F1technical.net

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018, 23:33

Would they move cog to the rear, for more rear brake bias? Maybe we get more twisty rear ends this way!

Isn't the CoG already rear biased?

With the loss of the MGUH in mind, why not also nix turbocharging? Maintain fuel flow limits but free up engine architecture. Focus would narrow to combustion, away from turbo and EM optimization. NA sound returns.

Increase compression ratio and develop either in-cylinder cooling or a pre-cooler for the intake air. As long as the cylinder at TDC can achieve the same temperature, a:f ratio and charge masses of the current engines, current performance should be attainable. The fuel, charge air, and spark plug do not know or care if there is a compressor outside of the cylinder. Unless I'm totally off base.

nix ?

Eliminate. Get rid of. Do away with. Scrap. Bin. Ban.

Quadrupling the stroke length might prove problematic.

doesn't the turbocharger do some of the compession work using exhaust energy otherwise going to waste ?
and have less friction and less heat loss to coolant

so gives a more efficient engine than NA (if the same or nearly the same in-cylinder CR can be used)
as it did 30 years ago

The 4 manufacturers have gotten what they needed for modern production out of this engine formula. 50% efficient hybrid powertrains that last forever.

Now back to the 3L V10's with a 1100 horsepower cap @ 6 per season to get back to racing!

Zynerji wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:21

The 4 manufacturers have gotten what they needed for modern production out of this engine formula. 50% efficient hybrid powertrains.

Now back to the 3L V10's with a 1100 horsepower cap to get back to racing!

Why do you think that engine spec would provide more racing?

hurril wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:22

Zynerji wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:21

The 4 manufacturers have gotten what they needed for modern production out of this engine formula. 50% efficient hybrid powertrains.

Now back to the 3L V10's with a 1100 horsepower cap to get back to racing!

Why do you think that engine spec would provide more racing?

Less torque exiting corners tightens the group and leads to slip streaming.

My issue with 900ftlbs compared to 200ftlbs and today's tyres is that even a mediocre corner exit puts the leading driver out of touch on the following straight.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 21:15

doesn't the turbocharger do some of the compession work using exhaust energy otherwise going to waste ?
and have less friction and less heat loss to coolant

so gives a more efficient engine than NA (if the same or nearly the same in-cylinder CR can be used)
as it did 30 years ago

More expansion in the combustion/expansion stroke may regain some of that. I don't how friction losses compare between adding piston stroke vs turbocharger shafts at 100k rpm.

regarding torque ....
the torque at the axle is the same for all types of 1100 hp engine driving F1 cars
only the torque at the crankshaft is different

Zynerji wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:21

...Now back to the 3L V10's with a 1100 horsepower cap @ 6 per season to get back to racing!

This thread is so circular. I wish they'd hurry up and release the spec and put us all out of our misery.

In the meantime I'll counter with a 2.0 turbo, block must be based on a production engine, 100kg/hr at any RPM, 1 engine per meeting, and.., minimum car weight 600kg plus driver 80kgs

AJI wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 23:33

Zynerji wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:21

...Now back to the 3L V10's with a 1100 horsepower cap @ 6 per season to get back to racing!

This thread is so circular. I wish they'd hurry up and release the spec and put us all out of our misery.

In the meantime I'll counter with a 2.0 turbo, block must be based on a production engine, 100kg/hr at any RPM, 1 engine per meeting, and.., minimum car weight 600kg plus driver 80kgs

This part I like. A move to more nimble cars, preferably with a size reduction.
As they like to pretend a road relevance, this could be a good area of development as long as the safety cell requirement is still enforced. Smaller lighter cars would be a step in the right direction on our roads too, along with the fuel save due to weight.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:25

hurril wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:22

Zynerji wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:21

The 4 manufacturers have gotten what they needed for modern production out of this engine formula. 50% efficient hybrid powertrains.

Now back to the 3L V10's with a 1100 horsepower cap to get back to racing!

Why do you think that engine spec would provide more racing?

Less torque exiting corners tightens the group and leads to slip streaming.

My issue with 900ftlbs compared to 200ftlbs and today's tyres is that even a mediocre corner exit puts the leading driver out of touch on the following straight.

As noted in this post:

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 23:06

regarding torque ....
the torque at the axle is the same for all types of 1100 hp engine driving F1 cars
only the torque at the crankshaft is different

If the power is the same, and the speed is the same, the wheel torque or thrust at the wheels will be the same.

However, for slow corners the power of the V6Ts must be superior to the old V10s. The engine's power band is wider and the ERS helps as well.

But going to less power won't make for smaller gaps exiting corners.

With the wider power band, he traction zone will most likely be longer, increasing the chances that one driver will not get as good an exit as another. Sometimes that will give the car ahead the advantage, other times it will give teh chasing car a chance.

roon wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 20:35

With the loss of the MGUH in mind, why not also nix turbocharging? Maintain fuel flow limits but free up engine architecture. Focus would narrow to combustion, away from turbo and EM optimization. NA sound returns.

Increase compression ratio and develop either in-cylinder cooling or a pre-cooler for the intake air. As long as the cylinder at TDC can achieve the same temperature, a:f ratio and charge masses of the current engines, current performance should be attainable. The fuel, charge air, and spark plug do not know or care if there is a compressor outside of the cylinder. Unless I'm totally off base.

I don't think they can get the current air:fuel ratios with N/A engines.

wuzak wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2018, 04:24

Zynerji wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:25

hurril wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 22:22

Why do you think that engine spec would provide more racing?

Less torque exiting corners tightens the group and leads to slip streaming.

My issue with 900ftlbs compared to 200ftlbs and today's tyres is that even a mediocre corner exit puts the leading driver out of touch on the following straight.

As noted in this post:

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2018, 23:06

regarding torque ....
the torque at the axle is the same for all types of 1100 hp engine driving F1 cars
only the torque at the crankshaft is different

If the power is the same, and the speed is the same, the wheel torque or thrust at the wheels will be the same.

However, for slow corners the power of the V6Ts must be superior to the old V10s. The engine's power band is wider and the ERS helps as well.

But going to less power won't make for smaller gaps exiting corners.

With the wider power band, he traction zone will most likely be longer, increasing the chances that one driver will not get as good an exit as another. Sometimes that will give the car ahead the advantage, other times it will give teh chasing car a chance.

So, can someone explain this to me?

The 2.4L V8's were quoted as only having 200ftlbs(ish) of torque, and we did see 750ftlbs(ish) published for the 1.6T.

Now, i understand power is convertable, but I am unsure how a 20,000RPM engine and a 14,000RPM engine still produce the same torque to the wheels. Is this all in the transmission? I would expect that the wheel speed would be similar, regardless of engine, so doesnt the Trans just match that up? I mean, if the 14k, 750ftlbs engine has to spin the wheels at the same rate as the 20k, 200ftlbs engine to get the same straight line speed, isnt the torque waaay different?