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.
roon
roon
412
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Unsprung weight. Not to beat a dead horse. How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made? I'd wager the wheel, tire, and suspension at each corner of the car currently doesn't exceed 30lbs.
wuzak wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:33 am
Nice pic, but I think the MGUK would be smaller than the diff. It would sit in there ahead of the bulkhead.
Smaller in volume or mass?
Last edited by roon on Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zynerji
108
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

roon wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:43 am
Unsprung weight. Not to beat a dead horse. How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made? I'd wager the wheel, tire, and suspension at each corner of the car currently doesn't exceed 30lbs.
Integrating it into the shroud and rim wouldn't add more than 5lbs.

wuzak
wuzak
380
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

roon wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:43 am
wuzak wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:33 am
Nice pic, but I think the MGUK would be smaller than the diff. It would sit in there ahead of the bulkhead.
Smaller in volume or mass?
Volume.

Still, the current MGUKs aren't all that weighty.

roon wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:43 am
Unsprung weight. Not to beat a dead horse. How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made? I'd wager the wheel, tire, and suspension at each corner of the car currently doesn't exceed 30lbs.
The weight would be offset, somewhat, by the reduction in the size of the brake and caliper required.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
594
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

the present K runs only from 30000 - 40000 rpm because they want it to
(thanks to the 8 speed transmission it runs at eg 70 - 100% of max rpm and eg 100 - 70% of max torque)
the air gap is very small, giving high efficiency in the magnetic circuit

a much higher torque, larger diameter, lower rpm direct drive equivalent is a whole new and different thing
I promise it and its drives will be less efficient and need more cooling
conceptually it now has to run at eg 10 - 100% of its new max rpm and eg 100 - 10% of its new max torque
and incorporate additional mechanical functionalities

public utility power generators are efficient - they run at a constant 100% rpm and constant torque
F1's 8 speed transmission is beneficial to the electrical machine side as it is to the mechanical machine side
imagine F1 with direct drive ICEs
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:37 am, edited 3 times in total.

63l8qrrfy6
63l8qrrfy6
368
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Well Merc's project one has MGUKs geared down and driving the front wheels. The 2 gearboxes are probably heavier than anything else at the front end.

Jejking
Jejking
1
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:38 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:48 am
roon wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:43 am
Unsprung weight. Not to beat a dead horse. How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made? I'd wager the wheel, tire, and suspension at each corner of the car currently doesn't exceed 30lbs.
Integrating it into the shroud and rim wouldn't add more than 5lbs.
What issues would such an integration potentially bring?

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
594
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

[quote=roon]Unsprung weight.....How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made? [/quote]

isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50

and much 'recovery' is done under power
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:27 am
roon wrote:Unsprung weight.....How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made?
there surely is less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear
because 67% of the weight and 67% of the DF is on the rear
A F1 car can brake faster then it accelerates, the potential energy that you can get from the front axle is probably around 2000 HP. For the deployment the numbers are a bit different, prob around max 500HP

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
594
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

2000 hp or any other hp is not energy it is the rate of energy transfer
2000 hp is a momentary peak - total time at braking powers over 1000 hp per axle is only a few seconds per lap

the K and its drive electronics and ES are 161 hp devices not 2000 hp devices
broadly 2000 hp devices are 13 times bigger, and they weigh 13 times as much the whole lap

also much of the present K 'recovery' energy/lap is made under power not braking
the 161 hp K is a handy size for this - part of the beautiful ingenuity of the present rules

actually the K is as much a constant torque (not constant power) device ie the power falls below c. 6000 (crankshaft equivalent) rpm
practical direct drive of the front axle is compatible with this sort of factor
(ie even if you had eg 500 hp from the front EMs at the start or exiting Loew's you couldn't apply it all to the track)

usefully an MG-driven front axle wouldn't need a very fast-responding MG
because it's not slaved to a gearbox (needing very fast ICE and MGU-K response to minimise effective shift time)

roon
roon
412
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:27 am
roon wrote:Unsprung weight.....How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made?
isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50

and much 'recovery' is done under power
Good point. They also don't dive very much under braking, so weight distribution changes shouldn't be as drastic as I assume they would be.

wuzak
wuzak
380
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:27 am
roon wrote:Unsprung weight.....How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made?
isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50

and much 'recovery' is done under power
Brake bias is of the order of 60/40 - 55/45 front to rear. So yes, the front does have more energy recovery potential.

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

roon wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:05 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:27 am
roon wrote:Unsprung weight.....How light can an 80+HP (more harvesting potential than rear axle) MGU be made?
isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50

and much 'recovery' is done under power
Good point. They also don't dive very much under braking, so weight distribution changes shouldn't be as drastic as I assume they would be.
"diving" has noting to do with the weight distribution but with how stiff the springs are.

The transfer of weight is not that difficult to imagine (or calculate). It's about how hight the COG is and how much force or deceleration there is. On car's it's not so obvious because the COG is relative low. On motorbikes it's more clear. Even a MotoGP bike with carbon brakes and slick tires only can brake around 1G because the high COG. The Fres of the deceleration (F going straight forward) and gravity (F going downward) result in a force going trough the contact patch of the front tire, making the brake balance 100% - 0%.

I don't think by the way that the brake balance on F1 cars (the 50%-50%) are the actual brake forces on the tires but more a fine-tune. The normal balance is for instance 70-30, and then they can play with between 60/80% - 40/20% or something, divided in 100 steps.

stevesingo
stevesingo
42
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:28 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:41 am
...also much of the present K 'recovery' energy/lap is made under power not braking
the 161 hp K is a handy size for this - part of the beautiful ingenuity of the present rules
Although I understand that under certain conditions (preparing for a Q lap, during a Q lap or preparing for a SC restart) the ICE can be used as a generator, but during the race, when fuel is limited, why would you use fuel to charge the ES?

wuzak
wuzak
380
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

stevesingo wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:08 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:41 am
...also much of the present K 'recovery' energy/lap is made under power not braking
the 161 hp K is a handy size for this - part of the beautiful ingenuity of the present rules
Although I understand that under certain conditions (preparing for a Q lap, during a Q lap or preparing for a SC restart) the ICE can be used as a generator, but during the race, when fuel is limited, why would you use fuel to charge the ES?
Because you can't charge the ES completely with braking alone.

Plus it allows you to use power you don't necessarily need at one point of the lap and use it at another when you want it.

User avatar
ringo
204
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:57 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:18 pm
Small gas turbine driving a generator, electric motors/generators in all four hubs. Unlimited battery capacity/discharge rate. Noise, smell, speed. Pure F1.
This would be cool. Also affordable, because those gas turbines would last the whole season.

I see ideas on giving freedom to develop different engine layouts. You can't control costs that way.
Standardization is the best method of cost control.

I see other propositions, but those aren't really new technology. There has to be the right amount of road relevance, entertainment, and technology which is yet to be used on the road.
This is why i suggested hydrogen fuel cell.
The V-10 was for the entertainment factor. And i still think a V10 or V12 is a very nice to have engine in a sports car. If you cancel out all the inefficiencies then why not have one?
A low revving petrol v8 with coil spring timing is too retro.. its basically going back to the 1960s.

The gas turbine generator that drives electric motors or hydrogen power is definitely the next big step.
Last edited by ringo on Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For Sure!!