F1technical.net

Holm86 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 12:01

The reason they went with 90° V6 is because of the mechanical strength, as the engine is a structual member.
90° is stronger than 120°, so the 2021 regulations will probably still keep that bank angle.

I just hope they will losen up the regulation that mandates only 3 throws, so we can have an even firing engine, that sounds better than the current one.

Split crank pins are weaker than non-split crank pins.

6 throw cranks make the engine longer.

Not sure if an engineer would chose those options if they were available.

The sound of the engine is the least of his concerns.

Now the V10s generally had a vee angle of around 90°. Most people didn't find their sound objectionable (volume excepted, maybe).

But possibly that is because each bank of five exhausts through its own tail pipe. Maybe it would be less nice if they were forced to use one tail pipe.

Holm86 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 12:01

The reason they went with 90° V6 is because of the mechanical strength, as the engine is a structual member.
90° is stronger than 120°, so the 2021 regulations will probably still keep that bank angle....

Andy Cowell would disagree with you. He has been quoted as saying he'd like the next PU to be 120°. I'm guessing he doesn't see a problem with structural rigidity..?

AJI wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 21:26

Holm86 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 12:01

The reason they went with 90° V6 is because of the mechanical strength, as the engine is a structual member.
90° is stronger than 120°, so the 2021 regulations will probably still keep that bank angle....

Andy Cowell would disagree with you. He has been quoted as saying he'd like the next PU to be 120°. I'm guessing he doesn't see a problem with structural rigidity..?

It's one of those things, if its regulated, the ICE might need a few pounds of extra aluminium, but if it's the same for all teams.

Plus I don't think it would make that big of a difference, it might even be a bit stronger, with more material between the banks

Quick question: As far as I know, the current proposition is to allow for a 120kg load of fuel to compensate for the removal of the MGU-H, but what's the proposed fuel flow limit? Or is the proposition a 120kg/h flow limit and I just mixed it up in my head?

Just heard that Porsche have a running single cylinder and are seriously considering joining from 2021.
Firm regulations are expected June-July time.

Mudflap wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2018, 00:01

Just heard that Porsche have a running single cylinder and are seriously considering joining from 2021.
Firm regulations are expected June-July time.

Every engine manufacturer has several single cylinder test begs going on simultaneously. As does every engineering university and with real time variable compression ratio.

ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2018, 00:42

Mudflap wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2018, 00:01

Just heard that Porsche have a running single cylinder and are seriously considering joining from 2021.
Firm regulations are expected June-July time.

Every engine manufacturer has several single cylinder test begs going on simultaneously. As does every engineering university and with real time variable compression ratio.

It's not a random single cylinder but one to current F1 specs

Mudflap wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2018, 11:48

ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2018, 00:42

Mudflap wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2018, 00:01

Just heard that Porsche have a running single cylinder and are seriously considering joining from 2021.
Firm regulations are expected June-July time.

Every engine manufacturer has several single cylinder test begs going on simultaneously. As does every engineering university and with real time variable compression ratio.

It's not a random single cylinder but one to current F1 specs

Current f1 specs, or what is expected for 2021? 18k rpm? 120kg/hr fuel flow?

AJI wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 21:26

Holm86 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2018, 12:01

The reason they went with 90° V6 is because of the mechanical strength, as the engine is a structual member.
90° is stronger than 120°, so the 2021 regulations will probably still keep that bank angle....

Andy Cowell would disagree with you. He has been quoted as saying he'd like the next PU to be 120°. I'm guessing he doesn't see a problem with structural rigidity..?

120 degree makes sense. With the twin turbo without mgu-h you will make a hot vee like Ferrari did In the 80.

I am very much in awe of current engines. More than 50% efficiency is unheard of until these F1 engines showed up. I hope they do not change the specs drastically toward more primitive version of the tech and push for less oil consumption instead. If they want to be bold, they should push for electrical engines. Maybe 4 wheel drive. Fronts are driven by small electric engines while rears stay as is.. This is what cutting edge motor technology looks like. I do not want to go back to stone age.

Actually the future is full electric and the internal combustion engine will become less and less important. What we will see are smaller IC range extenders and technical developments will slow down.

And dumbed down ICE with a bigger KERS unit on track with future car development. Don’t be suprised if in 2028 we will see a 1.0l NA ICE with 500KW KERS.

when will electric see 50% thermal efficiency? unless we see solar boosted racing cars - dreaming...

i'd prefer less regulations. why mandate round pistons and valves? why limit rpm? why restrict fuel flow rate?

more variables makes for less predictability and more eventful racing. fia get out of the way.

blueytoo wrote: ↑

08 Apr 2018, 13:46

when will electric see 50% thermal efficiency?

What does this mean? Current electric motor efficiency will be between 95-99% and battery energy conversion efficiency somewhere between 70-80%. A Gen 4 VHTR reactor has a theoretical thermal efficiency of 50-55%, even some coal plants reach close to 50%.

Looking and listening to the hybrid 919 EVO roaring down Spa. I want to put this idea again on the table:

A Porsche-like standalone (FIA provided) GU-H, independant from the turbocharger, to harvest exhaust heat for charging the ES, powering the MGU-K.

This way the manufacturers, who want to keep exhaust heat-recovery and the Fia, who want a get rid of the expensive MGU-H Turbocharger, can meet halfway. Only risk is Porsche who runs off with the 2021-2025 championships.

Always liked Porsche, particularly the sound. If the engine in F1 was not mandated to be a v, would a flat 6 not be an advantage? Especially with the recovery equipment of today. A low C.O.G and more freedom in the rear shape etc?

There is a 1.5 flat 12 Ferrari here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXsCbBxkr90