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.
User avatar
matt21
101
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

I have just read somewhere, that Audi is planning to develop no new ICE from 2025 onwards.
So IMO sooner or later the big manufacturers will go away from F1 if the rely on ICE.
I suspect that more manufacturers will follow the route of Renault and JLR to go towards Formula E and similar.

In the meantime I would keep the current ICE and reduce the amount of energy provided by fuel and increase the amount of recuperated energy accordingly.

Maybe some of you find this article interesting:
https://www.iav.com/sites/default/files ... brooke.pdf

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
530
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

matt21 wrote: ......In the meantime I would keep the current ICE and reduce the amount of energy provided by fuel and increase the amount of recuperated energy accordingly. .......
what do you mean by recuperated energy ?
some fuel is burned to produce electrical energy directly ie real-time

and some crankshaft power is stolen and awarded to the turbine
the current rules were written to limit this ie they are 'weak compound' rules
(to prevent the emergence of a 'true compound' engine where the ICE-equivalent is the core of a novel compounded gas turbineish 'hybrid')


btw I stand corrected regarding battery life rules - though imo qually is still a fiddle

User avatar
matt21
101
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

I would allow more electric energy to be stored and allow more ERS to be used.

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

This is what i think too, the ICE wil be less and less important in future. So more focus on the electric propulsion.

Maybe another option would be:

- Keep and freeze the current 1.6 V6
- Maybe a lower fuel flow
- Totally free ES and MGU-K development
- Teams can search for the best ES size, weight and MGU-K power

gruntguru
gruntguru
454
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
matt21 wrote: ......In the meantime I would keep the current ICE and reduce the amount of energy provided by fuel and increase the amount of recuperated energy accordingly. .......
what do you mean by recuperated energy ?
some fuel is burned to produce electrical energy directly ie real-time

and some crankshaft power is stolen and awarded to the turbine
the current rules were written to limit this ie they are 'weak compound' rules
(to prevent the emergence of a 'true compound' engine where the ICE-equivalent is the core of a novel compounded gas turbineish 'hybrid')
I would assume he means recovered braking energy.

Very little crankshaft power is "stolen" to drive the turbine, the majority coming from waste heat. Any "theft" is incidental since efficiency suffers from such action and the rules put efficiency front and centre.
je suis charlie

TzeiTzei
TzeiTzei
13
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

One thing is for sure: it needs to sound like a race car.

Facts Only
Facts Only
270
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:25 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

TzeiTzei wrote:One thing is for sure: it needs to sound like a race car.
That sentence makes no sense. It will be a race car, and it will make sound thus it will sound exactly like a race car.

What you mean is you want it to sound like an old racing car.

Anyway, as the original idea for 2013/14 was to be 1.6L I4 inline with modern road cars I expect the next formula to be 1.0L I3, inline with the next trend in road car powerplants. Likely with less fuel and more boost and energy recovery.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver

Zynerji
Zynerji
75
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

I'd love to see a return to the 2.4l V-8 with the current hybrid tech and refueling (to get the RPM back up)

1600hp monster cars that the drivers are truly in awe of.

I believe better racing comes with cars that have a narrower operating window... if the driver is of by 1% throttle application, the back end squirts out, and the following car has an opportunity to get by.

Right now, I think the cars are simply too forgiving if the driver isn't perfect, and that lowers the skill needed to hot lap them.

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:I'd love to see a return to the 2.4l V-8 with the current hybrid tech and refueling (to get the RPM back up)

1600hp monster cars that the drivers are truly in awe of.
The V8s were restricted by a development freeze and an RPM limit, so refuelling would not change the rpms available.

The V6s are restricted by an rpm limit, a fuel usage limit and a fuel flow limit. Refuelling would not change the rpms used by the V6s (don't go to the redline anyway).

How far are you willing to adopt the "current hybrid tech" to the V8?
Include the turbo and MGUH? Then you won't need the rpm anyway, and the sound will be muted by the turbo (as now).

