F1technical.net

you guys think such news can impact with F1 new engine formula 2021 ?!!

China is looking at banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/ ... esel-cars/

loner wrote: ↑

13 Sep 2017, 02:31

you guys think such news can impact with F1 new engine formula 2021 ?!!

China is looking at banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/ ... esel-cars/

Not a chance. ‘Road relevance’ is so 5 minutes ago.

AJI wrote: ↑

12 Sep 2017, 02:28

Jolle wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2017, 22:02

Again, you can't compare the 80ies engines with the level of precision engineering now. Back then you had to play it safe, an engine block could and would be rebuild over and over again (McLaren-TAG, 28 engines in 4 ½ years for the two cars combined!). If they would go to one PU a race, Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari would have to go from one PU a week to one a day. The logistics are close to impossible.

You keep citing TAG as an 80’s example, but how about a more modern comparison. Renault produced 1,271 engines for the V8 era. 683 for the track and 588 for the dyno!!! Sure, the PU is more complex, but I don’t think 1 PU per race weekend is too much to ask...

Too much in my opinion. They should be allowed to change power unit whenever they want.

Honnestly, the old engines were purpose built just to survive a 300km race. And some just made is 200-250km before exploding in a mega cloud of smoke. Same for gearboxes. There was always the suspense if the driver in P1 was going to finish the race.

They should ban the dyno and allow a new engine every weekend. The track as a real live dyno.

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

13 Sep 2017, 18:25

They should ban the dyno and allow a new engine every weekend. The track as a real live dyno.

Why even stop there? They should ban all simulation tools like CFD, FEA etc. Hell why not even ban calculators (or even slide rulers) and force all calculations to be done manually on pencil and paper.

Cold Fussion wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2017, 05:36

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

13 Sep 2017, 18:25

They should ban the dyno and allow a new engine every weekend. The track as a real live dyno.

Why even stop there? They should ban all simulation tools like CFD, FEA etc. Hell why not even ban calculators (or even slide rulers) and force all calculations to be done manually on pencil and paper.

Ban engineers and use circus clowns, but only clowns approved by the FIA.

Ok now I am serious again.

Rumours are Mercedes and Renault want to keep the MGU-H. Wat if, we keep the hybrid concept and convert it to a V4.

Shorter engine, more easy to built a split turbo. All 4 can reuse combustion en turbo construction data and take the challange to design a new block and turbocharger.

Maybe limit boost pressure to increase revs and noise and make it a little easier for newcomers.

that would be Mercedes that part-owns 'independent' Renault
both being in the EU and part-owned by the taxpayer

turbine recovery looks good on the testbench but is useless to the road car owner

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

20 Sep 2017, 13:17

that would be Mercedes that part-owns 'independent' Renault
both being in the EU and part-owned by the taxpayer

turbine recovery looks good on the testbench but is useless to the road car owner

for a normal commuter road car a 500cc turbocharged engine would be sufficient. When I drive to work, I pull up once or twice and cruise at around 100km/h for 45 minutes.

these PU's are made for racing, starting and stopping constantly with max torque... like... a city bus!! I could see Mercedes and Renault trucks (not a part of Renault-Nissan i think) to use MHU-H and K's in the next generation of truck engines.

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

20 Sep 2017, 12:25

Rumours are Mercedes and Renault want to keep the MGU-H. Wat if, we keep the hybrid concept and convert it to a V4.

I read somewhere ages ago that this is what Andy Cowell wants! It was something like V4, MGU-H, 2.0l and lower revving. Imagine the outrage of some if this ends up being the spec!

AJI wrote: ↑

20 Sep 2017, 23:25

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

20 Sep 2017, 12:25

Rumours are Mercedes and Renault want to keep the MGU-H. Wat if, we keep the hybrid concept and convert it to a V4.

I read somewhere ages ago that this is what Andy Cowell wants! It was something like V4, MGU-H, 2.0l and lower revving. Imagine the outrage of some if this ends up being the spec!

Isn't Porsche racing this exact concept in LMP1? only with the MGU-H only for recovery.

Jolle wrote: ↑

21 Sep 2017, 01:32

Isn't Porsche racing this exact concept in LMP1? only with the MGU-H only for recovery.

Pretty much. They run a VG turbo plus a 'GU-H' turbine down stream for recovery.

AJI wrote: ↑

21 Sep 2017, 01:42

Pretty much. They run a VG turbo plus a 'GU-H' turbine down stream for recovery.

Turbocharger has fixed geometry. Turbogenerator uses variable.

Looks like an ultracompact powerhouse, with a shorter more powerfull turbocharger.

noname wrote: ↑

21 Sep 2017, 11:16

Turbocharger has fixed geometry. Turbogenerator uses variable.

Right you are! Thanks for the correction.

I found an article on the Porsche engine from RCE - May 2016
It's quite a simple engine. 90deg V4, 2.0, 4 valve, DI, standard turbo, 9000RPM limit, 500PS.
The interesting part is the GU-H, which is fully independent so if it fails they only lose exhaust harvesting.

F1 could do worse than look at this configuration for 2021. It certainly ticks the ‘smaller/simpler/lighter’ boxes. Keep the current ‘K’, up the RPM limit, wind up the boost and have at it! One engine per race weekend ideally.

I also found the actual quote from Andy Cowell about what his ideal F1 PU would be for the change in 2021.
RCE April 2016 – ‘Maybe 2 less cylinders... If it must be a V6, then 60 or 120 degree, for a sweeter sound. Larger capacity with less RPM would increase thermal efficiency! The fuel regulations are okay...’