2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
godlameroso
344
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by godlameroso » Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:56 pm

Zynerji wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:09 am
I would expect the control electronics to be relatively inexpensive, and battery cost is in assembly.

6 ICE, unlimited batteries and control electronics, unlimited turbos.

Turn them up to 11!
The MGU-H is very expensive. The actual engine block itself isn't that much by comparison.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Zynerji
58
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by Zynerji » Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:12 pm

godlameroso wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:56 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:09 am
I would expect the control electronics to be relatively inexpensive, and battery cost is in assembly.

6 ICE, unlimited batteries and control electronics, unlimited turbos.

Turn them up to 11!
The MGU-H is very expensive. The actual engine block itself isn't that much by comparison.
I agree that R&D of the MGU-H is expensive, but manufacturing an electric motor to insanely small tolerances is a very common thing in today's market place.

Unless, keeping secrets lead to the mental disorder of forcing in-house design/ manufacture/ assembly.

At that point, I have zero sympathy for the costs involved.

godlameroso
344
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by godlameroso » Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:57 pm

Zynerji wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:12 pm
godlameroso wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:56 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:09 am
I would expect the control electronics to be relatively inexpensive, and battery cost is in assembly.

6 ICE, unlimited batteries and control electronics, unlimited turbos.

Turn them up to 11!
The MGU-H is very expensive. The actual engine block itself isn't that much by comparison.
I agree that R&D of the MGU-H is expensive, but manufacturing an electric motor to insanely small tolerances is a very common thing in today's market place.

Unless, keeping secrets lead to the mental disorder of forcing in-house design/ manufacture/ assembly.

At that point, I have zero sympathy for the costs involved.
It's only expensive because it's such a one off piece, so yes as you say there's a huge R&D cost associated with that. The manufacturing costs are all up front as well because of tooling, and production for such a specific machine.

The MGU-H is produced by just one or two suppliers, I honestly think it's a piece that can and should be standardized. I suppose it's impossible because all the manufacturers have different layouts, and thus different specifications are needed to fit each installation. The manufacturers pay the supplier to make the thing, then pay more to make it better, and in such and such way, then pay more to keep things hush hush.

They don't however and cannot make them change their manufacturing methods, so some tech transfer happens as the supplier improves the manufacturing ability, and it's own R&D, of course funded by all 4 manufacturers. In other words the development cost is spread out among the 4 because of this.

If the MGU-H were standardized, then the turbo layout would also have to be standardized, which means either everyone adopts Mercedes's solution, or everyone adopts Ferrari's solution. The costs and headaches involved in such a layout change can be disastrous as seen by 2017 Honda.

The only realistic way a new entrant would even dare touch F1 would be a guaranteed top of the line MGU-H they can spec and test ahead of time. The cost and time to put together a competitive power unit without some help has been shown to be ~3 years and ~2.5 billion dollars with the testing restrictions in place. This assumes a large manufacturer who already has the facilities to produce a power unit, who has experience with hybrid vehicles, batteries, control electronics, and lastly shiploads of cash to burn.

This says nothing about the learning curve involved with F1 style combustion process, using steel pistons, the fuel system all that jazz that drives up the cost even more.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Zynerji
58
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by Zynerji » Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:54 pm

Sounds as if the mediocre need-not-apply.

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

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by wuzak » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:02 am

godlameroso wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:57 pm
If the MGU-H were standardized, then the turbo layout would also have to be standardized, which means either everyone adopts Mercedes's solution, or everyone adopts Ferrari's solution. The costs and headaches involved in such a layout change can be disastrous as seen by 2017 Honda.
It shouldn't be too difficult to design the MGUH to suit different turbo configurations.

Zynerji
58
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by Zynerji » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:44 am

wuzak wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:02 am
godlameroso wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:57 pm
If the MGU-H were standardized, then the turbo layout would also have to be standardized, which means either everyone adopts Mercedes's solution, or everyone adopts Ferrari's solution. The costs and headaches involved in such a layout change can be disastrous as seen by 2017 Honda.
It shouldn't be too difficult to design the MGUH to suit different turbo configurations.
Doesn't Magnetti Marelli already have off the shelf MGU-H?

https://goo.gl/images/Sw6Ysb

NL_Fer
60
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by NL_Fer » Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:29 pm

The cost is not the actual MGU-H itself. It is redesign and hand-manufacture every unit, after any change has been developed in combustion.

But i do believe a standard MGU wil put a brake on combustion/turbocharger development and keep cost within a limit.

henry
238
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by henry » Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:42 pm

NL_Fer wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:29 pm
The cost is not the actual MGU-H itself. It is redesign and hand-manufacture every unit, after any change has been developed in combustion.

But i do believe a standard MGU wil put a brake on combustion/turbocharger development and keep cost within a limit.
I think you’ll find that there isn’t any need to change anything at all about the physical components of the MGU-H when combustion changes. Only the control systems would need changing.

