2014-2020 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.
User avatar
Mudflap
221
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

stevesingo wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:21 pm
Another point is that these engines are not air limited. They run with excess air. More air may not equal more power.
No, but reduced pumping losses do equal more power.
There can be other benefits too, for example the pressure waves can be used to optimize air flow during valve overlap and decrease average combustion chamber temperature which can in turn permit more aggressive spark advance.
How much TQ does it make though?

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
66
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

How the economy looks for now and next year, only step I can think of is a full engine freeze for next 2-3 years. Only to tinker with tuning and fuel.

User avatar
Holm86
219
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:40 am
Holm86 wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:46 am
.... a 60° V6 I would argue. And its still a more balanced configuration for a V6 than 90°.
doesn't 6 equal-interval firings give a longer,heavier, thicker-cranked engine with more bearing loads, area, and friction ?
at current or any feasible bore:stroke ratio and cylinder spacing
(though maybe not at the frozen NA V8 dimensions)
As far as I understand, the best balanced V6 configuration is a 60° V6 with 6 throws 60° apart. But that would be longer, and have 7 main bearing as opposed to 4, so that would be increased friction, and a longer engine yes.

But there is also the option of keeping the 90° but just allow offset crank splits by 30°, and this would make an even firing engine which has better harmonics than an odd fire, and still only 4 main bearings. The reason I would argue for an even firing engine (besides sound) is that these engines have to last for many miles, and im pretty sure that excess vibrations is very bad for reliability, both on the engine side, and the electronics strapped to the engine.
Image

User avatar
Mudflap
221
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

The biggest drawback is that designing such a highly loaded split pin crank while trying to achieve the minimum journal diameters dictated by the FIA would be a very, very expensive exercise. The split pin is essentially a very large stress raiser located very close to the throw maximum bending moment and will experience peak shear stresses too.

On top of that, the split webs would eat into the bearing land so all things being equal the bore spacing would have to increase.

I fully agree with TC.
How much TQ does it make though?

gruntguru
gruntguru
453
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Odd fire does not introduce significant reliability issues anyway.
je suis charlie

User avatar
JordanMugen
39
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Holm86 wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:31 pm
The reason I would argue for an even firing engine (besides sound)
It would be great if the rulemakers added two cylinders and went to a 2.13L 90-degree V8 engine. =D>

You could proportionally increase fuel-flow to 133 kg/hour as well, for more power and excitement. What would the race fuel allocation need to be?

PS. How come flat-plane crank V8s are so popular in motorsport, even though they are supposedly unbalanced? :?: :wtf:

gruntguru
gruntguru
453
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:14 am
Holm86 wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:31 pm
The reason I would argue for an even firing engine (besides sound)
It would be great if the rulemakers added two cylinders and went to a 2.13L 90-degree V8 engine. =D>

You could proportionally increase fuel-flow to 133 kg/hour as well, for more power and excitement. What would the race fuel allocation need to be?
125 kg
PS. How come flat-plane crank V8s are so popular in motorsport, even though they are supposedly unbalanced? :?::wtf:
Don't know about "popularity" but some advantages are:
Stronger, lighter crank.
Easier to build 8-4-2 exhaust headers.
Even exhaust pulsing in twin turbo setups (especially if using divided exhaust housings for blowdown energy recovery)
Even camshaft loading in quad cam setups.
Even pulsation in twin fuel rail setups.
je suis charlie

User avatar
JordanMugen
39
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:32 am
Don't know about "popularity"
My bad, I mean purpose-built racing engines like Cosworth, Mechachrome, Gibson, AER, Judd, the old Toyota & Honda Indycar motors, and so on. :oops: Not the (many) categories using small-block Ford, Chevrolet and Dodge engines.

User avatar
Mudflap
221
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:13 am
Odd fire does not introduce significant reliability issues anyway.
An odd firing engine has a dominant order which is half that one of an equivalent even firing engine which means that the main excitation frequency is two times lower at any engine speed.

This makes the design of components subjected to torsional and/or linear vibration a bit more difficult.

I agree it can be hardly called a significant reliability issue.
How much TQ does it make though?