Powertrain Design

[joseff]

I don't know about you guys but I'm itching about the fact that we're not seeing any significant powertrain advancements in F1

Thusly, I begin my rant. Flame away!

Powerplant material: ilmor got it right with the beryllium engine, which got banned. It'd be interesting to see ceramics and plastics being used as the block material. Isuzu built a ceramic diesel back in '92, it's not impossible.

Powerplant layout: as has been mentioned previously, why not turn a V10 inside out, and have the engine breathe in from the *outside* of the vee, with the exhaust on the inboard side. This would allow even slimmer sidepods, and this layout is a perfect fit with the current (high) engine cover regulation.

I'm pretty sure BMW's valvetronic is already implemented, as is GDI (McLaren?)

Drivetrain design: Why don't Honda and Toyota employ hybrid electric designs? The extra 50-ish bhp boost available from a smallish electric motor is always welcome. I believe it's within the rules to design such an engine. The (possible) fuel savings is an added incentive.

Gearbox: So, is the twin clutch on or not? But it's nice to see carbon 'boxes finally working. And is it possible to install a hybrid wet clutch w/ lockup (the kind we see on modern slushboxes) and gain the benefit of the double clutch mechanism?

Well, I hope that should start some discussion.

[Reca]

Powerplant layout : At a first sight I don’t think the layout you suggest would be an improvement. It’s true that the new rules on the engine cover made it higher but it’s still very slim, it’s just a fin, exhausts would make it bigger. Furthermore you would move weight quite high, the exhausts are heavier than the airbox. As for breathing from two separate intakes on the sidepods I’ve many doubts, an airbox for N/A engine gains quite a bit from a single airbox coupling both banks and in the current position the air intake receive a better (less disturbed, cleaner and possibly colder) airflow. In short, IMO the current packaging is definitively a better compromise, maybe I have to think about it a little more but that’s my first impression.

Valvetronic : it’s not implemented AFAIK. BMW itself has specified that it’s an advantage mainly for normal engines but it’s way less useful even on the high performance production M-Series, let alone F1 where the engine works almost ever at full throttle and in a limited rpm range.

GDI : viewtopic.php?t=438

Drivetrain design : on http://www.fia.com you can find the technical rules.
5.2 Other means of propulsion
5.2.1 The use of any device, other than the 3 litre, four stroke engine described in 5.1 above, to power the car, is not permitted.
5.2.2 The total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car must not exceed 300kJ, any which may be recovered at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.

[McLaren_Fan17]

Why not get a boxer 10 and turn it 90 degrees so that the pistons would be going from front to back. Wouldn't that make the engine work since the sideways g-forces wouldn't affect it? It would make the back wider, but it would have an insanely low CoG. I guess the transmission setup would be kinda strange too, but just a thought.

[joseff]

Then the engine would have breathing problems

But the transmission wouldn't neet to be exotic. The VW Passat has had north-south engine and FWD for 2 generations now.

[mx_tifoso]

Powerplant layout : An airbox for N/A engine gains quite a bit from a single airbox coupling both banks and in the current position the air intake receive a better (less disturbed, cleaner and possibly colder) airflow."

Very interesting topic, but I mainly felt pulled into the specific area in the quote above.

Onto my thoughts which do not have to do with just Formula One; what 'Reca' says would mainly apply to a car with direct access to incoming air, since a mid engine road car would need to have individual intakes for each bank due to it not having an 'air scoop' above.

Or would a single intake be best for any sort of placement since there is pressure to be considered (of which I know very little about)?

In short, why would a single intake be the best option for an N/A engine with two banks

If anyone could answer my question I would be very grateful.

[donskar]

joseff wrote:

Powerplant layout: as has been mentioned previously, why not turn a V10 inside out, and have the engine breathe in from the *outside* of the vee, with the exhaust on the inboard side. This would allow even slimmer sidepods, and this layout is a perfect fit with the current (high) engine cover regulation.

This was tried, and rejected, by Ferrari on their 3 liter F1 V12. The intake trumpets were placed between the cams. Looked great, and the exhaust placement gave a neat look, but they went back to the conventional layout.

[panchito401]

I wouldn't use this layout solely because of the cooling of the exhaust in the center of the engine would probably be negligible and the engine would run extremely hot under the cowl.

Also, with the intake trumpets in the center, it's almost a straight shot down the airbox from the top, whereas intakes on the side would have to be bent at severe angles. You would also need two airboxes, filters, fuel rails and longer connections for all of this stuff - more --- could potentially go wrong.

It would definately look pretty badass though, I will admit that!

[panchito401]

mx tifosi> I'm guessing:

1. You save weight
2. You have a larger airbox to keep pressurized, which probably gives you more consistent pressure when the valves are opened for eight cylinders instead of four.

[riff_raff]

joseff,

Beryllium-aluminum alloys (AlBeMet) are truly magic stuff. An MoE better than steel with a density less than aluminum. They were originally developed back in the '70s by the Lockheed Skunk Works for use on high-performance military spy planes.

The reason the alloy was banned in F1 is because it is incredibly expensive, even by F1 standards. The raw material is over $300(US)/pound. And it is also very difficult to fabricate/cast, since it is highly reactive when molten, requiring vacuum casting techniques. In fact, since it contains significant amounts of beryllium (a toxic and hazardous metal), most foundries and machine shops will refuse to even work with it.

Here's some info on it:

http://www.berylliumproducts.com/Attrib ... AlBeMet162