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.
hurril
hurril
57
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm

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

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:09 pm
hurril wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:24 pm
NL_Fer wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:07 pm
So how is the opinion here about using torque sensors to limit power. So all powerunits will generate the same power at the crank. Only difference between manufacturers will be efficiency/reliability.
What problem is this solving?
Speed difference between cars.
We seem to have different definitions of what constitutes a problem then.

Oh and don't you figure a difference in efficiency is going to manifest itself in differences in speed at some point?

To be serious: you want something that F1 has never been and never wants to be. You want something more akin to Formula Renault where the car isn't important.

mzso
mzso
19
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

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

Post

Hi!

I'm rather fuzzy about the feature freeze implemented. Did they freeze the engines for this year and the next as well? When will it be lifted? Is Ferrari condemned to have a distant last engine for 2021 as well?

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
77
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

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

Post

One manufacturer gone, a forced reconciliation of Redbull Renault and Ferrari unable to recover with a legal engine. This 1.6 MGU-H is on it’s end soon.

I believe the future will be a spec ICE combined with a free to design MGU-K

User avatar
JordanMugen
57
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

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

Post

hurril wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:50 pm
To be serious: you want something that F1 has never been and never wants to be.
F1 power units were already homologated and equalised between 2007 & 2013. It is not at all unprecedented for Formula One... Particularly if the disparity in 2020 power unit performance is up to 5%, which is more than rulemakers intended. Even if Haas build a superb chassis, they have no chance to win with such a lacking power unit!

Why should Haas not be offered the opportunity to excel, just because they cannot secure a Mercedes-Benz power unit supply? To the contrary, every constructor was able to purchase the Cosworth DFV and have a competitive power unit (even Ferrari perhaps! although they chose not to :D ).

gruntguru wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:33 pm
Might as well go spec engine.
V8 Supercars use a hp limit rule without issue, all engine packages are homologated on the organiser's dyno and must comply with given maximum cumulative power over the useful rpm range. Engine components cannot be changed from the homologated parts, without redynoing and rehomologating.

This rule allows for 4-5 different engine suppliers in the field, but all with interchangable performance. When engine performance was unrestricted, they would use lightweight pistons which developed cracks after one to two race meetings... That is just a waste of money wouldn't you say? :) Meanwhile, the homologated engines with minimum weights for pistons & conrods can run easily for 5500km and rarely see engine failures.

hurril
hurril
57
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm

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

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:37 pm
hurril wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:50 pm
To be serious: you want something that F1 has never been and never wants to be.
F1 power units were already homologated and equalised between 2007 & 2013. It is not at all unprecedented for Formula One... Particularly if the disparity in 2020 power unit performance is up to 5%, which is more than rulemakers intended. Even if Haas build a superb chassis, they have no chance to win with such a lacking power unit!

Why should Haas not be offered the opportunity to excel, just because they cannot secure a Mercedes-Benz power unit supply? To the contrary, every constructor was able to purchase the Cosworth DFV and have a competitive power unit (even Ferrari perhaps! although they chose not to :D ).

gruntguru wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:33 pm
Might as well go spec engine.
V8 Supercars use a hp limit rule without issue, all engine packages are homologated on the organiser's dyno and must comply with given maximum cumulative power over the useful rpm range. Engine components cannot be changed from the homologated parts, without redynoing and rehomologating.

This rule allows for 4-5 different engine suppliers in the field, but all with interchangable performance. When engine performance was unrestricted, they would use lightweight pistons which developed cracks after one to two race meetings... That is just a waste of money wouldn't you say? :) Meanwhile, the homologated engines with minimum weights for pistons & conrods can run easily for 5500km and rarely see engine failures.
Why shouldn't Ferrari be offered the opportunity to build the best engine? Why should they have to be equalised with all the others?

I didn't watch F1 2007-2013 because it was astoundingly boring.

The fact that there can be improvement is part of what makes this interesting. I wouldn't watch it otherwise.

