F1technical.net

What's interesting is that they don't mention a turbo in the note. Just says high revving 2.4-2.6 litre V6. What if the scrap the turbo entirely and go back to super high revs?

New manufacturers would appear out of the woodworks to make a simple budget capped n/a engine.

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 06:46

What's interesting is that they don't mention a turbo in the note. Just says high revving 2.4-2.6 litre V6. What if the scrap the turbo entirely and go back to super high revs?

New manufacturers would appear out of the woodworks to make a simple budget capped n/a engine.

Or, a 2-stroke which puts out twice the power impulses per minute, so it sounds 'fast' by comparison.

Rotax/BRP could build them a suitable 'spec motor', & teams could 'tune' it, (& the gearbox too)...

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:01

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 06:46

What's interesting is that they don't mention a turbo in the note. Just says high revving 2.4-2.6 litre V6. What if the scrap the turbo entirely and go back to super high revs?

New manufacturers would appear out of the woodworks to make a simple budget capped n/a engine.

Or, a 2-stroke which puts out twice the power impulses per minute, so it sounds 'fast' by comparison.

Rotax/BRP could build them a suitable 'spec motor', & teams could 'tune' it, (& the gearbox too)...

We won't be seeing 2-strokes in F1 for the same reason we'll never see Rotary engines, they burn oil.

djos wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:04

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:01

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 06:46

What's interesting is that they don't mention a turbo in the note. Just says high revving 2.4-2.6 litre V6. What if the scrap the turbo entirely and go back to super high revs?

New manufacturers would appear out of the woodworks to make a simple budget capped n/a engine.

Or, a 2-stroke which puts out twice the power impulses per minute, so it sounds 'fast' by comparison.

Rotax/BRP could build them a suitable 'spec motor', & teams could 'tune' it, (& the gearbox too)...

We won't be seeing 2-strokes in F1 for the same reason we'll never see Rotary engines, they burn oil.

Yeah, that's funny...

Until a member here queried why the current mode of hybrid F1 cars were guzzling a gallon or more
per race, & the FIA made a rule change to cut it down to about a litre, they were burning plenty..

(& its not like F1 is contemplating now, (& never has), any attempt to emulate road-legal emissions!

The oil burning was to try and bypass the fuel energy restrictions so not really a fair comparison.

djos wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:27

The oil burning was to try and bypass the fuel energy restrictions so not really a fair comparison.

I thought it may have been to mitigate knocking??
signed Just made it through chemistry in 197something

djos wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:27

The oil burning was to try and bypass the fuel energy restrictions so not really a fair comparison.

Was it ever confirmed as such?

Or was it a scheme to deploy otherwise unavailable direct fuel power-enhancing additives?
Did the FIA ever release a memo about it?

&, what about the non-compliance with emissions anyhow? (Older F1 engines burned heaps too).

At about a litre of oil per 100kg of fuel, they are currently still essentially no better than
an available on public sale, emissions-certified, new 2-stroke sports-machine...

See here: https://sledmagazine.com/ski-doo-pushes ... c-turbo-r/

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:44

djos wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:27

The oil burning was to try and bypass the fuel energy restrictions so not really a fair comparison.

Was it ever confirmed as such?

Or was it a scheme to deploy otherwise unavailable direct fuel power-enhancing additives?
Did the FIA ever release a memo about it?

&, what about the non-compliance with emissions anyhow? (Older F1 engines burned heaps too).

At about a litre of oil per 100kg of fuel, they are currently still essentially no better than
an available on public sale, emissions-certified, new 2-stroke sports-machine...

See here: https://sledmagazine.com/ski-doo-pushes ... c-turbo-r/

One of the subjects in Pat Symonds talk is NOx which is greatly reduced in these current F1 engines courtesy of the lower temperatures from lean of peak effect.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:57

One of the subjects in Pat Symonds talk is NOx which is greatly reduced in these current F1 engines courtesy of the lower temperatures from lean of peak effect.

