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.
mzso
mzso
19
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

By the way. What came of the manual deployment of regen power? (or whatever vague statement Ross Brawn used)
Also nothing?

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:31 am
By the way. What came of the manual deployment of regen power? (or whatever vague statement Ross Brawn used)
Also nothing?
Nothing it would seem. Apart from TD's to lock down gray areas, the PU and its operation seem not to have changed one iota for 2021 and beyond.
This topic should probably be abandoned and the '2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula' topic might as well be re-named the '2014-20?? Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula'.

mzso
mzso
19
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

AJI wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:57 am
Nothing it would seem. Apart from TD's to lock down gray areas, the PU and its operation seem not to have changed one iota for 2021 and beyond.
This topic should probably be abandoned and the '2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula' topic might as well be re-named the '2014-20?? Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula'.
That sucks. A little bit of extra MGU-K power would have been nice. And the the abandonment of the automatic deployment of it.

User avatar
godlameroso
423
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

There's still plenty to discuss. For instance, the FOM wants to introduce standardized parts to save costs. We can discuss how that will never work, or which parts could be standardized and still allow manufacturers to have their own designs.

Perhaps a standard MGU-H, or battery pack, standardized fuel pump. The problem with standardizing is making sure you don't favor one layout over the other with your standardization. Or worse force a manufacturer to switch their layout.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
77
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Interesting yes. The will of the FIA to introduce a standard fuel system would suspect there is some trickery going around with current custom fuel systems.

Like increased flow or temporary storage of fuel.

User avatar
henry
306
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

There’s a small change in the energy flow diagram for which I can’t think of an explanation.

The MGU-K power used to read “Max +/- 120kW”

It now reads “Max power +120kW (release mode), Min power -120kW (recovery mode). “

I cannot find a definition of “release mode”.

Anyone got an explanation?
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

User avatar
MtthsMlw
858
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

henry wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:33 pm
There’s a small change in the energy flow diagram for which I can’t think of an explanation.

The MGU-K power used to read “Max +/- 120kW”

It now reads “Max power +120kW (release mode), Min power -120kW (recovery mode). “

I cannot find a definition of “release mode”.

Anyone got an explanation?
Doesn't it pretty much say the same? Just with a few more words for good measures.
Deploy (release) at max 120kw and harvest at max 120kw.

Max +/- 120kw isn't really intuitive I think.

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

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

MtthsMlw wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:05 pm
henry wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:33 pm
There’s a small change in the energy flow diagram for which I can’t think of an explanation.

The MGU-K power used to read “Max +/- 120kW”

It now reads “Max power +120kW (release mode), Min power -120kW (recovery mode). “

I cannot find a definition of “release mode”.

Anyone got an explanation?
Doesn't it pretty much say the same? Just with a few more words for good measures.
Deploy (release) at max 120kw and harvest at max 120kw.

Max +/- 120kw isn't really intuitive I think.
Perhaps they have included the words "recovery mode" to try and prevent the use of the K as traction control? How they would police that is beyond me..?

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
21
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:31 am
By the way. What came of the manual deployment of regen power? (or whatever vague statement Ross Brawn used)
Also nothing?
The deployment is already manual on command by way of the "overtake " button and the ability to harvest at the press of a button or turn of a switch. The current "automatic" deployment already has the potential to be manually overridden, there is no need to made it fully driver controlled like KERS was.

Drivers are already able to save deployment for certain areas of the track, what more is needed?

User avatar
FW17
232
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Shouldnt F1 have allowed more open rules for 2021 while just keeping the 105 kg and 100kg/hr rule?

This could have encouraged the Porsche V4 (with some development) to be considered as an works or customer option

Image

mzso
mzso
19
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:29 pm
Shouldnt F1 have allowed more open rules for 2021 while just keeping the 105 kg and 100kg/hr rule?

This could have encouraged the Porsche V4 (with some development) to be considered as an works or customer option

https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/2 ... 4a8398.jpg
What would it accomplish other than waste? Porsche would have built a V6 PU if it wanted to. Besides the regulations remained because there was no-one who considered seriously entering as a supplier.

User avatar
Holm86
230
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:29 pm
Shouldnt F1 have allowed more open rules for 2021 while just keeping the 105 kg and 100kg/hr rule?

This could have encouraged the Porsche V4 (with some development) to be considered as an works or customer option

https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/2 ... 4a8398.jpg
Am I the only one seeing a poor robot trapped in the oil tank??

User avatar
FW17
232
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:58 pm

Porsche would have built a V6 PU if it wanted to.

As I said why not let them compete with 2l V4? or the 2.4l V6 Toyota engine?

Image

User avatar
godlameroso
423
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

" The approval of the FIA Technical Department is conditional upon the PU manufacturer, intending to use such parts during a Championship season undertaking not to conclude any exclusivity agreement for the supply of such parts with the supplier of these parts. The approval request form must be sent by the PU Manufacturer to the FIA before the 1st of November of the preceding year. Shall be treated as an exclusivity agreement, any agreement concluded between the supplier of such parts (including any PU manufacturer) and any PU Manufacturer, which has the purpose and/or the effect of restricting the possibility for such a supplier: a. to consider any request from another PU Manufacturer ; and/or b. to supply, under reasonable commercial conditions, a part meeting the applicant’s specifications. "

This is very interesting. I wonder how they'll treat parts made in house by each manufacturer. This opens the door to them sharing engine components. For example if a manufacturer has a big MGU-H advantage what's to stop another manufacturer asking for clarification, and asking that manufacturer's supplier to make a similar change for their unit?

"5.3.7 Any non-ERS energy storage and components supplied by it will be considered an ancillary and subject to Article 5.14.1. "

"With the exception of batteries of less than 100 kJ total capacity used for safety and control purposes during ERS start-up and shut-down operations, which must be prevented from supplying energy under normal ERS operation; electrical energy may not flow from any ancillary in the direction of the ES, CU-H or CU-K. This must be guaranteed by design and verifiable by inspection."

This is also very interesting. They don't say anything about mechanical energy though 8)

Not just the fuel pump, but the ignition coil packs will be standardized parts it seems. Curious they don't mention injectors, which I suppose have to be unique to work with each manufacturer's combustion process.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

mzso
mzso
19
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:05 pm
As I said why not let them compete with 2l V4? or the 2.4l V6 Toyota engine?
Because rules are not created for what a random manufacturer, who may or may not join has lying around?
Holm86 wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:00 pm
Am I the only one seeing a poor robot trapped in the oil tank??
Now that you mention it... :) But it seems quite fine with it.
AJI wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:23 pm
Perhaps they have included the words "recovery mode" to try and prevent the use of the K as traction control? How they would police that is beyond me..?
It would still be recovery. Besides it can be only used as traction control if somehow it would affect the wheels differently in a particular way, which you can't accomplish with a motor connected to the crankshaft.