User avatar
siskue2005
185
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 8:50 pm

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

Post

hurril wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:14 pm

I didn't watch F1 2007-2013 because it was astoundingly boring.
You missed the best seasons in the last 2 decades
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012

All were great seasons

User avatar
Blackout
785
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

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

Post

mzso wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:46 pm
Hi!

I'm rather fuzzy about the feature freeze implemented. Did they freeze the engines for this year and the next as well? When will it be lifted? Is Ferrari condemned to have a distant last engine for 2021 as well?
Start of 2020 - end of 2020: everything is frozen except KERS (1 update is permitted)
Start of 2021 - end of 2021: you can change every part of the engine (1 update is permitted)
Start of 2022 - end of 2022, you can change every part of the engine (1 update is permitted)
Start of 2023 - end of 2023, you can change every part of the engine (1 update is permitted)
2024: freeze
*some KERS and ES parts cant be updated more than twice between 2020 and 2023

hurril
hurril
57
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm

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

Post

siskue2005 wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:43 pm
hurril wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:14 pm

I didn't watch F1 2007-2013 because it was astoundingly boring.
You missed the best seasons in the last 2 decades
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012

All were great seasons
Sure but I never did like the V8-era.

User avatar
Blackout
785
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

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

Post

Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?

hurril
hurril
57
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm

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

Post

Blackout wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:07 am
Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
How are those simplifications? Your post starts out not understanding the complexities but ends with some blanket suggestions from that same lack of understanding. That strikes _me_ as being a tad... complex.

basti313
basti313
52
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:49 pm

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

Post

Remove restrictions to make it less complex??? Or even less costly??? :D

At the moment we have two series in terms of engines. Formula 1 and Formula 1.5.

The resignation of Honda shows the issue. Even with extreme investments, they are far from close to Merc. The same is the issue for Renault and Ferrari...do they invest millions without a sign of getting close?
I am quite sure, that also the lack of improvement of Ferrari from end 2019 to 2020 is a sign for them not being willing to invest.
I am sure that politics in the background are working towards a BoP already. No other way can Renault be any confident on 2022.

Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula
49
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:23 pm

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

Post

Blackout wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:07 am
Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
Basically the MGU-H is an integral part of the turbocharger system. If the rules for the MGU-H change you also have to redesign the whole turbo charger system. For instance if you would bann the use of the MGU-H as an motor, the teams would have to make the turbo charger smaller overall to gain responsivness. But if you do that you also reduce the amount of energy you can get out of the exhaust turbine. This means you have to redo all the energy calculations, which then also has influence on the MGU-K and the fuelburn and so on. So as you see, it's really not that simple. The PUs are designt as a package and they only work properly as such.

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
77
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

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

Post

Blackout wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:07 am
Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
It was stated some time ago, an off the shelf turbo, used in Indycar is only 3000€. An F1 turbo is custom made and about 100000€. Plus, if any change is made in combustion, the have to redesign en built another turbo, which cost another 100000€.

Maybe an easy way to cut costs is to limit the amount of MJ that can be recovered through the MGU-H. This would halt the research en redesign in that area.

User avatar
mclaren111
223
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:49 am
Location: Shithole - South Africa

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

Post

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... SocialSnap


First time in a long time that Gary Anderson made good sense....

User avatar
jjn9128
392
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

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

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:07 pm
Blackout wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:07 am
Why is the MGU-H considered to be complex? On the paper it's just a second MGUK.
Aren't the rules the main reason it became this complex? (the restrictions they set in some areas and the liberties they give in others, especially in the energy management, the energy flow diagram, the energy limits, the materials and transmission used etc.)
By revising and simplifying those rules IMO, MGUH can be greatly simplified...
Why not supress the motor function for example? and/or make the MGUH solely draw a limited amount of energy from the ES only..?
It was stated some time ago, an off the shelf turbo, used in Indycar is only 3000€. An F1 turbo is custom made and about 100000€. Plus, if any change is made in combustion, the have to redesign en built another turbo, which cost another 100000€.

Maybe an easy way to cut costs is to limit the amount of MJ that can be recovered through the MGU-H. This would halt the research en redesign in that area.
That's just the turbo itself not to mention the 100s/1000s of manhours and resources required to design and test before the final assembly.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica