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
Big Tea
95
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:21 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 11:25 am
ACRO wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:44 am
this resulted in extreme high reving screamers where the sound was just a pure side effect of a 'non efficient' engine throwing vast amounts of unused energy thru the exhaust .
Not so fast!

If the sound was a mere side effects F1 cars could easily have been fitted with mufflers and required to comply with strict trackside noise limits, just like other racing classes. Yet somehow the requirement for muffling is waived... Surely there is some reason for that? :wink:
Mufflers decrease performance, don't they?
If everyone has them there will be no difference. Possibly increas the flow limit if time is the target
One test is worth a thousand expert opinions

User avatar
SectorOne
392
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 8:51 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

My thoughts are towards going back to the NA 2.4v8 DI/TJI (Frozen at the end of 2022), twin Unlimited GU-H on the exhaust, Unlimited MU-K on engine, and front wheel Unlimited MU-K hub motors. No Battery, just a small Supercapacitor bank for balancing. Move to LNG, with fuel "pods" that can pop-and-swap during a pitstop.

Noise (RPM), power(torque), direct GU->MU drive(no trickery). Put triggers on the steering wheel that gives the driver the ability to "boost" an individual front wheel during cornering for another driver-input dimension.

I can always dream... :mrgreen:

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

SectorOne wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 5:34 pm
https://i.imgur.com/zXhXbJX.jpg

Read the magazine for free here: https://www.racecar-engineering.com/art ... ment-2019/
Makes sense. If F1 is to stick with hydrocarbon fuels I can see them simply reducing the flow rate in subsequent years. That much has been suggested here on the forum often. Electric valve train is interesting. I suppose they mean solenoid/linear motor actuator valves, not a motorized camshaft.

Maritimer
Maritimer
17
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:45 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

What's to stop them from using pneumatic actuation a la free valve Koenigsegg have developed?

AJI
AJI
38
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

SectorOne wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 5:34 pm
https://i.imgur.com/zXhXbJX.jpg

Read the magazine for free here: https://www.racecar-engineering.com/art ... ment-2019/
2 stroke! I'm surprised. They should allow rotary valves too

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 6:58 pm
My thoughts are towards going back to the NA 2.4v8 DI/TJI (Frozen at the end of 2022), twin Unlimited GU-H on the exhaust, Unlimited MU-K on engine, and front wheel Unlimited MU-K hub motors. No Battery, just a small Supercapacitor bank for balancing. Move to LNG, with fuel "pods" that can pop-and-swap during a pitstop.

Noise (RPM), power(torque), direct GU->MU drive(no trickery). Put triggers on the steering wheel that gives the driver the ability to "boost" an individual front wheel during cornering for another driver-input dimension.

I can always dream... :mrgreen:
They couldn't just update the old 2.4 V8s, they'd have to start again.

The old V8s weren't DI, let alone TJI. Also not sure how well TJI would work with a N/A engine.

Twin MGUHs would muffle the sound and cause back pressure that the old V8s couldn't handle.

I expect that the proposed engine would lose 100hp over the current configuration and, possibly, weigh more. If they are to meet the fuel flow regulations in current use, the power loss could be more.

No battery means no boost where the cars need them the most - out of slow corners.

Why LNG? Why not hydrogen, produced from electrolysis from renewable energy, of course?

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
535
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 7:31 am
...Twin MGUHs would muffle the sound and cause back pressure that the old V8s couldn't handle.

....No battery means no boost where the cars need them the most - out of slow corners.
well ...
isn't exhaust turbine-recoverable power ('blowdown power') available without back pressure ?
isn't electric motoring not much used at low speeds as the car is then traction-limited even on ICE power alone ?

though NA MGU-H has less to gain from heat dilution (leaning) as that would tend to increase ICE size and some losses

Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula
47
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 9:06 am
well ...
isn't exhaust turbine-recoverable power ('blowdown power') available without back pressure ?
Well, simply put no. A turbine in the exhaust stream is comparabel to a substantial reduction of the cross section of the exhaust pipe. It will always lead to a pressure increase upstream.
isn't electric motoring not much used at low speeds as the car is then traction-limited even on ICE power alone ?
We had some discussions in other threads about that. In my opinion they can use as much electric power as they want at any time as long as it doesn't violate some specific rules, which means they can potentially use the full power of the MGU-K out of a slow corner and scale back the poweroutput of the ICE accordingly which will be the most efficient way to drive.
Using a lot of electric power at high speeds would be a waste in my opinion, at least as long as you don't have enough energy available to use it all the time.
If i remember it correctly you need 8 times the power to achieve the same acceleration at twice the speed. That's why it's way better to use as much electric power as possible at low speeds.

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 7:31 am
Zynerji wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 6:58 pm
My thoughts are towards going back to the NA 2.4v8 DI/TJI (Frozen at the end of 2022), twin Unlimited GU-H on the exhaust, Unlimited MU-K on engine, and front wheel Unlimited MU-K hub motors. No Battery, just a small Supercapacitor bank for balancing. Move to LNG, with fuel "pods" that can pop-and-swap during a pitstop.

Noise (RPM), power(torque), direct GU->MU drive(no trickery). Put triggers on the steering wheel that gives the driver the ability to "boost" an individual front wheel during cornering for another driver-input dimension.

I can always dream... :mrgreen:
They couldn't just update the old 2.4 V8s, they'd have to start again.

