2021 Engine thread

[Jolle]

I think it would be interesting to have a very open engine regulations with the rules being a power limit, race fuel allowance and mandated RWD (with front axle harvesting if they wish).

I fully agree with this. I think F1 should, and probably will, continue on the path of ever improving efficiency. The 2021 regulations should in my opinion take the current regulations to the next level, while taking note of the lessons learning in the V6 era.

I'd like to see standardized MGU -H and -K, as well as battery units provided by the FIA and it's supplier of choice, in order to reduce costs on that front. By the time the new power units are introduced, MGU design will surely have matured to the point were development has stalled. Also battery technology is not something F1 manufacturers can do much about. Going for standardized parts will ensure economically affordable units.

On the engine side, as you said, there only need to be fuel flow and allowance limits, and what I'd also like to see is a reduced minimum weight for the whole PU as a package. Other than that, I'd like to see the PU regulations fully opened up. Let the manufacturers build whatever engine they deem fit for the fuel they're allowed to use. My problem with the current regulations is that although the PU's are very efficient, they could yet be much more efficient if the manufactures weren't limited by engine regulations.

For the fans sake, I'd like to see the FIA force the manufacturers to publicly specify PU basic properties such as displacement, number of cylinders etc. Also they should incorporate instantaneous power/torque measurements into the units and/or drivetrain and integrate them in the FOM live footage. There should no longer be secrecy over an engines capability.

I think they should go the other way round. The ICE is "old tech" and in the next decade it's importance will reduce in normal day cars. The new frontier will be battery and recovery tech. F1 could be a fantastic platform, not only to promote but also the develop and test new technology. It will also open f1 up, next to the current manufacturers (who have to go hybrid/full electric in coming years) to battery companies out of China, Sony, Samsung, Apple and Tesla. A possibility would be to disconnect the ICE and ES/CE (and open up the car market for those companies). The next "hot hatch" could be the "Renault-Samsung" instead of the "Honda-Mugen".
If the ICE/TC would be more standardised (so it could be made by small engine manufacturers like Cosworth again) and the electrical components are more or less free, with some power restrictions, you would buy not power but weight. But it would be a lot cheaper to run a team within the 107% rule (by not saving 20kg and saving millions in the process)

[wuzak]

That flick of the pen would:
1. make the expensive engines last a lot shorter time driving the costs even higher
2. would require redesign of the car so that teams can fit in bigger fuel tanks or batteries
3. New fuel flow sensors (I don't know if the current ones can be calibrated to higher number)
4. any increase of the electrical components will only make the cars even more heavy
5. And yes the electrical components do slow down the car. If the ICE can provide 650hp with weight cost of 145kg+fuel (245kg). But since the car starts the race with 100kg and ends with say 4kg the average becomes 52kg. So it is:
efficiency in race: 650hp/(245kg-48kg)=3,3hp/kg.
efficiency in quali: 650hp/(245kg-92kg)=4.25hp/kg.

The electrical system can provide 165hp for some 33 seconds per. Let's assume 60% of the lap time is done at full throttle. Lap time 1:40. This means that there are 0,6*100s=60s time where the driver asks full power from the engine. But the ers can only give it for 33s per lap. So about half (I know it is not this simple because acceleration out of corners is more important than acceleration at the end of the straight. But it also costs time to recharge the system which slows down the car. So 50% it is in the race. In quali the efficiency is maybe 70% because there is no need to recharge on fast lap.). So now:
hp/kg in the race is 0,5*165hp/60kg=1,375hp/kg
hp/kg in the quali is 0,7*165hp/60kg=1,925hp/kg
And let's assume driver could use the electric output all the time he is on throttle, 100% efficiency:
hp/kg at 100% efficiency is 1,0*165hp/60kg=2,75hp/kg. Still bad.

Not even close what the turbo engine can do even if we assume the ICE needs some fuel saving. But then again some teams do not even start with the maximum 100kg onboard.

So what about the v8? V8s had fuel tank of 150 litres. Weigh 120kg. Power about 750hp:
efficiency in race: 750hp/(120kg+0,73*150kg)=3,27hp/kg.
efficiency in quali: 750hp/(120kg+0,73*15kgkg)=5.73hp/kg.

ERS = slower.

As hurril noted, the ERS lasts a lot longer than the 33s the 4MJ rule suggests. This is because the MGUH can send power directly to the MGUK, meaning that the MGUK doesn't have to pull the full 160hp from the ES for much of the lap.

Also, the Mercedes engine is close to 800hp without ERS in qualifying trim. Maybe 20 or 30hp less in race trim.

Wonder how much a small 900hp fusion reactor would weight

Quite a lot since large scale test reactors are barely making even on the power. Also, lots of electrical fields required.

[wuzak]

I think it would be interesting to have a very open engine regulations with the rules being a power limit, race fuel allowance and mandated RWD (with front axle harvesting if they wish).

I fully agree with this. I think F1 should, and probably will, continue on the path of ever improving efficiency. The 2021 regulations should in my opinion take the current regulations to the next level, while taking note of the lessons learning in the V6 era.

I'd like to see standardized MGU -H and -K, as well as battery units provided by the FIA and it's supplier of choice, in order to reduce costs on that front. By the time the new power units are introduced, MGU design will surely have matured to the point were development has stalled. Also battery technology is not something F1 manufacturers can do much about. Going for standardized parts will ensure economically affordable units.

On the engine side, as you said, there only need to be fuel flow and allowance limits, and what I'd also like to see is a reduced minimum weight for the whole PU as a package. Other than that, I'd like to see the PU regulations fully opened up. Let the manufacturers build whatever engine they deem fit for the fuel they're allowed to use. My problem with the current regulations is that although the PU's are very efficient, they could yet be much more efficient if the manufactures weren't limited by engine regulations.

For the fans sake, I'd like to see the FIA force the manufacturers to publicly specify PU basic properties such as displacement, number of cylinders etc. Also they should incorporate instantaneous power/torque measurements into the units and/or drivetrain and integrate them in the FOM live footage. There should no longer be secrecy over an engines capability.

I think they should go the other way round. The ICE is "old tech" and in the next decade it's importance will reduce in normal day cars. The new frontier will be battery and recovery tech. F1 could be a fantastic platform, not only to promote but also the develop and test new technology. It will also open f1 up, next to the current manufacturers (who have to go hybrid/full electric in coming years) to battery companies out of China, Sony, Samsung, Apple and Tesla. A possibility would be to disconnect the ICE and ES/CE (and open up the car market for those companies). The next "hot hatch" could be the "Renault-Samsung" instead of the "Honda-Mugen".
If the ICE/TC would be more standardised (so it could be made by small engine manufacturers like Cosworth again) and the electrical components are more or less free, with some power restrictions, you would buy not power but weight. But it would be a lot cheaper to run a team within the 107% rule (by not saving 20kg and saving millions in the process)

It may be that the power unit becomes smaller in 2021, and becomes the generator for the electrical drive system. A lower power ICE would generate power to send directly to the wheels or to the battery as needs be and the battery would be used to give extra power to the wheels above what the ICE is making.

The ICE could be made simpler - the power recovery turbine could be geared to the crank, getting rid of the MGUH, the MGUK becomes the generator. The ICE would run at constant speed to maximise its efficiency and thus the power that it makes. Which in turn allows more power to the wheels.

[gruntguru]

I know but I am old school and love F1 with lots of noise [-o< [-o<

It would make as much sense as the "engine noise generator" in the latest M5. Or a card between the spokes of your bike. Or a microphone for the driver so he can make engine noises himself

I like the last option, it would provide unique sound to each car

Perhaps the fans can vote to decide where each driver puts the microphone?

[gruntguru]

Why is it worth it to be at the cutting edge of technology if it makes you slower?

1. The cars are not "slower".
2. The power to weight ratio is artificially governed by the regulations - not by the fact that the formula is "at the cutting edge of technology". A flick of the pen could easily increase the power by 50%.

That flick of the pen would:
1. .
.
.
.

The "flick of a pen" comment was referring to the ease of determining power/weight when designing a new formula based on the current PU - not the ease of converting the current PUs for a 50% power increase.

