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.
roon
444
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by roon » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:22 pm

gruntguru wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:06 am
roon wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:10 pm
gruntguru wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:58 am
Don't forget the fundamental excitation frequency you are suggesting they remove is 500 hz @ 10,000 engine rpm.
Yes, three times per rev. This being too high frequency for control?
Impossible to control but more to the point - almost entirely removed by the low-pass filter (engine rotating inertia driving an elastic driveline) so the tyres don't feel this.
Thanks. In a road car application, would such inertial/elastic filtering be insufficient at lower engine speeds? (To my point of using an MGU as an NVH aid.) I suppose the driveline shuddering that pendulum dampers address are much lower than 500hz; something in the single to double digits range.

NL_Fer wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:48 pm
They should face the exhaust to the front side. The more exhaust gasses, the more drag :lol:
Unfair benefit to Honda.

NL_Fer wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:50 am
Yes it also needs superefficient combustion, but they need the mgu-h to make the energy usable at the wheels.
I would think pushing down on the piston directly is the best way to transmit the combustion energy to the wheels. Or is this a reference to blowdown recovery?

NL_Fer wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:50 am
A significant part of Mercs advantage will be lost. Why would Toto be lobbying for the mgu-h to remain?
Not sure. Combustion efficiency will still be the name of the game though, it's the only way to make more power in such a formula. Advantage to whoever is best at it. Might difficulties and development costs be compounded (no pun intended) sans MGU-H and high charge pressures?
Last edited by roon on Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

roon
444
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by roon » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:28 pm

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:49 pm
the Wright Turbo Compound had like all supercharged aircraft engines a low CR to allow very high boost for takeoff power
ie its CR was sub-optimal for typical (cruise) use and so its exhaust was more than optimally energetic
but F1's CR is not sub-optimal
we can speculate what efficiency (sustained power) F1 PUs gain by their compounding (freely, without extra fuel)
eg 8% sustained 'free' PU power gain needs 8% more fuel when without MGU-H

btw
at 200 mph a conventional engine's exhaust provides jet propulsion power equivalent to about 2% of crankshaft power
our heat dilution F1 engines have an outstandingly high relative massflow
so give 3 - 3.5% jet propulsion power at 200 mph ?
of course not much at 60 mph etc
How does this compare to the NA V8 era? FIA didn't want any exhaust flow trickery in this formula--mandating a very specific high-central location for the exit. I imagine blown diffusers could still have benefitted despite lower exhaust temp, but still high mass flow.

Muniix
14
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Muniix » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:31 am

bill shoe wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:37 pm
I like the idea of making electrical energy deployment (from battery into the MGU-K) controlled by the driver, with the battery big enough to store multiple laps worth of energy rather than the single lap currently allowed. This allows a following but faster driver to store up energy over two or three laps and then blow by the leading car with the extra energy deployment. The following driver has to "earn" the saved energy by not using it while he keeps up with the leading car.

This is a much more natural way to earn and achieve a pass compared to the current artificial and gimmicky DRS. It also puts much more focus on the hybrid/electric part of the powertrain than the current Rube-Goldberg system, despite the new system being of course simpler and cheaper.
You have to allow for the mass of the energy storage, that is the killer, it has a very low energy and power density, has to be kept cool, the electrolyte has a low flash point, the current/voltage/state of charge 3D graph needs to be considered also the ideal temperature of 20-25 Celsius and reasonable you want to minimise its degradation which is mostly temperature, but cycling as well, as the state of charge decreases the resistance increases, greater voltaga drop off, greater heat production. Most cells only provide 10 amps at 3.1-3.6 volts and weigh nearly 50 grams, more if you want higher current, thicker current carriers. Li-Ions havn't really improved much since 2002, the 2-3% a year improvement in energy density has been achieved with packaging improvements reducing the ovehead. Gasoline has 12,000 Watt hours per kg a Li-Ion has 140-250 depending on power density for a 18650. That's why Elons's latest sports car has two 100 kw/h battery packs each 1,400 lbs I'm not sure the chassis and tyre engineers are too happy with that, but hey it gets some numbers the Journo's suck up and print without checking.

Muniix
14
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Muniix » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:33 am

roon wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:16 am
Spec components will only shift the spending elsewhere. Is Merc spending appreciably less per year than RB or Ferrari did in their heydays?

