F1technical.net

747heavy wrote:One thing, which is worth to consider is, does we have a bi/twin -turbo layout or a mono turbo. Looking at the R18 (Audi) and compare to the R15+/R10 the coupe (R18) uses a top/roof single air-intake (similar to F1) compared with the two periscope snorchels of the older cars. Most F1 turbos from the "old area" where bi-turbos with an V-engine (except for the BMW)

Ulrich Baretzky wrote:If you want to look at all the efficiency components you want to incorporate in the future, like waste energy recovery systems from the exhaust or the cooling system, then you need a little bit of space on the left and right side of the engine. A four-cylinder gives you that space but a vee engine is the wrong thing to have because you are so limited in space. You have an exhaust system on both the left and rightside and you also have to double all the energy recovery systems which makes it very heavy, very complicated and very inefficient. So it's better to have the hot side on one side of the engine and the cool side on the other side so you can arrange all these things accordingly. That's the opportunity with the four-cylinder.

Formula None wrote:Lights on the car could also indicate when KERS and wing are activated. I agree, it would be great for fans at the track to have some indication of when these push-to-pass gimmicks are being used. Executed properly, yes, the sound generator could be cool, but runs the risk of being very cheesy/gimmicky. Maybe a simple alarm klaxon or car horn type sound would be less foreign/alienating. Either way, it could sound epic with the Doppler effect during flyby, combined with the engine noise.

Formula None wrote:The more awkward shape of the I4 for a stressed member, along with the Audi R18 release has me wondering if anyone will attempt to go for a full carbon frame, with tubs joined top/bottom, leaving the engine/transmission unstressed or semi-stressed. The engine weight could be reduced, and you'd be replacing that material with CF in the chassis. Not sure if there would be any weight savings in the end, but you might benefit in terms of engine reliability if it is more isolated from stresses acting on the chassis. FIA ultimately wants to get down to 4 engines/year, with 5/year spec'd for 2013, IIRC.

Ulrich Baretzky wrote:This is for sure a problem and has always been a problem with a four-cylinder. But there are methods to overcome that. Three years ago we contributed a lot to making a Formula Three engine for Volkswagen and in the beginning it had a structure around it. I said, why? If you do it the right way with the right materials, and I don't want to go into too much details because Mercedes-Benz always doubted how we made it and how the engine was so much better than theirs. So I don't want to tell them how to do it. But we thought very logically about some things and we determined we didn't need a separate structure. And the engine is running very succesfully today and has been running very successfully for some time. Now, I don't say it's the same with a 600 horsepower turbocharged engine. But even if you do make a subframe, where is the problem?

Formula None wrote:
A large perforated surface through which the turbo ingests air could reduce the thickness of the boundary layer on many different components. For example, over a portion of the engine cover. Ferrari did this on their 599 race car, except on the diffuser (which is probably not a good idea for an engine intake, operating in a low pressure zone):

Tim.Wright wrote:That intake for the 599XX is not for the engine.

747heavy wrote:@WB
makes you wonder why their R18 engine is a V6 then.

Ever heard about register turbo charging?
Having two turbos does not mean you need to put them on both sides of an I4 - does it?

The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry. Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

Dragonfly wrote:Guys, I am confused.
This is from the FIA press release.

The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry. Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

There's no word about turbos.

747heavy wrote:@WBmakes you wonder why their R18 engine is a V6 then. Ever heard about register turbo charging?
Having two turbos does not mean you need to put them on both sides of an I4 - does it?

WhiteBlue wrote: I find it amazing that they dropped cylinder count from V10 to V6 and capacity from 5.5L to 3.6L.

The new ACO rules state that the current LMP1 cars (2007-2010) will be rendered obsolete so new prototypes would have to be created. Engines in the LMP1 are similar to the engines in the LMP2 prior to 2010 (maximum engine sizes are: 3.4 L (3400 cc) for naturally-aspirated engines with eight cylinders maximum; 2.0 L (2000 cc) for turbocharged petrol engines with six cylinders maximum; 3.7 L (3700 cc) for turbocharged diesel engines with eight cylinders maximum).

Formula None wrote:You get me thinking though, Dragonfly. I wonder if anyone will get creative and try to make ~650hp sans turbo. I'd love to hear proposals for achieving that.

timbo wrote:Will i4 config would engine remain stressed member of a chassis?
Maybe putting it on subframe would be beneficial?

Ulrich Baretzky wrote:This is for sure a problem and has always been a problem with a four-cylinder. But there are methods to overcome that. Three years ago we contributed a lot to making a Formula Three engine for Volkswagen and in the beginning it had a structure around it. I said, why? If you do it the right way with the right materials, and I don't want to go into too much details because Mercedes-Benz always doubted how we made it and how the engine was so much better than theirs. So I don't want to tell them how to do it. But we thought very logically about some things and we determined we didn't need a separate structure. And the engine is running very succesfully today and has been running very successfully for some time. Now, I don't say it's the same with a 600 horsepower turbocharged engine. But even if you do make a subframe, where is the problem?