Alternative engine configuration

[Tommy Cookers]

A cheaper edition of the hybrid v6, would perform much less. For example replacing the expensive hybrid turbocharger, with a conventional twin turbo setup, will introduce massive turbolag.
(sorry for this messy edit NL, you also mentioned the disadvantage to KERS)

by 1988 with its 2.5 bar limit lag was trivial
2 small turbos being so much more responsive than 1 big one - going twin turbo had transformed the F1 turbo engines
(and they get ideal spacing of the exhaust pulses)
also turbo technology has since then advanced quite a lot eg in response

the MGU-K could recover far more energy (in the limited braking time) if allowed to recover at eg 160 or 200 kw
the sizes of present ERS system parts are dominated by the motoring energy limit being twice the generating energy limit
ie increasing MGU-K generating power and energy will reduce system size and weight (by more than just the MGU-H etc going)
assuming that MGU-K motoring remains within the present 120 kw limit

and remember, some MGU-K recovery is anyway made (in various ways ?) outside the braking zones

[FW17]

It does not require you to be a manufacturer, it requires money. Changing the formula for non-manufacturer teams so they can have a better advantage with less money is absolutely against the spirit of competition.

The only fix is a cost cap, but that will never happen the way the decisions are made in F1.

There are 2 groups in F1

Privateers:
Mclaren
Williams
Force India
Sauber
Red Bull
Torro Rosso

and the Manufactures:
Ferrari
Mercedes
Renault
Honda

Group 2 requested and formulated these engines with the promise to Group 1 that they will supply them with the said engines.

Now that has changed as Group 2 thinks it is only for them to win the WCC.

So obviously this has to change to cater to the interests of Group 1

"But they cannot be the same Ferrari engines that race on our cars."

[F1NAC]

According to AMUS, Ilmor applied for 2017 alternative engine tender !

Also according to article KERS will not be allowed for these engines

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49122.html

[dren]

These alternative PUs will not see the light of day.

[NL_Fer]

I doubt that the alternate engine would be able to do a race on 120kg of fuel. Well, the ones with the highest consumption, such as Melbourne.

They are talking of no restrictions for them. I think that should also apply to the Hybrids.

Why not in 2013 they could run al tracks on 140kg fuel. A turbo would make the engine more efficient, so why would 120kg ot be enough?

Maybe to compete with the hybrids' flat torque curve and incredible powerband, the alternative engine needs to be more powerful, than the old V8. That would mean more consumption indeed.

[turbof1]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/coswo ... ne-tender/

[RicME85]

AER are also interested alongside Ilmor.

[wuzak]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/coswo ... ne-tender/

"We took a look at it and looked at who the potential customers would be," Cosworth co-owner Kevin Kalkhoven told Motorsport.com.

"And the answer is essentially Red Bull, as they don't have a long-term engine contract."

[wuzak]

It does not require you to be a manufacturer, it requires money. Changing the formula for non-manufacturer teams so they can have a better advantage with less money is absolutely against the spirit of competition.

The only fix is a cost cap, but that will never happen the way the decisions are made in F1.

There are 2 groups in F1

Privateers:
Mclaren
Williams
Force India
Sauber
Red Bull
Torro Rosso

and the Manufactures:
Ferrari
Mercedes
Renault
Honda

Group 2 requested and formulated these engines with the promise to Group 1 that they will supply them with the said engines.

Now that has changed as Group 2 thinks it is only for them to win the WCC.

So obviously this has to change to cater to the interests of Group 1

"But they cannot be the same Ferrari engines that race on our cars."

McLaren is not a privateer, as they are linked with Honda.
Williams and Force India have long term contracts with Mercedes
Sauber and Haas have contracts with Ferrari - most likely long term contracts too.

That leaves Red Bull and Toro Rosso.

Toro Rosso are rumoured to have signed with Ferrari for 2016, but whether the deal extends beyond that is anybody's guess.

That leaves Red Bull. Again the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.

[wuzak]

A cheaper edition of the hybrid v6, would perform much less. For example replacing the expensive hybrid turbocharger, with a conventional twin turbo setup, will introduce massive turbolag.
(sorry for this messy edit NL, you also mentioned the disadvantage to KERS)

by 1988 with its 2.5 bar limit lag was trivial
2 small turbos being so much more responsive than 1 big one - going twin turbo had transformed the F1 turbo engines
(and they get ideal spacing of the exhaust pulses)
also turbo technology has since then advanced quite a lot eg in response

the MGU-K could recover far more energy (in the limited braking time) if allowed to recover at eg 160 or 200 kw
the sizes of present ERS system parts are dominated by the motoring energy limit being twice the generating energy limit
ie increasing MGU-K generating power and energy will reduce system size and weight (by more than just the MGU-H etc going)
assuming that MGU-K motoring remains within the present 120 kw limit

and remember, some MGU-K recovery is anyway made (in various ways ?) outside the braking zones

The V6 and V8 turbos were almost exclusively twin turbo in that era. Only the 4 cylinder engines continued with single turbos.