And to get them to 1600hp you will need a significant boost in the ERS (to 800hp) or you would need the turbo and an increase or abolition of the fuel flow rate.

krisfx
krisfx
30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Facts Only wrote:
TzeiTzei wrote:One thing is for sure: it needs to sound like a race car.
That sentence makes no sense. It will be a race car, and it will make sound thus it will sound exactly like a race car.

What you mean is you want it to sound like an old racing car.

Anyway, as the original idea for 2013/14 was to be 1.6L I4 inline with modern road cars I expect the next formula to be 1.0L I3, inline with the next trend in road car powerplants. Likely with less fuel and more boost and energy recovery.
At that rate, we'll be on single cylinder kart engines in a few years =D>

Facts Only
Facts Only
270
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:25 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
Zynerji wrote:I'd love to see a return to the 2.4l V-8 with the current hybrid tech and refueling (to get the RPM back up)

1600hp monster cars that the drivers are truly in awe of.
The V8s were restricted by a development freeze and an RPM limit, so refuelling would not change the rpms available.

The V6s are restricted by an rpm limit, a fuel usage limit and a fuel flow limit. Refuelling would not change the rpms used by the V6s (don't go to the redline anyway).

How far are you willing to adopt the "current hybrid tech" to the V8?
Include the turbo and MGUH? Then you won't need the rpm anyway, and the sound will be muted by the turbo (as now).

And to get them to 1600hp you will need a significant boost in the ERS (to 800hp) or you would need the turbo and an increase or abolition of the fuel flow rate.
Don't talk come here with your "Sense" and "considered thoughts" Wuzak. What we need is more reactionary comment and rose tinted spectacles

Bring Back the DFV! Or the Ferrari V12, or the V10's or the V8's or the Turbo V6's!!! Oh wait....
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver

Zynerji
Zynerji
75
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Facts Only wrote:
wuzak wrote:
Zynerji wrote:I'd love to see a return to the 2.4l V-8 with the current hybrid tech and refueling (to get the RPM back up)

1600hp monster cars that the drivers are truly in awe of.
The V8s were restricted by a development freeze and an RPM limit, so refuelling would not change the rpms available.

The V6s are restricted by an rpm limit, a fuel usage limit and a fuel flow limit. Refuelling would not change the rpms used by the V6s (don't go to the redline anyway).

How far are you willing to adopt the "current hybrid tech" to the V8?
Include the turbo and MGUH? Then you won't need the rpm anyway, and the sound will be muted by the turbo (as now).

And to get them to 1600hp you will need a significant boost in the ERS (to 800hp) or you would need the turbo and an increase or abolition of the fuel flow rate.
Don't talk come here with your "Sense" and "considered thoughts" Wuzak. What we need is more reactionary comment and rose tinted spectacles

Bring Back the DFV! Or the Ferrari V12, or the V10's or the V8's or the Turbo V6's!!! Oh wait....
I'm talking the 2.4 v8 with the current tech cylinder heads and full uncapped ERS with no fuel flow limits and in race refueling to get them back to 20k rpm.

I'm surprised for the sound that they don't run tuned Helmholtz tubes pre turbo to a fish mouth opening high on the engine cover for the sound.. they should be able to run a very small orifice tube that is tuned for the sound range. And then dump the rest into the turbo.

F1 is ripe for an alternate series with similar regulations but a better businesses structure and cost control to run it into bankruptcy, and force a merger.

That's the only way to truly fix the mess that we have today.

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:I'm talking the 2.4 v8 with the current tech cylinder heads and full uncapped ERS with no fuel flow limits and in race refueling to get them back to 20k rpm.

I'm surprised for the sound that they don't run tuned Helmholtz tubes pre turbo to a fish mouth opening high on the engine cover for the sound.. they should be able to run a very small orifice tube that is tuned for the sound range. And then dump the rest into the turbo.

