing h. Bit unsure about Renault, but for the other two h is simply a performance differentiator they do not want to loose and I think it's about hindering porsches engine development towards 21.
Since Porsche haven't committed, nor any other manufacturer, for 21 and the new rules the current manufacturers are questioning why they would have to build completely new power units and still be the only 4 manufacturers in F1.

Basically, it's up to Porsche to put up or shut up.

As an aside, Porsche is part of VAG, the largest car manufacturer in the world. They have a heat energy recovery system on the 919. If they can't develop an MGUH under the current rules, there is something wrong.

Holm86
166
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Holm86 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:43 am

wuzak wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:26 am
gandharva wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:55 pm
johnny vee wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:11 am
I saw this this morning. I for one think the MGU-H must stay but that it could be made a standard part that is the same for everyone...like the Mclaren ecu...

What are your thoughts?
For the engine cartel standard part h would be the same than removing h. Bit unsure about Renault, but for the other two h is simply a performance differentiator they do not want to loose and I think it's about hindering porsches engine development towards 21.
Since Porsche haven't committed, nor any other manufacturer, for 21 and the new rules the current manufacturers are questioning why they would have to build completely new power units and still be the only 4 manufacturers in F1.

Basically, it's up to Porsche to put up or shut up.

As an aside, Porsche is part of VAG, the largest car manufacturer in the world. They have a heat energy recovery system on the 919. If they can't develop an MGUH under the current rules, there is something wrong.

You can't expect any manufacturer to commit to a set of regulations that doesn't exist yet.

And yes, Porsche might be perfectly capable of making an MGU-H unit, but no matter what, they are still going to be 6-7 years behind in development compared to those who are already in F1.
Just look at Honda and how difficult it was for them, and they entered only 1 year behind the others.

As much as I enjoy the technical aspect of the MGU-H, it just doesn't contribute to good racing. It's too complicated, and robs a lot of engine sound. It might be a technology more fit for endurance racing IMO.

santos
33
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:48 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by santos » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:56 am

Holm86 wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:43 am


You can't expect any manufacturer to commit to a set of regulations that doesn't exist yet.

And yes, Porsche might be perfectly capable of making an MGU-H unit, but no matter what, they are still going to be 6-7 years behind in development compared to those who are already in F1.
Just look at Honda and how difficult it was for them, and they entered only 1 year behind the others.

As much as I enjoy the technical aspect of the MGU-H, it just doesn't contribute to good racing. It's too complicated, and robs a lot of engine sound. It might be a technology more fit for endurance racing IMO.
I think first, the manufacturers that are interested to come to F1 must commit that they will come. Talk with the FIA and the other manufacturers and setting a regulation that works for everyone. Because what's the point in changing something and then no new manufacturers come? Porsche and Aston Martin must commit themselves that they want to come to F1.

AJI
33
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:44 pm

I'll ask again, who the hell do these other manufacturers, who have had literally nothing to do with F1 for decades (or ever), think they are to be consulted on the specification for the future regulations?
Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda, who have made the commitment to the current spec should be rewarded. If that means that they have an advantage in 2021 then so be it. If VAG think they can compete then they should bring it. If Aston Martin think they can compete then... I guess delusional is too complimentary a term?

mclaren111
126
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:49 am
Location: Shithole - South Africa

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by mclaren111 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:17 pm

I'm also in favor of dropping H.

Sound for me is very important.

Can the heat recovery from the brakes be moved to all 4 wheels ??

Blaze1
63
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Blaze1 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:42 pm

roon wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:50 pm
An aside--how about the following for a powertrain formula: electric supercharger, K motor(s), ES, no turbine(s), ~1.6L discplacement, and a 100kg/hr fuel flow +/- frictional-loss-factor to allow any arrangement of cylinders.
The manufacturers would still converge on very similar solutions. If "allow any arrangement of cylinders" includes number, then the manufacturers would still opt for the fewest number of cylinders (given forced induction) for packaging reasons.

EDIT:
I guess one method/regulation that may help if supplemented with the "frictional-loss-factor" would be a minimum volume box for the engine to sit within, with C of G constraints. Then again more cylinders means more moving parts and unnecessary complexity.................

Zynerji
56
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Zynerji » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:01 pm

3.2l v6 no turbo, 18k rpm...

Let's go racing, loudly!