I’m not sure how easy it would be to design an MGU-H to suit both through shaft for Honda and Mercedes and single end for Renault and Ferrari. Nor am I Ute of where the costs lie between the electric machine and it’s connection and installation componentry.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

mzso
15
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by mzso » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:59 pm

godlameroso wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:57 pm
expensive because it's such a one off piece, so yes as you say there's a huge R&D cost associated with that. The manufacturing costs are all up front as well because of tooling, and production for such a specific machine.
I'm highly doubtful of this statement. It's just a plain ordinary electric motor, everything else is SW. There are few things to work with, windings (and their cores) magnets, and that's pretty much it. It seems pretty simple to me to design a new motor to new target rpm-s, loads. And programming it is just a few people figuring out how to drive it best.

godlameroso
344
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by godlameroso » Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:22 pm

mzso wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:59 pm
godlameroso wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:57 pm
expensive because it's such a one off piece, so yes as you say there's a huge R&D cost associated with that. The manufacturing costs are all up front as well because of tooling, and production for such a specific machine.
I'm highly doubtful of this statement. It's just a plain ordinary electric motor, everything else is SW. There are few things to work with, windings (and their cores) magnets, and that's pretty much it. It seems pretty simple to me to design a new motor to new target rpm-s, loads. And programming it is just a few people figuring out how to drive it best.
I highlighted why you'd have doubt, if you understood the geometry of the moving parts inside the MGU-H you'd understand. However you have never seen the insides of one and you simply assume that it will look like any run of the mill 3 phase motor generator. If you take your assumptions as facts then yes there's reason to doubt.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

GPR -A
90
User avatar
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by GPR -A » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:46 pm

An interesting study on the comparison of PU performance across all manufacturers. Data from Bahrain qualifying and race.

Power unit 2019 from 990 horses: Ferrari and Mercedes are even, Honda and Renault detached
During the qualifications of the Bahrain GP, ​​two institutes carried out phonometric surveys to detect the power units that fell compared to last year. Honda pays a gap of 38 horses from Ferrari and Mercedes and Renault is just below.

The Ferrari 064 and Mercedes-AMG F1 M10 EQ Power + even power units are. Two institutes for recording phonometric data presented themselves with their state-of-the-art tools in Sakhir to gather very interesting information on the 2019 engine power.

The major controls of the FIA, therefore, have made impossible a practice to the limit, if not beyond. The surveys, in fact, read a peak of 990 horses in Q3 when Ferrari and Mercedes used the most extreme engine maps.

Some would have pointed out that the Ferrari power unit would be able to make better use of the electric power of the MGU-H, while the Mercedes would have a small advantage in the endothermic engine. The fact is that, according to phonometric data, the two engines are practically the same and if the W10s in Bahrain had been slower than the speed trap in qualifying it was only because they were more loaded with wings.

There was overtaking on the Renault in terms of pure power, so it is justified that the Red Bull men praise the work done by the Japanese that offered a more compact engine than the Renault thanks to a manic packaging and with a delta of horses that are measurable, but the gap between Mercedes and Ferrari remains very large: there is talk of 38 horses!

mzso
15
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by mzso » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:16 pm

GPR -A wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:46 pm
An interesting study on the comparison of PU performance across all manufacturers. Data from Bahrain qualifying and race.
Is this widely considered reliable. My instinct is to not trust estimations of power based on noise. Especially that a good chunk of it is electricity. So many things can effect noise.

GPR -A
90
User avatar
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by GPR -A » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:27 pm

mzso wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:16 pm
GPR -A wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:46 pm
An interesting study on the comparison of PU performance across all manufacturers. Data from Bahrain qualifying and race.
Is this widely considered reliable. My instinct is to not trust estimations of power based on noise. Especially that a good chunk of it is electricity. So many things can effect noise.
I doubt if there is a fool proof method to understand the exact comparative numbers as no manufacturer wants to publish the absolute power numbers that they get on their dyno. Each car is so vastly different in terms of drag levels, that makes it difficult to rely on GPS numbers also. With the given constraints, whatever method anyone uses to get a rough estimate, you can either question it, believe it or ignore it. As the article quotes that, the tests were conducted by couple of reputed institutes, I am sure they are more than laymen and average joes like us.

hollus
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by hollus » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:53 pm

How is one supposed to derive power from noise?
It is not white, it is not black, it is probably gray.

erikejw
4
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:32 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post by erikejw » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:20 pm

hollus wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:53 pm
How is one supposed to derive power from noise?
My assumption is that they use much more data than noise. The noise will measure the exact rpm(with FFT, math) during acceleration at every moment in time. Knowing the exact change in rpm and gearing(or measured speed with laser) gives speed differentials at different moments and knowing the weight gives a very good kw value. Throw in estimated or real drag levels and your calculations will be close to reality. This is a simplistic view, more data will give even better figures.

FIA probably use it mostly to detect engine anomalys, weird speeds(excess acceleration), so they can look into why.