F1technical.net

I'd be more fascinated by a hot-inside setup. Why do we think that was mandated against?

lio007 wrote:I don't know if it's been already discussed here (at least I couldn't find it now), but I'd really like to know, if you think any of the manufacturers would have opted for a VR6 engine? (if the angle of 90degrees would have not been given by the regulations)

I'm interested in the advantages and disadvantages, maybe anybody can point out them.

I also believe the 90 degree V allows the whole installation to be much stiffer for the rigid mounting currently used.

lio007 wrote:I don't know if it's been already discussed here (at least I couldn't find it now), but I'd really like to know, if you think any of the manufacturers would have opted for a VR6 engine? (if the angle of 90degrees would have not been given by the regulations)

I'm interested in the advantages and disadvantages, maybe anybody can point out them.

The first thing is that a narrow vee will be taller - required so that the bores have enough space for cooling jackets, etc.

The second, as mentioned by trinidefender and PlatinumZealot, is the installation. While teh original proposal for these rules was for an I4, some of the teams were very much in favour of a V6 for packaging reasons.

the VR6 (after Lancia) has 6 throws and 7 main bearings, so excessive friction and poor preservation of exhaust pulses for recovery

a narrow angle 'true' V6, or a very narrow angle 'true' V6 emulating the VR6 would have poor balance rather like an inline 3
and poor spacing of combustion and inertial loads, requiring a rather large section crankshaft
(though exhaust pulses would be well phased)

the current 90 deg V6 has better balance and much better spacing of combustion and inertial loads
(and phasing of exhaust pulses is anyway made acceptable by runner length differences etc)
and of course the package is structurally good (a balanced combination of width and depth)

the 'VR6 style' single-block V was in Lancia production cars from 1920
no-one including Lancia has ever made any such engine for F1 etc
Lancia chose a 90 deg V8 for F1 and a 60 deg V6 for endurance races

I may have to stand corrected but as I recall Ferrari were the leaders of the push that changed the original proposal from l4 to V6 to fit their marketing image.
Talking about image have any of the engine manufacturers published (or even hinted at) the level of efficiency being achieved in current F1 engines?
I guess I am talking % of research energy in the fuel delivered as power to the driveline.
Seems interesting that the justification for moving to the present units was to encourage just this but no one is hollering from the rooftops about it.
Curious?

It should be no surprise as to how powerful the oil companies are.
The energy savings in F1 are directly affecting the technical development of road vehicles its true but mention of hybrid technology or god forbid all electric is totally against the globalist mantra.
It is why Formula E has had to resort to gimmicks with ideas for driver less racing.
The oil companies love this because it makes alternates look silly.
In F1 putting bean cans on the exhausts is the best they can allow to make more noise.
The FIA has bigger wallets to fry.

oldtony wrote: ..... have any of the engine manufacturers published (or even hinted at) the level of efficiency being achieved in current F1 engines? .... no one is hollering from the rooftops about it.

Mercedes certainly has made strong claims
(eg as referred to in the Mercedes Power Unit thread P3)
the efficiency benefits (of compounding) were proved eg in the last large piston-engined airliners 60 years ago

some claims are optimistic, misrepresenting previous N/A F1 and conflating current F1 temporary PU power with sustained power
and no-one mentions that the fuel has unlimited Octane, unlike every previous F1 fuel since F1 went 'road fuel' in 1958

road-car benefits would obtain only from downsizing via compounding and (compulsory ?) electric-only mode in towns etc
they are currently rebranding hybridation in this F1 glamorous coat (to public and politicians) as I predicted almost 4 years ago

Do you think electric turbo-compounding has a place in road cars? I mean using a small engine, with a large turbo, with lag being controlled electrically as well as having an electric motor powering an axle? This is not a good path to take if you want to build cheaper, or if you want to reduce weight. Whatever weight and space savings you get from a downsized engine are doubly lost with the hybrid power train, batteries, turbos and associated plumbing. Don't get me wrong, I think the technology is very interesting, and you can't beat instant electric torque, I just don't see it on anything but performance cars.

hey guys, thank you for all the great answers.
So all in all there are more disadvantages than advantages concerning the VR6.

hurril wrote:I'd be more fascinated by a hot-inside setup. Why do we think that was mandated against?

One of the secondary aims of the new engine formula was to make the engines roughly interchangeable for the teams so that they could change engine supplier easily, thus they mandated the engine mount positions. I think this also influenced the idea to mandate against the Hot V as it would mean a completely different layout to other engines which would make them much harder to be (just about) interchangeable.

Also I have spoken to people who looked into it early on in the dev' process and they said that the disadvantages made it a non-starter. Well in their learned opinion anyway.

Facts Only wrote:

hurril wrote:I'd be more fascinated by a hot-inside setup. Why do we think that was mandated against?

One of the secondary aims of the new engine formula was to make the engines roughly interchangeable for the teams so that they could change engine supplier easily, thus they mandated the engine mount positions. I think this also influenced the idea to mandate against the Hot V as it would mean a completely different layout to other engines which would make them much harder to be (just about) interchangeable.

Also I have spoken to people who looked into it early on in the dev' process and they said that the disadvantages made it a non-starter. Well in their lerned opinion anyway.

That's interesting. I wonder what those disadvantages might be.

hurril wrote:

Facts Only wrote:

hurril wrote:I'd be more fascinated by a hot-inside setup. Why do we think that was mandated against?

One of the secondary aims of the new engine formula was to make the engines roughly interchangeable for the teams so that they could change engine supplier easily, thus they mandated the engine mount positions. I think this also influenced the idea to mandate against the Hot V as it would mean a completely different layout to other engines which would make them much harder to be (just about) interchangeable.

Also I have spoken to people who looked into it early on in the dev' process and they said that the disadvantages made it a non-starter. Well in their lerned opinion anyway.

That's interesting. I wonder what those disadvantages might be.

Off the top of my head from memory:

- Poor CoG, lots of weight up high as inconel exhausts are a lot heavier than a carbon plenum. (this is the biggest thing, CoG of the PU is of huge importance)
- Difficult to link and route the single plenum to the outside of both banks.
- Very difficult to get a balanced throttle linkage on both banks when they are on the outside (this is surprisingly critical and quite difficult already)
- Water and Oil crossover pipe routing made more difficult
-Worse heat soak and hot spots into the crankcase where the two banks are joined which is already a massively stressed area
- Diffulty in routing the Compressor inlet piping (you either need to have the exhausts running directly over/under/round the compressor or turn the turbo round and make the routing more tortuous).

Point 1 (poor CoG) kills it stone dead on its own though. And I'm stuggling to think of any advantages .

Slightly less lag that effectively gets cancelled out by the mgu-h?

Facts Only wrote:Point 1 (poor CoG) kills it stone dead on its own though. And I'm stuggling to think of any advantages .

I'm not understanding something here. If it was naturally disadvantageous due to C.G. then why was there any need to ban it in the rules?

Of course the COGH has a mandated minimum anyway.