MrPotatoHead wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:38 am
markovski19 wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:28 am
Could the MGU-K not only be used to assist with power to the crankshaft, but also to help spool the turbo and remove turbo lag. That is what the MGU-H functionally does. This could mean both the removal of the MGU-H (for costs) and the sound benefits that come with it.

With the proposal in increasing the power of the MGU-K, I don't see why this couldn't be a reality, powering both crank and turbo. Perhaps x amount of power from the K can be used to remove turbo lag through automation and stop drivers from just using KERS every corner exit, thus leaving the drivers to decide when and where to use the KERS to power the engine.
Yes. This is what is called "Torque Fill" and is used already on road cars like the McLaren P1. The MGUK is used to fill in the gap in the torque band before the turbo(s) spool and then tapers off as the turbos come up to speed for a wider power band.
Is it about filling in the torque curve, or filling in between combustion events? It could be that it smooths the power delivery of the ICE that it is attached to. The electric motor is used to fill in the gaps between combustion strokes. Thus a hybrid power unit can deliver constant torque like an electric motor.

In F1, the K is appropriately sized for this; 160hp being more than what a single cylinder can deliver (~140 hp). But is the K still selectively deployed? I don't think they're pulsing the K on and off for an entire lap.

But if they are, the smooth power output might help the longevity of the transmissions that we see. It may even influence chassis design. The 90 deg cylinder bank angle being better for installation into the chassis, but not ideal for a V6 engine. But it doesn't matter--torque fill could make the bank angle irrelevant.
For best Tyre grip you want time for the tyres to relax between pulses so you don't brake friction once you do that, your losses are high. Large multi-cylinder engines will spin the tyres up easier, braking traction is easier with constant force. If you want better acceleration then pulsing power deliver is preferable. Why the MotoGP bikes do "big bang" as they call it multiple cylinders firing at or very near the same crank angle.

langwadt
62
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:54 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by langwadt » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:29 am

Muniix wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:33 am
roon wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:16 am
Spec components will only shift the spending elsewhere. Is Merc spending appreciably less per year than RB or Ferrari did in their heydays?

MrPotatoHead wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:38 am


Yes. This is what is called "Torque Fill" and is used already on road cars like the McLaren P1. The MGUK is used to fill in the gap in the torque band before the turbo(s) spool and then tapers off as the turbos come up to speed for a wider power band.
Is it about filling in the torque curve, or filling in between combustion events? It could be that it smooths the power delivery of the ICE that it is attached to. The electric motor is used to fill in the gaps between combustion strokes. Thus a hybrid power unit can deliver constant torque like an electric motor.

In F1, the K is appropriately sized for this; 160hp being more than what a single cylinder can deliver (~140 hp). But is the K still selectively deployed? I don't think they're pulsing the K on and off for an entire lap.

But if they are, the smooth power output might help the longevity of the transmissions that we see. It may even influence chassis design. The 90 deg cylinder bank angle being better for installation into the chassis, but not ideal for a V6 engine. But it doesn't matter--torque fill could make the bank angle irrelevant.
For best Tyre grip you want time for the tyres to relax between pulses so you don't brake friction once you do that, your losses are high. Large multi-cylinder engines will spin the tyres up easier, braking traction is easier with constant force. If you want better acceleration then pulsing power deliver is preferable. Why the MotoGP bikes do "big bang" as they call it multiple cylinders firing at or very near the same crank angle.
afaiu it is still debated whether the "time to relax" is actually what is happening

Tommy Cookers
516
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Tommy Cookers » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:31 am

fwiw I agree

and btw re the previous post
'Big Bang' is a myth for so many reasons ......
the only significant effect of different firing intervals is power curve effects from induction tuning/plenum behaviour
according to the late Prof Gordon Blair who was a consultant eg for Ducati Moto GP

all engines even highly non-BB ones have torsional oscillations of the crankshaft - at lower frequencies than combustion pulses
but still far too high to propagate through the transmission
anyway motorcycles transmissions generate torsional oscillations ie a ripple in their output even with a smooth input

which Moto GP machines are designed for BB for the reason claimed by the 'BB' fans ? - none I think
(crossplane/BB GP Yamahas have uneven firing to give even (ie cancelling) inertial pulses so have no BB effect at working rpm)

what about 'stutter box' techniques ? - these could (if anything could) produce beneficial tyre behaviour
or an equivalent characteristic built into the transmission

bill shoe
236
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by bill shoe » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:54 pm