[Cold Fussion]

On the engine side, as you said, there only need to be fuel flow and allowance limits, and what I'd also like to see is a reduced minimum weight for the whole PU as a package. Other than that, I'd like to see the PU regulations fully opened up. Let the manufacturers build whatever engine they deem fit for the fuel they're allowed to use. My problem with the current regulations is that although the PU's are very efficient, they could yet be much more efficient if the manufactures weren't limited by engine regulations.

I know a fuel flow limit is effectively a power limit but I think I would prefer an explicit power limit with unlimited fuel flow. Currently in the fuel flow limit, total fuel limit era, a car that is low on efficiency (and thus power) is both slow in qualifying and because they're slow on the straights, they use more fuel and thus requiring a lot of fuel saving. With a power limit, an inefficient engine could still be fast in qualifying while having a fuel saving problem in the race, but they could also use deploy their fuel with more strategy than currently, because they could choose to burn fuel for track position in the hopes of saving it at some other points. This could be interesting on tracks like Monaco or Hungary where they have very slow average laptimes but still be fast on the straights to save track position.

[MontrealBlue]

Hello all,

First post. I started watching F1 in the early 90's as a kid, lost interest after Ferrari/Redbull domination, but regained interest when the 2014 V6 engines were introduced. I learned a lot from this forum, thank you very much.

In short, this is what I would like to see differently engine-wise:
- Allow even-fire "screamer" engines. Allow teams to optimize their concept, thus
- Additionally, scrap the "90 degree block angle only" rule
- Allow split-pin crankshafts
- Allow "hot-Vee" engines

Goals: improve engine sound, road car relevance and differentiation of engine development between engine manufacturers.

I feel that the FIA is entirely responsible for the sound that current engines produce. I don't think it is that bad, but it could be better and more spectacular. It is the combination of the 90 degree block angle and shared-pin crankshaft that make these V6 engines at 12.000 rpm actually sound like a 3 cylinder at 12k rpm, or a traditional "screamer" 6 cyl. engine at just 6k rpm. Just adding more revs or making the engines louder will not change this. As long as the engines are this odd-firing type (uneven intervals between firing cylinders), they will have this "easy going, short shifting" low pitch sound. Changing to an even-fire "screamer" type layout will make these engines sound like they are at twice as much rpm's compared to today's engines, even without changing actual crankshaft rpm's. I think that is what most people would prefer, including myself.

90 degree V6 engines have been used in streetcars before (Honda NSX, 90's Mercedes), but they were also using split-pin crankshafts. This makes them sound like normal 6 cyl. engines with even fire intervals. GM/Buik apparently experimented with an odd-fire and 90 degree V6 but the engine was not very refined. They eventually changed to even firing split-pin crank layout, in combination with a balance shaft (like the Merc). As far as I know, none are used inside street cars in Europe at the moment. At the moment, 90 degree V6 odd firing engines (as used right now) are not road car relevant at all. Perhaps we might see some in the future, comparable to what happened with the V10 engines in the past (BMW, Toyota/Lexus), but I seriously doubt that.

Most V6 engines are using a 60 degree block angle in combination with a shared-pin 3-throw crankshaft. Inline 6 engines (BMW) and 6 cyl. boxers (Porsche) are also even firing engines. Ferrari V12, Alfa Romeo 2.9tt V6 (and related Aprillia RSV4) all have a 65 degree V-angle as this allows slightly more room for the intake ports. Shared-pin crank layout on the V12, so still slightly odd firing, making it sound slightly different compared to Aston Martin or Lamborghini V12.

I also think that a hot-Vee engine layout should be allowed. Most importantly, to allow teams to optimize the screamer type layout. Secondly, this layout is recently being used on streetcars (BMW, Mercedes, Audi) and in LMP1 (Porsche). This would make F1 more relevant to streetcars as well. F1 is lagging behind.