[wuzak]

There is no monopoly in F1 at the moment.

If the alternate engine is more successful than the hybrid PUs then it may move to a monopoly.

No it isn't. Anyone is free to buy the alternative engine, even the factory-teams too if they deem it performs better and is cheaper - thus it is the exact opposite. The difference is, the alternative engine would be supplied by an independent entity who is not competing as a team by itself, so there's no reason to decline a customer or control what or if they supply them.

According to rumours, Torro-Rosso (if it proves correct) will be racing with the 2015 Ferrari PU. That in itself shows the predicament of what is currently happening and why the alternative engine is even being discussed for either leverage or as a viable alternative.

Sure, a factory team called Mercedes, Renault or Ferrari is going to buy a no-name spec engine.

The alternate engine is a monopoly - only one manufacturer would be able to build and sell an engine to that specification.

The manufacturers could turn their current V6s into a similar twin turbo engine, but are not allowed to.

[NL_Fer]

Sure modern non-hybrid turbocharger are quick, but still if an conventional turbosetup has to charge an idental engine block, with identical pressure as the current hybrid 1.6 v6' it will always be laging, compared to the hybrid turbocharger, kept spinning by the mgu-h during off throttle periods.

So i understand the alternative will be a bigger displacement, lower pressure charge engine.

Also i have another assumption for the alt-v6' fuel consumption. The hybrid has 650-700 bhp ICE power and 160 bhp MGU-K, totally free, from regenerated waste energy. This almost 25% free energy, on top of the ICE' 700bhp. So for the alt-v6 to be equal, it has to generate the 25% from gasoline, thus consumption will increase with 25% also.

That would mean 125kg of fuel to start with, or are they bringing back refuelling in 2017?

[Tommy Cookers]

..Also i have another assumption for the alt-v6' fuel consumption. The hybrid has 650-700 bhp ICE power and 160 bhp MGU-K, totally free, from regenerated waste energy. This almost 25% free energy, on top of the ICE' 700bhp. So for the alt-v6 to be equal, it has to generate the 25% from gasoline, thus consumption will increase with 25% also.
That would mean 125kg of fuel to start with, or are they bringing back refuelling in 2017?

160 bhp from the MGU-K - this is not correct as the totally free power available
(anyway, no-one's MGU-K typically gives more than the equivalent of 110 bhp average over the time the ICE is at full power ?)

brake recovery -
is limited by braking time ie circuit-dependent and typically is equivalent to 160 bhp for 11 sec (the limit is 16.7 sec)
160 bhp for 11 sec is equivalent to about 35 bhp for the typical say 50 sec/lap the driver uses full engine power

exhaust recovery -
power that would be obtainable without backpressure is regardable as free - equivalent to maybe 45 bhp
power that would be obtainable only with backpressure must be in some part regardable as a power reduction at the crankshaft

my guess is typically 10-12% extra fuel, not 25%


a lightly turbocharged SI engine in principle needs no backpressure
there's enough power in exhaust blowdown to ambient to drive the compressor
(but such a system is bigger and less responsive so is not used)

not unrelated to this aspect, the alternative engine would use a less lean mixture than the current F1 engines ?

[Phil]

The alternate engine is a monopoly - only one manufacturer would be able to build and sell an engine to that specification.

Not a monopoly detrimental to either the WCC or WDC. Or are the Pirelli tires? Any standardized part? No.

Sure, a factory team called Mercedes, Renault or Ferrari is going to buy a no-name spec engine.

why not? At least 2 of those 4 are as far from a "winning engine" as you can be. If its cheaper and gets the job done, why wouldnt they? The goal is winning. You can shape and twist the PR anyway you want after that. Matters zilch which engine is in the back. They'll just focus their PR on all the other aspects, as teams and manufacturers, heck any PR department has been doing forever.

[NL_Fer]

I didn't take the backpressure in account, but also neglected to power lost voor keeping the turbo spinning during off-throttle and lost heat for cooling the hybrid units.

But we can consider the consumption not an issue.