F1technical.net

godlameroso wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2017, 13:59

The one thing making these engines expensive, especially in their development, is the combustion technology. If they standardize some parts, like fuel, injectors(this is a big one) it would make the engines much cheaper to develop. The mgu-H Is expensive but it's not the area that consumes the most resources on its own. It's the combustion, as that is the prime mover of everything else.

Removing the MGU-H doesn't address the fact that everyone in the current formula, will have a huge advantage regarding combustion to any newcomers.

The fuel injectors for a direct injected engine needs to be adapted for the engine in question, so it cannot really be standardized. If you standardize it, you must basically standardize the rest of the combustion system too.

MGU-H can probably be standardized (and made by Honeywell, BorgWarner, MHI or some other turbo manufacturer), but it will have an impact on packaging.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2017, 14:42

I feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.

If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.

Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.

If you increase engine allocation, surely the engine manufacturers will see this as an opportunity to gain performance at the expense of reliability. You still need to do the same reliability testing, only with lower goals which leaves room for optimization elsewhere.

After all, there are racing series run with only one engine per season without costs going out of control.

Scotracer wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2017, 10:37

The only reason we have a rev based flow limit was because of concerns that the engines would sound even worse than they do, no revving beyond 10,000rpm.

They probably would have given the 1980s turbos still went to 11,000rpm...

The output of the 1980s turbos were air restricted, not fuel restricted like the current formula. Especially during the later years, when boost limits were introduced high engine speeds were important.

Most of the innovation and development in F1 is aero. I wish engine regulations were completely open. Allow so much fuel per race so that the engine must be efficient. Let the manufacturer pick the style of engine. Costs are already out of control so why not make it interesting

good news for engines manufactures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pk7Mq7ESwI
https://www.desktopmetal.com/

dsrankin wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2017, 16:56

Most of the innovation and development in F1 is aero. I wish engine regulations were completely open. Allow so much fuel per race so that the engine must be efficient. Let the manufacturer pick the style of engine. Costs are already out of control so why not make it interesting

I agree with this. Personally I would allow fuel flow limits as well but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise

loner wrote: ↑

11 Aug 2017, 05:54

good news for engines manufactures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pk7Mq7ESwI
https://www.desktopmetal.com/

That's pretty cool for components, not sure how that would work for blocks or heads. Or compressor or turbine housings. Or metals that have high melting points.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

11 Aug 2017, 14:47

loner wrote: ↑

11 Aug 2017, 05:54

good news for engines manufactures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pk7Mq7ESwI
https://www.desktopmetal.com/

That's pretty cool for components, not sure how that would work for blocks or heads. Or compressor or turbine housings. Or metals that have high melting points.

the technology achieved in the last 50 years is more than what happened in the last 3000 years i believe it will happens shortly

German amu & s reports that after round 2 of the meetings, the introduction of the 1,6 V6 bi-turbo is almost guaranteed. Desires stated by AM/Red Bull of a n/a V12 were not even considered as serious. There also is a high probability the MGU-H will be sacrified and the hybrid components will be reduced on "KERS".

The big question now is: Will it be standardized or not?? And what else will be? There is no unanimosity after round 2.

About the "sound": For Surer, the MGU-H is the scapegoat of lack of noise, but imo he forgets about its complexity which scares new entrants into F1.

F1 driver turned pundit for German television Sky, Marc Surer, said: "We have two problems.

"First, the FIA does not want to abandon hybrid engines. But the single-turbo removes the sound.

"The single biggest problem with F1 at the moment is the sound, and this is simply not solvable with one big turbo. We need two turbos.

"But then it becomes technically difficult to get energy from the exhaust. So the FIA may need to sacrifice the MHU-H and offer the fans a better sound."

My proposal would be: If the fuel flow will be altered and if the MGU-H is removed, and if there is a desire of increased noise after 2021, I would supply the engines with the good old anti-lag.

- it´s the simplest and cheapest solution in comparison with higher revs or modifications in firing order
- it certainly will help as one can hear in the WRC or WRX
- the energy lost with the anti-lag should be regained with further aerodynamic efficiency like ground-effect
- additionally, allow water/methanol-injection

Get rid of the MGU-H and allow variable valve timing, but not lift, and more fuel. It's ridiculous to prohibit cam phasing when every manufacturer has their own well developed system on their road cars.

loner wrote: ↑

11 Aug 2017, 05:54

good news for engines manufactures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pk7Mq7ESwI
https://www.desktopmetal.com/

I don't see the relevance of Kickstarter-style rendering investor bait to F1.

I like to see twin turbo v6, with K only. Adjust fuel flow 100kg/h at 10krpm, 110kg at 12k rpm, and maxed at 120kg at 14k rpm. Set limiter to 16k rpm with 7 speed gearbox. Introduce refueling with allowance of 120kg per race. Water only injection is allowed but cannot reloaded in pit. Strategy wise it is good so there is tradeoff with deadweight. Lower car weight obtained via simpler PU, set minimum to 690kg without liquid. Also in fuel hungry circuit we would see engine rev to about 13500rpm, but in qualy and not so fuel hungry circuit we would hear engine screaming in 15000 or more rpm. Minimum 10kg of water injection pushed by regulation so that nox is reduced a lot, so it is eco friendly engine

These engines cannot withstand more than 15k due to piston speed

I'm more and more sold on the 2T ICE with AWD KERS.

The RPM noise of the 2T allows a much lower count because of doubling the power pulses. And with tech in the outboard motor market, F1 could seriously put it into a level of relevance for mass market use if they can get the emissions and efficiency comparable to 4T.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2017, 19:13

I'm more and more sold on the 2T ICE with AWD KERS.

The RPM noise of the 2T allows a much lower count because of doubling the power pulses. And with tech in the outboard motor market, F1 could seriously put it into a level of relevance for mass market use if they can get the emissions and efficiency comparable to 4T.

Yes, then they can get rid of 2 wheels and make chain drives mandatory

Zynerji wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2017, 19:13

I'm more and more sold on the 2T ICE with AWD KERS.

The RPM noise of the 2T allows a much lower count because of doubling the power pulses. And with tech in the outboard motor market, F1 could seriously put it into a level of relevance for mass market use if they can get the emissions and efficiency comparable to 4T.

F1 has already achieved mass market relevancy with respect to emissions given they emit crazy amounts of NOX like a diesel golf.

...cue the 4T fanbois.