How nice would it be to see different layouts being in F1 and hear them scream at 12+k rpm:
- 60/65 degree V6, 6-throw shared pin crank (semi-)screamer (Ferrari?)
- 90 degree hot-Vee V6, 6-throw single pin crank, screamer
- 90 degree V6, 3-throw shared pin crankshaft, odd fire (as used at the moment)
- 120 degree (hot-Vee) V6, 3-throw crank, screamer
- 180 degree V6, 3-throw crank, oddfire (not very likely to be used imho)
- 180 degree block + 6-throw crank Boxer, screamer (Porsche! Again, not very likely)
- Other block angles and engine configurations

Any thoughts?

Thanks


P.s. a few sound examples:

- Triumph 675 Daytona. Inline 3 cylinder at 12+ k rpm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCiw8APS7Qs

- Honda CBX1000. Inline 6 "screamer" at 11+k rpm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0EIip6Ou34

- F1 2016 sound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAKxkd7tcBs

- Porsche Supercup onboard. Boxer 6 at 8500 rpm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsnDqjn-19s

[Jolle]

Hello all,

First post. I started watching F1 in the early 90's as a kid, lost interest after Ferrari/Redbull domination, but regained interest when the 2014 V6 engines were introduced. I learned a lot from this forum, thank you very much.

In short, this is what I would like to see differently engine-wise:
- Allow even-fire "screamer" engines. Allow teams to optimize their concept, thus
- Additionally, scrap the "90 degree block angle only" rule
- Allow split-pin crankshafts
- Allow "hot-Vee" engines

Goals: improve engine sound, road car relevance and differentiation of engine development between engine manufacturers.

I feel that the FIA is entirely responsible for the sound that current engines produce. I don't think it is that bad, but it could be better and more spectacular. It is the combination of the 90 degree block angle and shared-pin crankshaft that make these V6 engines at 12.000 rpm actually sound like a 3 cylinder at 12k rpm, or a traditional "screamer" 6 cyl. engine at just 6k rpm. Just adding more revs or making the engines louder will not change this. As long as the engines are this odd-firing type (uneven intervals between firing cylinders), they will have this "easy going, short shifting" low pitch sound. Changing to an even-fire "screamer" type layout will make these engines sound like they are at twice as much rpm's compared to today's engines, even without changing actual crankshaft rpm's. I think that is what most people would prefer, including myself.

90 degree V6 engines have been used in streetcars before (Honda NSX, 90's Mercedes), but they were also using split-pin crankshafts. This makes them sound like normal 6 cyl. engines with even fire intervals. GM/Buik apparently experimented with an odd-fire and 90 degree V6 but the engine was not very refined. They eventually changed to even firing split-pin crank layout, in combination with a balance shaft (like the Merc). As far as I know, none are used inside street cars in Europe at the moment. At the moment, 90 degree V6 odd firing engines (as used right now) are not road car relevant at all. Perhaps we might see some in the future, comparable to what happened with the V10 engines in the past (BMW, Toyota/Lexus), but I seriously doubt that.

Most V6 engines are using a 60 degree block angle in combination with a shared-pin 3-throw crankshaft. Inline 6 engines (BMW) and 6 cyl. boxers (Porsche) are also even firing engines. Ferrari V12, Alfa Romeo 2.9tt V6 (and related Aprillia RSV4) all have a 65 degree V-angle as this allows slightly more room for the intake ports. Shared-pin crank layout on the V12, so still slightly odd firing, making it sound slightly different compared to Aston Martin or Lamborghini V12.

I also think that a hot-Vee engine layout should be allowed. Most importantly, to allow teams to optimize the screamer type layout. Secondly, this layout is recently being used on streetcars (BMW, Mercedes, Audi) and in LMP1 (Porsche). This would make F1 more relevant to streetcars as well. F1 is lagging behind.

How nice would it be to see different layouts being in F1 and hear them scream at 12+k rpm:
- 60/65 degree V6, 3-throw shared pin crank (semi-)screamer (Ferrari?)
- 90 degree hot-Vee V6, 6-throw single pin crank, screamer
- 90 degree V6, 3-throw shared pin crankshaft, odd fire (as used at the moment)
- 120 degree (hot-Vee) V6, 3-throw crank, screamer
- 180 degree V6, 3-throw crank, oddfire (not very likely to be used imho)
- 180 degree block + 6-throw crank Boxer, screamer (Porsche! Again, not very likely)
- Other block angles and engine configurations

Any thoughts?

