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.
NL_Fer
61
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by NL_Fer » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:55 am

[s]I understand Illien says, that if a fuel flow limit is kept, if it is 100 or 120kg/hr it does not mather. Both are very expensive, because to extract much power the mixture must be ultralean and boost pressure as high as 4,5 bar. The current manufacturers already have so much knowledge about this, it will be very hard to catch up for a new engine builder.

Also the used custom turbochargers are much more expensive than buying off the shelf and any change to the combustion will be followed by a new to develop turbocharger.

Illien also slams the 3 engine rule. It it is working the other way around, because there are only 3 chances to put in new developments, every development is tested and checked for multiple times on the test bench. And again a high-tech testbench to simulate a real f1car in motion is so more expensive, that is another thing a small engine builder cannot afford.[/s]

Thanks dude, so much better than mine. :P

Santozini
10
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:47 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Santozini » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:43 pm

Illien for President!! =D> =D>

gruntguru
434
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by gruntguru » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:58 am

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:27 am
isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50
If that is the case I wasn't aware of it. I guess its possible but assuming say 60:40 rear static distribution, plus 5g braking there would be a lot of weight transfer - even given the very low CG. I would have thought perhaps 40:60 under brakes?

Regardless, if there was 120 kW available at the front axle, the cars would be designed much closer to 50:50 static to take full advantage of:
a) AWD acceleration at low speeds
b) additional harvesting
je suis charlie

wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by wuzak » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:21 am

NL_Fer wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:55 am
[s]I understand Illien says, that if a fuel flow limit is kept, if it is 100 or 120kg/hr it does not mather. Both are very expensive, because to extract much power the mixture must be ultralean and boost pressure as high as 4,5 bar. The current manufacturers already have so much knowledge about this, it will be very hard to catch up for a new engine builder.

Also the used custom turbochargers are much more expensive than buying off the shelf and any change to the combustion will be followed by a new to develop turbocharger.

Illien also slams the 3 engine rule. It it is working the other way around, because there are only 3 chances to put in new developments, every development is tested and checked for multiple times on the test bench. And again a high-tech testbench to simulate a real f1car in motion is so more expensive, that is another thing a small engine builder cannot afford.[/s]

Thanks dude, so much better than mine. :P
So, Ilien wants the engines to be dumbed down to the point where he has a chance of making something vaguely competitive?

That requires the existing manufacturers to dump the knowledge they have built up over years?

toraabe
13
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:42 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by toraabe » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:36 pm

Will never happen ,..

MrPotatoHead
55
User avatar
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:03 pm
Location: All over.

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by MrPotatoHead » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:27 pm

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:58 am
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:27 am
isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50
If that is the case I wasn't aware of it. I guess its possible but assuming say 60:40 rear static distribution, plus 5g braking there would be a lot of weight transfer - even given the very low CG. I would have thought perhaps 40:60 under brakes?

Regardless, if there was 120 kW available at the front axle, the cars would be designed much closer to 50:50 static to take full advantage of:
a) AWD acceleration at low speeds
b) additional harvesting
I agree that all wheel energy transfer would be great but I wonder if they would go down that path because of the potential for torque vectoring that comes with it?
It could be argued that this would take away from driver input but ironically road cars are becoming more and more dependant on torque vectoring for safety.
An interesting discussion for sure.

AJI
35
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:33 pm

MrPotatoHead wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:27 pm

I agree that all wheel energy transfer would be great but I wonder if they would go down that path because of the potential for torque vectoring that comes with it?
It could be argued that this would take away from driver input but ironically road cars are becoming more and more dependant on torque vectoring for safety.
An interesting discussion for sure.
Torque vectoring and ABS and TC. This discussion is kind of going on in the MGU-K recovery thread. Please join in.

gruntguru
434
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by gruntguru » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:40 am

MrPotatoHead wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:27 pm
gruntguru wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:58 am
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:27 am
isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50
If that is the case I wasn't aware of it. I guess its possible but assuming say 60:40 rear static distribution, plus 5g braking there would be a lot of weight transfer - even given the very low CG. I would have thought perhaps 40:60 under brakes?

Regardless, if there was 120 kW available at the front axle, the cars would be designed much closer to 50:50 static to take full advantage of:
a) AWD acceleration at low speeds
b) additional harvesting
I agree that all wheel energy transfer would be great but I wonder if they would go down that path because of the potential for torque vectoring that comes with it?
It could be argued that this would take away from driver input but ironically road cars are becoming more and more dependant on torque vectoring for safety.
An interesting discussion for sure.
I was talking about FWD KERS not AWD but don't disagree with your comments.
je suis charlie

toraabe
13
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:42 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by toraabe » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:52 pm

What they should have done is to unliminate the MGU-H to K in total.

hurril
44
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by hurril » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:54 pm

toraabe wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:52 pm
What they should have done is to unliminate the MGU-H to K in total.
What limitation do you think that has now?