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:31 am
fwiw I agree

and btw re the previous post
'Big Bang' is a myth for so many reasons ......
the only significant effect of different firing intervals is power curve effects from induction tuning/plenum behaviour
according to the late Prof Gordon Blair who was a consultant eg for Ducati Moto GP

all engines even highly non-BB ones have torsional oscillations of the crankshaft - at lower frequencies than combustion pulses
but still far too high to propagate through the transmission
anyway motorcycles transmissions generate torsional oscillations ie a ripple in their output even with a smooth input

which Moto GP machines are designed for BB for the reason claimed by the 'BB' fans ? - none I think
(crossplane/BB GP Yamahas have uneven firing to give even (ie cancelling) inertial pulses so have no BB effect at working rpm)

what about 'stutter box' techniques ? - these could (if anything could) produce beneficial tyre behaviour
or an equivalent characteristic built into the transmission
Mainstream (yes, dangerous) understanding is that Honda Moto GP bikes got more traction due to BB, this was way back in the 70's or 80's. Are you saying that Honda was fooled by different intake and exhaust dynamics that resulted in better low speed accel due to a torque curve that was stronger or perhaps more drivable? As opposed to the grip-slip-grip-slip tire dynamics that supposedly caused better accel?

Tommy Cookers
516
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Tommy Cookers » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:46 pm

this was the first V4 2 stroke with much angle between banks, its 250 ? ancestry naturally led to BBwards without BB intent
they rather quickly troubled themselves to make a complex crank to give even firing - the so-called 'screamer'
Mr Doohan preferred it and won everything
people forget all prior 4 cyl 2 strokes (1964 on) had paired firing or almost paired firing (being simpler) - so were they BB ?
of course they didn't have plenums
anyway there was never an even-firing 4 cyl 2 stroke for the BB to improve upon

btw and fwiw
uniquely, 'Jim' Alves won 'English trials' on even-firing Triumph twins - believed impossible ie only singles could win
he said he could ride it so slowly he could pick a better path
uniquely, Johnny Giles built a simultaneous-firing Triumph scrambler to make more rideable its top-endy US-style power
the bosses said lose the bike or lose your job
the (later) 500 Yankee Ossa and a Husqvarna 500-700 were also simultaneous-firing

in this 21st century people surely have made measurements at the wheel rim and the tread and have seen what happens

gruntguru
437
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by gruntguru » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:07 am

I for one don't believe stick-slip behavior will increase grip (not 100% sure of dirt tracks).

Look at the acceleration being achieved by electric vehicles - these surely have less torque oscillation than combustion engines? Of course EV's often have the advantage of AWD and individual wheel traction control.
je suis charlie

Muniix
14
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Muniix » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:49 pm

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:07 am
I for one don't believe stick-slip behavior will increase grip (not 100% sure of dirt tracks).

Look at the acceleration being achieved by electric vehicles - these surely have less torque oscillation than combustion engines? Of course EV's often have the advantage of AWD and individual wheel traction control.
With Hybrid you can overlay the electric torque over the IC powertrains torque, even some exotic electric torque profiles depending on type mgu-k on the crankshaft, gearbox primary or secondary shafts. Measuring the added power one might be able to do some detailed investigation.

roon
444
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by roon » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:01 pm

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:07 am
I for one don't believe stick-slip behavior will increase grip (not 100% sure of dirt tracks).

Look at the acceleration being achieved by electric vehicles - these surely have less torque oscillation than combustion engines? Of course EV's often have the advantage of AWD and individual wheel traction control.
I think the latter. As you and TC have said previously, ICE or electric source torque doesn't really matter; elastics, clutch effects, and tire slip all convene to filter out ICE-source pulsations. Seemingly EVs should experience similar drivetrain elastics and tire behavior, sans any clutch slip effects.

As for any of these resultant stick-slip-inducing pulsations experienced by the tire, the benefit if any seems to be about driveability. I think of hand-held tools; impact drivers vs standard drills. The user of an impact driver experiences less kickback and enjoys easier modulation of the trigger. Apples to oranges?

lio007
283
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Austria

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by lio007 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:30 pm

That's really worth a read (although in german):
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 03045.html

Mario Illien on the 2021 engine.