Thanks


P.s. a few sound examples:

- Triumph 675 Daytona. Inline 3 cylinder at 12+ k rpm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCiw8APS7Qs

- Honda CBX1000. Inline 6 "screamer" at 11+k rpm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0EIip6Ou34

- F1 2016 sound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAKxkd7tcBs

- Porsche Supercup onboard. Boxer 6 at 8500 rpm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsnDqjn-19s

Well, the engine layout or even the revs aren't the problem for sound. It's the turbo taking the energy out of the air that is. In a normal turbo engine there is still a lot of waste, and that is what you hear. The MGU-H is just absorbing everything. With a v12, 20k revs etc with a H-unit, the engine still will be silent.

[wuzak]

I would think that the V6s would converge to 90° anyway, because it gives space for breathing, MGUH, etc, while giving a good balance between lateral and vertical stiffness for chassis installation.

The 90° vee would also be required if they were allowed to have exhausts in the vee, just to give room for them.

Split crank pins would probably not be adopted as it would likely reduce crank stiffness and 6 throw cranks would probably cause the engine to be longer.

Not sure what you mean by "screamer" and how it would be achieved with a 3 throw crankshaft. Maybe it would be a 180° crank - 2 up and one down. Still not sure why or how that would be desirable.

[mclaren111]

Jolle:
Well, the engine layout or even the revs aren't the problem for sound. It's the turbo taking the energy out of the air that is. In a normal turbo engine there is still a lot of waste, and that is what you hear. The MGU-H is just absorbing everything. With a v12, 20k revs etc with a H-unit, the engine still will be silent.

Easy then: Just get rid of the MGU-H =D>

[MontrealBlue]

Split crank pins would probably not be adopted as it would likely reduce crank stiffness and 6 throw cranks would probably cause the engine to be longer.

I think so too.

Not sure what you mean by "screamer" and how it would be achieved with a 3 throw crankshaft. Maybe it would be a 180° crank - 2 up and one down. Still not sure why or how that would be desirable.

Screamer = even fire intervals between all cylinders. If used in combination with equal length exhaust headers, this gives a high pitch sound.

Examples of this:
- 60 degr. V6 + 6-throw crank, offset 60 degr between two opposing cylinders (I mixed this one up in my first post)
- 120 degr. V6 + 3 throw crank
- Boxer 6, 6-throw crank
- Inline 6, 6-throw crank
- Any other V6 block angle + split pin crank to compensate and create even fire intervals

[Jolle]

Jolle:
Well, the engine layout or even the revs aren't the problem for sound. It's the turbo taking the energy out of the air that is. In a normal turbo engine there is still a lot of waste, and that is what you hear. The MGU-H is just absorbing everything. With a v12, 20k revs etc with a H-unit, the engine still will be silent.

Easy then: Just get rid of the MGU-H =D>

You might find Indy car or NASCAR more to your liking

[wuzak]

Jolle:
Well, the engine layout or even the revs aren't the problem for sound. It's the turbo taking the energy out of the air that is. In a normal turbo engine there is still a lot of waste, and that is what you hear. The MGU-H is just absorbing everything. With a v12, 20k revs etc with a H-unit, the engine still will be silent.

Easy then: Just get rid of the MGU-H =D>

The MGUH is the most awesome part of the power unit package. It ties the whole thing together.

[mclaren111]

Wuzak:
The MGUH is the most awesome part of the power unit package. It ties the whole thing together.

For me the Sound is a bigger part of the F1 package and it is what have separated it from all other motorsports for over 40 years. Not excluding Engineering, Technology and all the other stuff.

We must get our noise back somehow !!

[Cold Fussion]

Wuzak:
The MGUH is the most awesome part of the power unit package. It ties the whole thing together.

For me the Sound is a bigger part of the F1 package and it is what have separated it from all other motorsports for over 40 years.

That's complete nonsense. The only special noise that is almost exclusive to F1 are the extremely high revving engines, which is only really from 89 onwards, and we only started seeing really high revving engines from mid 90s on-wards.