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.
User avatar
dave kumar
11
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: UK

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Yes, I agree. As things stand all these components need to be optimised to work together. To borrow a concept from software programming, we have a concept of designing decoupled systems to avoid exactly this problem. I have no idea if you can decouple the elements of the PU (electrical and combustion), but that is one way to vastly simplify the problem/costs.
Formerly known as senna-toleman

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
78
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Or forget about integration and just give the drivers a deployment button on the wheel, maybe add a brake recovery dial or level 0-1-2-3 switch.

The only problem I see, is that a single rear axle KERS will not regenerate enough energy to justify the added weight. Remember ‘09 where the lighter Brawn car was faster without KERS than the heavy McLaren Mercedes with KERS.

That is why I suggest front axle recovery or standard exhaust gas recovery.

But i like the idea that small manufacturer can supply just the ICE and let the team develop the KERS. Or that a bigger mainstream manufacturer (like Renault) can develop a complete package, where they can fully focus on the KERS part.

User avatar
godlameroso
432
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

dave kumar wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:10 am
NL_Fer wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:02 pm
I don’t believe any of the big manufacturers is interested in a hightech combustion engine and I guess that the best strategy is to split the new powerunit in a simple and restricted ICE, combined with a bigger MGU-K.

Also replace the MGU-H with either a (Fia standard) exhaust gas generator OR let the teams develop a front brake recovery system.
Gary Anderson makes a good argument for this idea here (but you need to scroll half-way down the article to get to it).
https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... SocialSnap
As you can see, I have separated the actual engine requirements from the electrical requirements. This to allow what we might call privateer engine manufacturers to potentially get involved again in the manufacture of the actual engine part of the equation. With Honda walking away, the day is coming when F1 might just need the Judds, Harts, Ilmors, Cosworths and Zyteks of old again.

Returning to the power unit, by separating the engine and the electrical energy side of things, this would also allow specialists in the electrical energy recovery systems to get involved.

Currently, it’s all part of the power unit but by doing it this way it means you can have two sets of specialists involved and with that brings two sets of potential investment, also it means you can tinker regulation wise with either the engine energy or electrical energy separately, they are not as integrated so small changes won’t have such a huge concept consequence.
I think that the key part here is separating the electrical and combustion systems so that they can be independently designed and sourced. Part of the problem with the current engine formula is that changes to one part of the PU has knock-on effects in other parts to optimise the design (eg. optimal turbo size is dependent on a whole host of factors). If we could decouple these systems so they can be optimised independently of each other, then you would greatly simplify the design process and thus costs.
Unfortunately the MGU-H is what is responsible for the massive efficiency of the ICE, without it, you will reduce the efficiency of the ICE by some margin. The most expensive and mysterious object is also unlimited and the source of the biggest gains. The MGU-H is part of the combustion process itself. The turbo is almost as important as the ICE itself is at this point. The MGU-H controls the intake of air, it is basically the throttle of the ICE. Are these turbocharged internal combustion engines? Or are they turbo props with electrified combustors?
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
648
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:58 pm
Remember ‘09 where the lighter Brawn car was faster without KERS than the heavy McLaren Mercedes with KERS.

The simple issue of about 25% more down force was more telling.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
dave kumar
11
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: UK

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:28 pm
...Unfortunately the MGU-H is what is responsible for the massive efficiency of the ICE, without it, you will reduce the efficiency of the ICE by some margin. The most expensive and mysterious object is also unlimited and the source of the biggest gains. The MGU-H is part of the combustion process itself. The turbo is almost as important as the ICE itself is at this point. The MGU-H controls the intake of air, it is basically the throttle of the ICE. Are these turbocharged internal combustion engines? Or are they turbo props with electrified combustors?
Yes, you're absolutely correct. These PUs are beautiful and have achieved incredible levels of efficiency. I just hadn't appreciated that the MGU-H is at the centre of these efficiency gains and that it's design must be optimised in relation to all the other components (combustion and electrical). This has been a great technical achievement but not so good for the health of the sport, at least in my opinion. I was persuaded by Gary Anderson's argument that it would be better to have a formula that split the PU in to simpler components that could be sourced from different suppliers and in turn make it more attractive for the Cosworths and Ilmors of this world to get involved again.

If that is the type of formula you want, then I think you have to accept that you are going to have less efficient PUs as the components will have to be decoupled so each can be designed independent of the others. May be you can still HERS as well as KERS but it won't be as efficient as the current system.

The alternative is to go back to the big manufacturers again and ask them what sort of PU they want and then live with the consequences of having a few big manufacturers involved with the advantages that confers to any works teams.

I like Gary Anderson's suggestion that we should at least ask the question - what do we want formula one to look like? And then work out a formula that will create that environment rather than picking various technologies out of a hat and hoping for the best.
Formerly known as senna-toleman

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
648
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Not sure why there is this idea about Cosworth coming back into F1. They haven't built a truly competitive F1 engine for 25 years.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

Jolle
Jolle
204
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Also, cosworth has no experience or knowledge of what is needed to design a PU for the current era. They could, however, have a smaller role as a supplier or in assembly for another party.