Yeah, same with current sophisticated 2-strokes, & FYI Johnny, ol' Pat is on record as favouring
a lifting of the longstanding ban on 2-strokes, for future F1..

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 10:04

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:57

One of the subjects in Pat Symonds talk is NOx which is greatly reduced in these current F1 engines courtesy of the lower temperatures from lean of peak effect.

Yeah, same with current sophisticated 2-strokes, & FYI Johnny, ol' Pat is on record as favouring
a lifting of the longstanding ban on 2-strokes, for future F1..

Disclaimer: harbour a large bias for 2 strokes having broken and cut much of me on them = Respect for their (once) peculiar power personalities.
I remember Symonds P. bringing that up and wondered if there was influence coming from Walker J.
A comment at the time from one of the fraternity was "he mustn't know engines very much" (why was Pat nominated, self or otherwise, being a self-confessed chassis man. All that aside I am very grateful for the first, that I know of, partial expose for the most intriguing technical revolution of recent times. IMHO.
The brief reasoning for the comment is 1.the inhibition of duration and 2.overlap complications, there is only 360 degrees to deal with all that goings on.
Even with turbocharging and huge gas exchange potential with any manner of port configurations, bore stroke ratio compromises and number of cylinders.
And I'm talking 6K to whatever RPM engines, not 300 RPM marines.
Having said all that, the little SkiDoo goes impressively close!

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:57

... NOx which is greatly reduced in these current F1 engines courtesy of the lower temperatures from lean of peak effect.

is the storyboard 'greatly reduced' enough ?
NOx is a matter of threshold duration/peak temperature at some points
stratified charge is counterproductive in this matter

we have lean NOx catalysis in our road cars
how wouldn't F1 cars 'future-show' need it ? - to be seen as squeaky-clean

the elimination of NOx catalysis has for 40 years been the grail
doesn't this require at least 2 lambda - or some sacrifice of some F1 thermodynamic cycle efficiency ?

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 06:46

What's interesting is that they don't mention a turbo in the note. Just says high revving 2.4-2.6 litre V6. What if the scrap the turbo entirely and go back to super high revs?

New manufacturers would appear out of the woodworks to make a simple budget capped n/a engine.

Do you have a link? The FIA url posted doesn't mention displacement. That sounds interesting though; anything to change up the eight year engine stasis.

New idea. If we can gin up a few million monetary units we could pay Pfizer or CDC or WHO to publish a paper on the health benefits of aerosolized beryllium; then we're back to V10s.

vorticism wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 17:52

AR3-GP wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 06:46

What's interesting is that they don't mention a turbo in the note. Just says high revving 2.4-2.6 litre V6. What if the scrap the turbo entirely and go back to super high revs?

New manufacturers would appear out of the woodworks to make a simple budget capped n/a engine.

Do you have a link? The FIA url posted doesn't mention displacement. That sounds interesting though; anything to change up the eight year engine stasis.

New idea. If we can gin up a few million monetary units we could pay Pfizer or CDC or WHO to publish a paper on the health benefits of aerosolized beryllium; then we're back to V10s.

Sorry I think I made the displacement up.

1.5L I6 2 stroke NA would sound quite nice!

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:44

djos wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2022, 09:27

The oil burning was to try and bypass the fuel energy restrictions so not really a fair comparison.

Was it ever confirmed as such?

Or was it a scheme to deploy otherwise unavailable direct fuel power-enhancing additives?
Did the FIA ever release a memo about it?

&, what about the non-compliance with emissions anyhow? (Older F1 engines burned heaps too).

At about a litre of oil per 100kg of fuel, they are currently still essentially no better than
an available on public sale, emissions-certified, new 2-stroke sports-machine...

See here: https://sledmagazine.com/ski-doo-pushes ... c-turbo-r/

Always denied by the teams (particularly those that were gaining the most from it).
Read into that what you will….