NL_Fer
63
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by NL_Fer » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:18 pm

Hard to read if one's German is of mediocre level. But very interesting.

So he says that the new rules are good, but still to expensive for a small firm like his Ilmor to join. Even if he finds 2 customer teams.

Because a fuel limited ICE, KERS and 3 engines per season are all to expensive to develop.

Good point that any fuel flow limit should increase to maximum at the maximum rev limit, of you want high reving engines.

lio007
283
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Austria

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by lio007 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:48 pm

NL_Fer wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:18 pm
Hard to read if one's German is of mediocre level. But very interesting.

So he says that the new rules are good, but still to expensive for a small firm like his Ilmor to join. Even if he finds 2 customer teams.

Because a fuel limited ICE, KERS and 3 engines per season are all to expensive to develop.

Good point that any fuel flow limit should increase to maximum at the maximum rev limit, of you want high reving engines.
I'll try to translate as soon as I can.

OO7
90
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by OO7 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:59 am

via Google Translate:

MARIO ILLIEN TO F1 ENGINE 2021
"Only possible with sponsor"

To date, only the four manufacturers from Formula 1 have commented on the engine concept of the future. Now, for the first time with Mario Illien, one of the potential private providers is talking about how good the plans really are.

Mario Illien was present at the three exploratory talks between FIA, Formula 1 management and engine manufacturers. At the crucial on October 31, he was missing. The 68-year-old Swiss drove a classic car rally in South Africa. Meanwhile, he has studied the concept of the World Association and the rights holders.

In principle, he finds the right path. But in detail he would like to know more. Especially about the flow rate, the use of pressure sensors in the cylinders and the freedom in the turbocharger. This could hide cost drivers, which are harder to swallow for private providers than for a car company. But later.

To be able to classify the dimensions better, one must first understand on what basis the former chief designer of the Mercedes Formula 1 engines today build racing engines. 87 employees currently work for Ilmor. For comparison : Mercedes and Ferrari employ in their engine departments each 500 employees and more. A small, but subtle difference that reflects quite well the madness Formula 1 in 2017.

Ilmor has developed the latest IndyCar engine with his slender squad. It is a 2.2-liter V6 biturbo, which delivers 720 hp at 0.5 bar. This engine has to stop 4,000 kilometers. The Formula 1 engines are operated with up to 4.5 bar boost pressure and come with electric power to a system output of more than 950 hp. Their lifespan is 5,000 kilometers.

The development of the IndyCar engine from the white sheet to the use in racing cars has cost Ilmor around 7.5 million euros. 4 million euros are added each year for the further development, construction and use of the engines. Each team has to pay € 950,000 to Ilmor per car.

In Formula One , engine servicing per team will be reduced to 12 million euros next year. But there are only three drive units per car. According to Renault, the development costs for the technology miracles amounted to more than 100 million euros. A similar investment, the French fear, if they had to build the engine for 2021 , which was presented at the end of October.

Standard turbocharger costs $ 3,000
Mario Illien estimates the cost of maintaining certain parameters at "15 to 20 million euros". The difference to the figures given by the manufacturers explains the Churer with ridicule: "where everything is expensive. They can not even turn on the lights without spending 1,000 euros. "This is not only due to the high number of employees, but also to the tools. "Such a dynamic test stand with a car and a gear costs something between 20 and 25 million euros. We do not have that kind of thing. "

Illia judges the presented concept quite critically: "In principle it is the right way. The technology has to be simpler and cheaper. But for a private manufacturer, this formula can not be displayed without outside help. I could not develop a business model like that in the IndyCar series, because I would probably only have one or two customers who would not refinance my startup costs and deployment. In the US, I'm equipping half of the field - and is still giving money. So I can survive. "Conclusion of the PS-magician:" Without a sponsor in the back I could not build such a motor for Formula One . "