MrPotatoHead
55
User avatar
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:03 pm
Location: All over.

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by MrPotatoHead » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:56 pm

gruntguru wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:40 am
MrPotatoHead wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:27 pm
gruntguru wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:58 am

If that is the case I wasn't aware of it. I guess its possible but assuming say 60:40 rear static distribution, plus 5g braking there would be a lot of weight transfer - even given the very low CG. I would have thought perhaps 40:60 under brakes?

Regardless, if there was 120 kW available at the front axle, the cars would be designed much closer to 50:50 static to take full advantage of:
a) AWD acceleration at low speeds
b) additional harvesting
I agree that all wheel energy transfer would be great but I wonder if they would go down that path because of the potential for torque vectoring that comes with it?
It could be argued that this would take away from driver input but ironically road cars are becoming more and more dependant on torque vectoring for safety.
An interesting discussion for sure.
I was talking about FWD KERS not AWD but don't disagree with your comments.
I figured as much - but even purely FWD KERS has some amazing torque vectoring ability.
I'm sure the FIA would outlaw it but can you imagine the cornering speeds possible with such a setup? Would be very exciting.

godlameroso
346
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by godlameroso » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:38 pm

What about driver control, how do we make the drivers control the electric system? I think having that under the control of the driver is essential to preserve this a skill based contest.

Do you have multiple triggers on the wheel? If you're only harvesting from the front axle, then say a variable trigger in your index finger makes the front axle regen, and can be used as brake pedal for each independent wheel. Then another trigger on your thumb for deployment, this way you have driver controlled torque vectoring in the front axle and keep it skill based.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Tommy Cookers » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:36 pm

that is driver controlled axle torque ie front-rear controlled
not driver controlled torque vectoring ie (corner) inside-outside torque distribution

driver controlled TV (I/O torque distribution) is only possible with individual wheel MGs - and it demands ......
that each MG gives and absorbs torque proportionate to driver demand factored by the 2-d control map as does the ICE

2-d means the driver-demand (accelerator)/torque relation does vary favourably with rpm but in ways severely limited by rule
ICE PU response to wheelspin/locking is natural, needing skilled driver correction of demand and having no automated correction
though the map rules mandate only the steady-state relationship they are adequate because .....
dynamic response of the ICE PU is fast (c. 30 mSec), this is vital for fast shifts/laptime though more subject to wheelspin/locking

the dynamic response of individual front wheel MGs will at best be slower, automatically aiding against wheelspin and locking
and unless the rules mandate the same front axle drive behaviour as the ICE PU rear there will be more automatic aid
similarly automatic aid against locking during regenerative braking
the steady-state motoring/generating torque/rpm relationship of an MG is normally nothing like the rules for the ICE PU
and an MG compliant with such steady-state rules can be made to give covertly automatic aid by its dynamic characteristics
ie incipient wheelspin or locking due to sudden reduction in wheel grip load will collapse the MG torque by pole slipping
as the MG and its drive can be designed to enable pole slip either way

and such pole slip can act as a major driver aid to traction exiting corners, emulating an active torque vectoring diff
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.

godlameroso
346
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by godlameroso » Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:48 pm

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:36 pm
that is driver controlled axle torque ie front-rear controlled
not driver controlled torque vectoring ie (corner) inside-outside torque distribution

driver controlled TV (I/O torque distribution) is only possible with individual wheel MGs - and it demands ......
that each MG gives and absorbs torque proportionate to driver demand factored by the 2-d control map as does the ICE

2-d means the driver-demand (accelerator)/torque relation does vary favourably with rpm but in ways severely limited by rule
ie the ICE response to wheelspin is relatively natural and demanding of driver skill, not artificially managed

though the map rules mandate only the steady-state relationship they are adequate because .....
the dynamic response of the ICE is fast (c. 20 mSec)

to be continued AND ALTERED NO DOUBT ......
I guess I was mistaken, well technically the electronic rear diff is a weak driver controlled tq distribution.

I'd be fine with front MGU-K but only with individual motors on the front axle, each front motor controlled by the index finger and thumb of a driver's corresponding hand.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Tommy Cookers » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:45 pm

electronic rear diff isn't active, it's electronic only so the driver can select on the fly from a range of preset slip limit percentages

your driver's fingers would unleash automatic and continuous management of each wheel torque according to wheel grip
driver aid or what
under regenerative braking while cornering the outcome appears to be disadvantageous