The old V8s weren't DI, let alone TJI. Also not sure how well TJI would work with a N/A engine.
Just the heads, probably a derivative of the current v6 tech. They have already proven bulletproof reliability of their V8 short blocks. By updating the short block with the current V6 head technology, I believe they can get 20000 RPM pretty reasonably at a good fuel consumption. The real question is, does TJI have any benefit in a non boosted engine, and does the VLIM supercharge enough to offset this restriction.
Twin MGUHs would muffle the sound and cause back pressure that the old V8s couldn't handle.
Hardly. Please provide math/proof since you are stating this as a fact. And these are GU, not MGU. We currently have 6 into 1, where my idea would have 4 into 1, but half the size. And 20000 RPM instead of 12000 should overcome this concern. Even running twin, current sized units at 1.2L each, instead of 1.6L would probably work as you are deleting the work done by the compressor.
I expect that the proposed engine would lose 100hp over the current configuration and, possibly, weigh more. If they are to meet the fuel flow regulations in current use, the power loss could be more.

No battery means no boost where the cars need them the most - out of slow corners.
2.4l v8 was about 875hp, 225ft-lb @ 18000rpm. Adding another 200-300hp through the GU-H -> MU-K would increase low end torque, and high rpm power. Battery loss saves huge amounts of weight. Front Hub motors will add about 7kg to each wheel. I think my suggestion would still come at a net lowering of weight, and a net increase of tractive power from AWD.
Why LNG? Why not hydrogen, produced from electrolysis from renewable energy, of course?
Any fuel that makes sense in a pit-swappable, pressurized "pod" is fine. I'm just after the safety of quick change fuel. Anything that allows the cars to carry less fuel while on track will help the tyres by decreasing the variance of the full fuel weight and the low fuel weight. That will allow the teams to dial in the tyres far better I believe. This would also remove parts like fuel pumps and such.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
-18
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Comes 2021 and you lot will find that a lot of time and space had been wasted on this here subject wish list because the present engines/power units used will be exactly the same. So it’s best to change the subject to at minimum 2025.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
535
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Dr. Acula wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 12:50 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 9:06 am
well ...
isn't exhaust turbine-recoverable power ('blowdown power') available without back pressure ?
Well, simply put no. A turbine in the exhaust stream is comparabel to a substantial reduction of the cross section of the exhaust pipe. It will always lead to a pressure increase upstream.
my point above was put as a question out of politeness to wuzak

blowdown power is in practice available without increase in mean exhaust pressure aka back pressure
according to the Wright company brochure in addressing this point of contention
BP is there in the exhaust pulses (to the extent that these have been preserved by design)
Wright engines (and NACA data with NA blowdown recovery) show potentially 8 - 10% 'free' power is available via NA BP
(though exhaust pulses of a V6 with 2 turbines are better suited than those of a V8)
yes I have suggested there may have been exhaust system factors flattering the Wright and NACA results ....
but Wright clearly sacrificed BP recovery in favour of practicality eg 18 cylinders sharing 'only' 3 PRTs

F1 is quite suited to NA BP recovery
the power requirement (and so the recovery turbine requirement) being rather steady - unlike a road cars' requirement
there can be some question of whether the recovered power route should be electrical or mechanical or both
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Wed May 29, 2019 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Big Tea
95
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

So would a 3 cylinder triple turbo with 3 pipes be more efficient? Or would the difference be tuned out?
One test is worth a thousand expert opinions

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 5:36 pm
Dr. Acula wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 12:50 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 9:06 am
well ...
isn't exhaust turbine-recoverable power ('blowdown power') available without back pressure ?
Well, simply put no. A turbine in the exhaust stream is comparabel to a substantial reduction of the cross section of the exhaust pipe. It will always lead to a pressure increase upstream.
my point above was put as a question out of politeness to wuzak

blowdown power is in practice available without increase in mean exhaust pressure aka back pressure
according to the Wright company brochure in addressing this point of contention
BP is there in the exhaust pulses (to the extent that these have been preserved by design)
Wright engines (and NACA data with NA blowdown recovery) show potentially 8 - 10% 'free' power is available via NA BP
(though exhaust pulses of a V6 with 2 turbines are better suited than those of a V8)
yes I have suggested there may have been exhaust system factors flattering the Wright and NACA results ....
but Wright clearly sacrificed BP recovery in favour of practicality eg 18 cylinders sharing 'only' 3 PRTs

F1 is quite suited to NA BP recovery
the power requirement (and so the recovery turbine requirement) being rather steady - unlike a road cars' requirement
there can be some question of whether the recovered power route should be electrical or mechanical or both
I wouldn't be against a 2.4Lv6-NA-DI-TJI-VVT with the twin GU-H, integrated 300kW MU-K and 18000+RPM with 120kW hub motors in the front wheels. A 1200eHP-AWD formula?? Yes, please!!


The real question then becomes about how far you could push the GU-H/MU-K if the design specialized in ONLY recovery/deployment instead of the hybrid MGU tech. I may be open to ammending my "dream" idea to include MGU-K front hub motors if we can get a counter-rotating twin MLC flywheel in the nose for recovery/storage/stabilization... [-o<

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 9:06 am
isn't exhaust turbine-recoverable power ('blowdown power') available without back pressure ?
It is, or at least minimal back pressure increase. It won't provide the recovered power he is dreaming of.

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 9:06 am
isn't electric motoring not much used at low speeds as the car is then traction-limited even on ICE power alone ?
In the current cars yes, because they have shed loads of low down power.

The N/A V8s, however, do not have nearly the same amount.