Superficially, the future Formula 1 engine is not so unlike Ilmor's IndyCar engines. You could say an IndyCar engine with just one instead of two turbochargers and KERS on top of that. Why would he be more than twice as expensive for Ilmor? Illien explains: "There are several cost drivers hidden. If you build your own turbocharger, it will be expensive. We buy them in the IndyCar series at unit manufacturer Borg Warner for $ 3,000. KERS also devours money. If you commission such a thing from a big manufacturer, you pay a fortune. If I build the electrical machines myself, I have to hire people. And find the right ones. "

"One very important point is what the FIA ​​is planning with the flow rate. If you go up only with the flow rate or only with the speed, you will continue to try to achieve the best efficiency at a low speed. Of course, the manufacturers who are already there have a huge advantage, even if the fuel quantity and flow rate are shifting upwards. The insights into the high combustion pressures and temperatures are still there, and I, as a newcomer, would have to hit the same score as she did to burn as efficiently as possible. "

Pressure sensors in the cylinders are a cost trap
So how should the topic of gas consumption and flow be regulated in order to take away the cost pressure? "Now at a maximum of 100 kilograms per hour at 10,500 rpm. Behind the power curve runs flat. In fact, you're losing power because you're producing more internal friction with more RPM. So it makes no sense to turn higher than to the point where you reach the optimum efficiency. "

"That would not change much if you pushed the flow rate up to 120 kilograms per hour or only increased the speed. Nevertheless, the best efficiency would be far below 15,000 / min. You would still be forced to drive insane combustion pressures to be efficient. Therefore, it would be better if the flow rate is dynamic and not horizontal from a certain speed. It must be worthwhile to turn higher. That's better for the sound, too. "

A cost trap is also the pressure sensors, which are mounted in the cylinders to prevent knock damage. Their use is not limited by the regulations. Knock once, and the sensor is broken. A sensor costs 2,800 euros. The manufacturers spend millions on it alone. Illien suggests knock sensors mounted outside the block. What would be the difference? "They're cheaper, do not break that often, and force you to build your engine more on the safe side. If you want to help private manufacturers, you have to ban the pressure sensors in the cylinders. "

MGU-H tests burn fuel for a GP season
The abolition of the MGU-H is a good thing, according to Illien. "The development of the MGU-H costs as much as that of the internal combustion engine. There is an incredible amount of money squandered. Whenever you change the characteristics of the engine towards better combustion, you need to adjust the turbocharger and MGU-H. This means new turbine blades and compaction blades for better recuperation. "

"That's a rat tail of coordination work and simulations, which is operated by the major manufacturers on specially designed test benches. The plants are fired by gas generators with combustion chambers, which generate exhaust gases and pressure for a closed system. The fuel that is burned is sufficient for an entire Formula One season. "Is the MGU-H thus a discontinued model from a private provider? "It would only be possible if one introduces unit technology."

In general, the current regulations with the restriction to 4, from 2018 on 3 engine units in the view of Illien a pure money-making machine. What you save on components is reissued twice and three times through test bench runs. Every modification to the engine has to be tested on the test bench because of the long running times of the engines over 5,000 kilometers. That means almost 30 hours of test bench work per new development.

Since you can try out as much as you want in the quiet little room until you get it to maturity, the development in theory is a billion-dollar grave. A test hour costs 4,000 euros. With a simpler propulsion concept and cheaper components, the FIA ​​could abandon the volume cap. That would save money and get rid of the unloved motor penalties.

Illien sees in the concept many good approaches, but also weak points. If he would get involved in such a project, he would have to increase his team by 15 to 20 employees. And yet he could not take the risk single-handedly. Even if he would supply two teams. "If a customer does not pay his bill, I'm dead."

In one thing, however, he agrees with the manufacturers. One idea of ​​the new owners was that all engine manufacturers present their NASCAR-style propulsion units to the public and competitors in disassembled condition every year in August. "Of course that is not possible. It's supposed to be a competition. And you want to keep your secrets for yourself. "

F1 engine plan for 2021:
+ as before: V6 turbo with 1.6 liters of displacement
+ max. Speed ​​18,000 / min (+ 3,000 / min) for better sound
+ stricter specifications for internal and external dimensions
+ Omission of MGU-H
+ stronger MGU-K
+ Pilot himself takes over energy management to use extra power tactically
+ Dimensions and weight limit for turbo should be specified
+ Battery and electronics boxes are standardized
+ stricter gasoline development rules
Formerly known as Blaze1