User avatar
djos
144
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Jolle wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:41 pm
Also, cosworth has no experience or knowledge of what is needed to design a PU for the current era. They could, however, have a smaller role as a supplier or in assembly for another party.
Not true, they designed and built a prototype but failed to attract manufacturer backing.

https://www.racecar-engineering.com/new ... ower-unit/
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

User avatar
Big Tea
134
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

When you think of it, we do not expect a driver to just turn up in F1 and race. They come through the series, as do the teams. Experience the 'job' step by step so to speak.

Would it not be more productive if a maker could have a F2 engine until it was developed then 'upgrade' it to F1?

For instance, if the F2 engine was the same basic engine as F1, with maybe just turbo and 'off the shelf' regen, lower flow rate.
Then with the F1 engine the same but more of a 'no holds barred' version with MGUH electric turbo etc on an engine they came in with and developed.

This would also ease the financial aspect as even if the F1 engine fails, they still have a running and usable F2 engine?.

If there were to be a sports car style option for the engine too, even better. More customers and more experience.
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So watch your feet.

User avatar
dave kumar
11
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: UK

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Here's an article from 2018
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13374 ... ne-concept
FIA president Jean Todt has resurrected the idea of a 'global engine' that could be used in both Formula 1 and other motorsport series.

The concept was previously proposed in the late 2000s, when the FIA commissioned British engineering consultancy Ricardo to investigate the potential for a common rules package to create a base engine that could be adapted for use in as many as 11 major series around the world.
If they designed a basic ICE in a way that other components could then be added depending on the series' needs - so KERS, HERS, etc. Then yes this would be a great way of spreading the cost and risk across many forms of motor sport.
Formerly known as senna-toleman

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
78
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Current MGU-K has over 6 MJ of recovered energy available from braking and exhaust gasses. This is about 50-60s of deployment every lap. With only rear axle KERS this is reduced to less then 2 MJ. Hardly worth the added weight of the KERS.

Best solution would be a relative simple ICE with a form of exhaust energy recovery included. Needle in a haystack or can the FIA design a powerunit specification for guys like Ilmor or Ricardo to built such an engine?

User avatar
djos
144
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

The best idea I’ve seen so far is the oldest, drop the MGU-H and replace it with a Porsche 919 style exhaust gas energy recovery system.

I’d also switch to direct injection to get rid of complicated plasma jet systems that aren’t road car relevant.

This would greatly simply the PU’s and level the playing field dramatically.
Last edited by djos on Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

User avatar
Big Tea
134
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

djos wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:23 pm
The best idea I’ve seen so far is the oldest, drop the MGU-H and replace it with a Porsche 919 style exhaust has energy recovery system.

I’d also switch to direct injection to get rid of complicated plasma jet systems that aren’t road car relevant.

This would greatly simply the PU’s and level the playing field dramatically.
There seems to be a few items such as di that take so much expensive fiddling to get the effect that a simple system would. I think there could be lots of cost saving at no performance loss by doing a bit of juggling with the allow/disallow items.
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So watch your feet.

User avatar
djos
144
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

I totally agree. 8)
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
540
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

dave kumar wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:26 pm
godlameroso wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:28 pm
...Unfortunately the MGU-H is what is responsible for the massive efficiency of the ICE, without it, you will reduce the efficiency of the ICE by some margin. The most expensive and mysterious object is also unlimited and the source of the biggest gains. The MGU-H is part of the combustion process itself. The turbo is almost as important as the ICE itself is at this point. The MGU-H controls the intake of air, it is basically the throttle of the ICE. Are these turbocharged internal combustion engines? Or are they turbo props with electrified combustors?
Yes, you're absolutely correct. These PUs are beautiful and have achieved incredible levels of efficiency. I just hadn't appreciated that the MGU-H is at the centre of these efficiency gains and that it's design must be optimised in relation to all the other components (combustion and electrical).......
an MGU-H is of course an electrical machine
if we use MGU-H to mean 'electrically-driven/electrically-recovering turbocharger' .....

the engines aren't 'turbo props' ... because .....
turbine expander capacity is far less ie 'lighter' than cylinder expander capacity - the ICE isn't ever fully a gas generator
(yes the turbine recovery from the normal exhaust is priceless (and storable) 'free power')

so the engines are lightly compounded heat dilution engines
HD is super-lean (high-boost) mixture enabled by TJI etc - the 'extra' air greatly reducing energy dumped via coolant
leaving more energy (greater air mass) for expansion in-cylinder
high turbine and compressor efficiency are vital to this (unlike turbo F1 - where some efficiency was traded for response
yes the 'MGU-H factor' avoids a tradeoff

heat dilution is/could be increased by F1 fuel design ....also ....
current F1 fuel design allows unlimited octane number (reversing F1 'road relevance' rules established in 1958)

(part or wholly gaseous fuel allows more HD/boost than liquid fuel - current HD gas engines don't/can't have recovery)