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.
mclaren111
104
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:49 am
Location: Hell Hole - South Africa

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by mclaren111 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:10 pm

Autosport.com:
Aston Martin has received interest from a handful of Formula 1 teams regarding the possibility of an engine supply for 2021 and beyond, Autosport has learned.
The British carmaker, which will become Red Bull's title sponsor in 2018, is keen on F1's next engine rules cycle providing the production and development costs are controlled.
"It's about creating credibility ready for when we go mainstream face-to-face with Ferrari, Lamborghini and McLaren on the road.

Makes it very likely for and McLaren & Honda reunion come 2021.

Mudflap
90
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Mudflap » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:18 pm

It won't happen.

I live 20 minutes away from Gaydon and have always kept an eye out for powertrain jobs there but nothing has came up in years. I know dozens of engineers working in the immediate area at Mahle, Cosworth, Mercedes, Ilmor and Prodrive and no one has heard anything about the fabled AM F1 engine. The consensus is that it only exists in Andy Palmer's fantasies.

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong though - it would mean a pay raise and a shorter commute.
How much TQ does it make though?

wuzak
342
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by wuzak » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:25 am

Mudflap wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:18 pm
It won't happen.

I live 20 minutes away from Gaydon and have always kept an eye out for powertrain jobs there but nothing has came up in years. I know dozens of engineers working in the immediate area at Mahle, Cosworth, Mercedes, Ilmor and Prodrive and no one has heard anything about the fabled AM F1 engine. The consensus is that it only exists in Andy Palmer's fantasies.

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong though - it would mean a pay raise and a shorter commute.
It does seem to me that AM need the rules to be dumbed down to their capabilities in order that they would consider competing.

dren
214
User avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by dren » Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:06 pm

In Newey's book he talks about the engine choice for the car he designed with AM. He decided against using an AM designed engine and went with a Cosworth sourced one.
Honda!

roon
306
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by roon » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:14 pm

wuzak wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:23 am
Do 60° V6s have even firing intervals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crankshaft#Flying_arms


These allow greater angular offsets than split pins. Otherwise I believe crank throw angles must be equal to bank angle. Are there exceptions?

Mudflap
90
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Mudflap » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:24 pm

They are just as illegal as the split pins.
Rules say 3 throws.

I am sure most teams would have avoided any sort of separate journal configuration anyway.
How much TQ does it make though?

roon
306
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by roon » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:27 pm

Was replying to the general discussion about firing orders. You'll notice most of the things suggested in this "2021 Engine thread" are currently illegal.

wuzak
342
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by wuzak » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:49 am

roon wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:14 pm
wuzak wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:23 am
Do 60° V6s have even firing intervals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crankshaft#Flying_arms


These allow greater angular offsets than split pins. Otherwise I believe crank throw angles must be equal to bank angle. Are there exceptions?
I think you'll find that those give a greater cylinder centre distance than the split pins do.

It could be done under the current rules - if you didn't have a main bearing between cylinder pairs.

bill shoe
210
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by bill shoe » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:20 am

If a goal for 2021 is better noise (more traditional high-performance engine sound) for any given rpm range, then rules should require even firing order instead of 3-throws.

If that leads to 6 throws and 7 bearings then so be it. The sound of the current engines seems to be a genuine significant fan dissatisfier, but I've never heard a fan worry about the number of crank throws.

If GM fixed this problem in mass-market V6's in the late 70's, then why is F1 still wringing its hands over how to improve noise now? Crazy. Creating F1 technical regs must be like a bunch of Mensa people in a room arguing about whether electricity powers light bulbs.

AJI
31
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:30 am

bill shoe wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:20 am
If a goal for 2021 is better noise (more traditional high-performance engine sound) for any given rpm range, then rules should require even firing order instead of 3-throws.

If that leads to 6 throws and 7 bearings then so be it. The sound of the current engines seems to be a genuine significant fan dissatisfier, but I've never heard a fan worry about the number of crank throws.

If GM fixed this problem in mass-market V6's in the late 70's, then why is F1 still wringing its hands over how to improve noise now? Crazy. Creating F1 technical regs must be like a bunch of Mensa people in a room arguing about whether electricity powers light bulbs.
Surely, as has been stated several times before, a 120deg v6 is the simple solution. That said, why persist with a v6 anyway..?

wuzak
342
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by wuzak » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:01 am

bill shoe wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:20 am
If a goal for 2021 is better noise (more traditional high-performance engine sound) for any given rpm range, then rules should require even firing order instead of 3-throws.

If that leads to 6 throws and 7 bearings then so be it. The sound of the current engines seems to be a genuine significant fan dissatisfier, but I've never heard a fan worry about the number of crank throws.

If GM fixed this problem in mass-market V6's in the late 70's, then why is F1 still wringing its hands over how to improve noise now? Crazy. Creating F1 technical regs must be like a bunch of Mensa people in a room arguing about whether electricity powers light bulbs.
Or you could go for twin turbos - basically two evenly fired 3Ls.

wuzak
342
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by wuzak » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:02 am

AJI wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:30 am
bill shoe wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:20 am
If a goal for 2021 is better noise (more traditional high-performance engine sound) for any given rpm range, then rules should require even firing order instead of 3-throws.

If that leads to 6 throws and 7 bearings then so be it. The sound of the current engines seems to be a genuine significant fan dissatisfier, but I've never heard a fan worry about the number of crank throws.

If GM fixed this problem in mass-market V6's in the late 70's, then why is F1 still wringing its hands over how to improve noise now? Crazy. Creating F1 technical regs must be like a bunch of Mensa people in a room arguing about whether electricity powers light bulbs.
Surely, as has been stated several times before, a 120deg v6 is the simple solution. That said, why persist with a v6 anyway..?
And a 120° V6 would open the way to having a "hot vee" engine.

AJI
31
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:09 am

wuzak wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:02 am

And a 120° V6 would open the way to having a "hot vee" engine.
You know me too well. Just add rotary valve heads and we've got a deal.

Edit: Although I think I may just have locked-in Mercedes dominance for the next engine formula...

Holm86
158
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by Holm86 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am

wuzak wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:02 am
AJI wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:30 am
bill shoe wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:20 am
If a goal for 2021 is better noise (more traditional high-performance engine sound) for any given rpm range, then rules should require even firing order instead of 3-throws.

If that leads to 6 throws and 7 bearings then so be it. The sound of the current engines seems to be a genuine significant fan dissatisfier, but I've never heard a fan worry about the number of crank throws.

If GM fixed this problem in mass-market V6's in the late 70's, then why is F1 still wringing its hands over how to improve noise now? Crazy. Creating F1 technical regs must be like a bunch of Mensa people in a room arguing about whether electricity powers light bulbs.
Surely, as has been stated several times before, a 120deg v6 is the simple solution. That said, why persist with a v6 anyway..?
And a 120° V6 would open the way to having a "hot vee" engine.

A hot-vee engine is also possible with the current 90° V6, but it is prohibited by the regulations (don't really know why)

AJI
31
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post by AJI » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:00 pm

Holm86 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
A hot-vee engine is also possible with the current 90° V6, but it is prohibited by the regulations (don't really know why)
I think wuzak is referring to an old conversation.
Interestingly though, the latest Audi v6 is a 90° V6 6 throw hot-v engine... Road relevance anybody?