F1 is ripe for an alternate series with similar regulations but a better businesses structure and cost control to run it into bankruptcy, and force a merger.

That's the only way to truly fix the mess that we have today.
  1. Whilst the V8s went to 20,000rpm on the test bench, I don't believe they ever did in the races, and only then during 2006. For 2007 the engines were limited to 19,000rpm and 18,000 from 2009.
  2. Not sure that the current tech cylinder heads or combustion strategy would be suitable for 20,000rpm
  3. Without fuel flow limits and refuelling I'm not sure that the current style heads and combustion strategies would be favoured.
  4. Full uncapped ERS would lead to energy recovery from both axles and probably would require deployment from both axles (ie 4wd). For it to be used for any length of time it would require a battery pack very much larger than now in use, and extra weight, and/or
    [*}use of a turbine and MGUH. Since you want 20,000rpm you will not want the compressor as 20,000rpm for a turbocharged engine would be unecessary.
  5. Sound is not of the great importance it is made out to be. I have very little problem with the sound of the 2016 motors when they are on full song. The exhaust regulations were made to eliminate, as much as possible, the use of exhaust gases to enhance aerodynamic performance.
  6. In race refuelling has little or no bearing on the rpm the engines run at.
  7. The FIA has spent the last 10 years trying to control the power of the engines. The turbo V6s were meant to have, with their ERS, as much power as the V8s+KERS. The fact is that they are, most likely, producing 100hp more than the V8+KERS, and that is quite a shock.
  8. The main structural problem with F1 is the 100+ year lease granted to FOM (ie Bernie) by Mosley for a one-off payment. It is FOM's MO to use financial deals o wedge some teams against others to get what he wants, and that is teh reason the prize fund is so unbalanced. It is also a fact that the FOM takes out of the sport far more money than they should, and that extra money should go to the teams.
  9. The teams spend the money because they get the money. If Bernie charged the circuits more reasonable rates they would have more chance of being viable, ticket prices would be cheaper and the teams would receive less money, and thus would spend less money. But that would mean reducing the returns for the FOM's owners.
  10. I think an alternate series would die before F1 does. Basically because it would have no history and would lack the backing of the FIA, who could make it very difficult to hold the series.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
530
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
  1. Full uncapped ERS would lead to energy recovery from both axles and probably would require deployment from both axles (ie 4wd). For it to be used for any length of time it would require a battery pack very much larger than now in use, and extra weight, and/or
    [*}use of a turbine and MGUH. Since you want 20,000rpm you will not want the compressor .....
to have higher recovery from our MGU-K even for a moment would surely require a bigger battery pack ? (and mgu-k and power electronics)
the size of these must be proportional to the peak rate of energy transfer (peak power)
in particular the battery (lifewise) will not stand being charged and discharged at eg 2x or 3x or 5x the present rate even for 1 second at a time

also remember how brief is the high braking power as it is (roughly) proportional to the square of the speed (which falls quickly at 5g deceleration)
we would be adding a lot of weight and bulk etc to access a momentary window of recovery benefit
(it might even be better to brake earlier and longer to recover much more energy without much more power)

increasing the power of ERS (with the necessary response and stability) will increasingly emulate the effects of ABS and traction control
especially if we go all-wheel

User avatar
godlameroso
379
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Who knows how far battery technology will advance in 5 years, there are better batteries coming out every year, the improvements are modest but steady. We essentially doubled the energy density for consumer grade batteries in less than 10 years so there's hope. A 1.0 liter 3 cylinder engine makes sense, allow multi stage turbines, remove the RPM limits for the electric and turbo machines, and allow 15 MJ to be deployed per lap(how you recover and store that energy is up to you). The engine will make around 450-500 hp, the batteries and recovery systems will supply the other 500 hp that would give you roughly 38-40 seconds of electrical energy at that power per lap.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee