Conceptual engine regulations

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Conceptual engine regulations

Post

What would you suggest? f.e. Let's have some fun with flow rates:

Reciprocating piston ICE
Minimum 8 cylinders
Two liters maximum displacement
petrol/gasoline fueled
ICE driven small flyweel ES driving a supercharger
Below 16k RPM MAP is set at maximum 1 atm
Above 16k RPM boost is set at maximum ((RPM/1000)-16)+0.5
Multispeed transmission clutched to ICE as typical
Free location of the exhaust and BOV ports
Refueling during pit stops

This will force development within a compromise between three areas: engine speed, cylinder pressure, and peak power.

edit: boost v map error
Last edited by vorticism on Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

gruntguru
gruntguru
548
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Your MAP:RPM formula has a discontinuity.
0 - 16,000 MAP max = 1.0
16,001 rpm MAP max = 0.5

Apart from that it sounds like a rev-monster formula.
je suis charlie

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
80
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

1. Fuel, road relevant (that includes environmental for production, emissions for combustion, cost, performance). And fuel flow limited similar to the staus quo.
2. Maximum cost
3.Sexiness, which can be in terms of blindingly quick and/or having a blessedly sweet sound (democratically determined, directly or indirectly)

That is it your honour
All the superfluous rules of the FIA are stuck in the last millenium and as much as anything keeps themselves in a job and adds to the cost for teams.

Taken to a nightmare but probably the most efficient extreme of it being a generator only unit would, sadly, have to be banned because this is racing, and racing for entertainment and I am stuck in the last millenium with one foot anyway.

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:38 am
Your MAP:RPM formula has a discontinuity.
0 - 16,000 MAP max = 1.0
16,001 rpm MAP max = 0.5

Apart from that it sounds like a rev-monster formula.
Good catch, I meant boost on the second instance; +0.5 bar over atmospheric rising from there to 4.5 bar boost at 20k. I think you get the idea though; limit boost onset and target its increase to ensure high RPM operation. You end up with a dilemma for the engineer: further boost is only accessible while satisfying the needs of a high rotation speed engine. Cutting down displacement limits NA power potential even with higher engine speed; the supercharger provides the necessary increase in mass flow to gain this power back. Eventually the boost level and engine speed correlation gets absurd with f.e. 7,5 bar MAP at 22k RPM. The equation could be different, this is just what I first jot down; anything like a monotonic rise in boost from 0 at x rpm to infeasible at y rpm.

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:33 am
1. Fuel, road relevant (that includes environmental for production, emissions for combustion, cost, performance). And fuel flow limited similar to the staus quo.
2. Maximum cost
3.Sexiness, which can be in terms of blindingly quick and/or having a blessedly sweet sound (democratically determined, directly or indirectly)

That is it your honour
All the superfluous rules of the FIA are stuck in the last millenium and as much as anything keeps themselves in a job and adds to the cost for teams.

Taken to a nightmare but probably the most efficient extreme of it being a generator only unit would, sadly, have to be banned because this is racing, and racing for entertainment and I am stuck in the last millenium with one foot anyway.
You could definitely cart around an emissions test stand to the races if you wanted to. Some series use catalytic converters. A muffler and associated exhaust tuning could be permitted as well; might be useful at city venues. An inconel muffler would be volumetrically larger than ideal but not that heavy. Cost limits become an accountants game imo. Remember when RBT made the same car for RB and STR? Aesthetics are down to the artist and this reveals the polymaths amongst the engineers; FIA has been trying its hand somewhat at artistry in recent years and revealing themselves to be not very good at it.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
592
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

vorticism wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:39 pm
.... limit boost onset and target its increase to ensure high RPM operation. ....
....anything like a monotonic rise in boost from 0 at x rpm to infeasible at y rpm.....
yes they did that, starting nearly 100 years ago (before turbocharging) ....
driving eg a centrifugal supercharger at some fixed multiple of engine rpm
never winning a real GP though

'they' being famously Duesenberg and Miller and Novi etc - and BRM in Europe
(Tony Bettenhausen's Novi Monza lap record stands for all time)

also millions of such aircraft engines

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
80
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

vorticism wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:47 pm
johnny comelately wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:33 am
1. Fuel, road relevant (that includes environmental for production, emissions for combustion, cost, performance). And fuel flow limited similar to the staus quo.
2. Maximum cost
3.Sexiness, which can be in terms of blindingly quick and/or having a blessedly sweet sound (democratically determined, directly or indirectly)

That is it your honour
All the superfluous rules of the FIA are stuck in the last millenium and as much as anything keeps themselves in a job and adds to the cost for teams.

Taken to a nightmare but probably the most efficient extreme of it being a generator only unit would, sadly, have to be banned because this is racing, and racing for entertainment and I am stuck in the last millenium with one foot anyway.
You could definitely cart around an emissions test stand to the races if you wanted to. Some series use catalytic converters. A muffler and associated exhaust tuning could be permitted as well; might be useful at city venues. An inconel muffler would be volumetrically larger than ideal but not that heavy. Cost limits become an accountants game imo. Remember when RBT made the same car for RB and STR? Aesthetics are down to the artist and this reveals the polymaths amongst the engineers; FIA has been trying its hand somewhat at artistry in recent years and revealing themselves to be not very good at it.
I apologise for not explaining my points adequately, but where you have gone with them is not what was intended.

What I do propose is though is for all the able contributors in here to collaborate and actually design an IC engine.
The parameters have to be agreed on first. This is what you originally intended I think.
My thoughts are:
1. The current race formats and tracks are a given, so that governs fuel requirements.
2. The car format regarding recovered energy, that will govern fuel requirements. Currently we are at 1600cc, with the 2026 proposals it may be around 1200cc, is that getting ridiculous or is it our age old bias thinking that.
3. Aero limits , that will govern physical size
4. Fuel type, and you can see where the 2026 proposals are coming from, the question is will it be fast enough on a power to weight ratio.
5. Wheel drive, no thrust. Manual transmissions.
Quickly you can see this is resembling Le Mans thinking and engine wise I dont disagree, the Porsche 919 V4 was a successful format except maybe for the sound in regard to marketing.
Over to you...

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 1:30 am
vorticism wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:47 pm
johnny comelately wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:33 am
1. Fuel, road relevant (that includes environmental for production, emissions for combustion, cost, performance). And fuel flow limited similar to the staus quo.
2. Maximum cost
3.Sexiness, which can be in terms of blindingly quick and/or having a blessedly sweet sound (democratically determined, directly or indirectly)

That is it your honour
All the superfluous rules of the FIA are stuck in the last millenium and as much as anything keeps themselves in a job and adds to the cost for teams.

Taken to a nightmare but probably the most efficient extreme of it being a generator only unit would, sadly, have to be banned because this is racing, and racing for entertainment and I am stuck in the last millenium with one foot anyway.
You could definitely cart around an emissions test stand to the races if you wanted to. Some series use catalytic converters. A muffler and associated exhaust tuning could be permitted as well; might be useful at city venues. An inconel muffler would be volumetrically larger than ideal but not that heavy. Cost limits become an accountants game imo. Remember when RBT made the same car for RB and STR? Aesthetics are down to the artist and this reveals the polymaths amongst the engineers; FIA has been trying its hand somewhat at artistry in recent years and revealing themselves to be not very good at it.
I apologise for not explaining my points adequately, but where you have gone with them is not what was intended.

What I do propose is though is for all the able contributors in here to collaborate and actually design an IC engine.
The parameters have to be agreed on first. This is what you originally intended I think.
My thoughts are:
1. The current race formats and tracks are a given, so that governs fuel requirements.
2. The car format regarding recovered energy, that will govern fuel requirements. Currently we are at 1600cc, with the 2026 proposals it may be around 1200cc, is that getting ridiculous or is it our age old bias thinking that.
3. Aero limits , that will govern physical size
4. Fuel type, and you can see where the 2026 proposals are coming from, the question is will it be fast enough on a power to weight ratio.
5. Wheel drive, no thrust. Manual transmissions.
Quickly you can see this is resembling Le Mans thinking and engine wise I dont disagree, the Porsche 919 V4 was a successful format except maybe for the sound in regard to marketing.
Over to you...
Points taken. I just thought I'd make a thread where people can spout of their ideas--no agreement necessary. fwiw the 2026 regs do as published specify 1.6 l displacement with an 80mm bore. Yes, tracks are one of the immovable factors in all of this.

Point 3 - Aero limits could be interesting because we've yet to see this quantified in the history of the sport. f.e. you could say must not produce more than x N of downforce and test this with a travelling wind tunnel with an airliner turbofan on one end. Or limit peak drag and perform a coastdown at a spec tire pressure during the weekend on a given straight. Wind would be an issue though.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
80
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

And diesel has to be considered as long as it is green on both sides of the production/combustion fence.
Mr Baretzky opted that way for good reason.

User avatar
vorticism
103
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Oh there's potential. Two stroke diesel V16s pushing 6k RPM gets us right back to the famous sound.


User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 1:30 am
What I do propose is though is for all the able contributors in here to collaborate and actually design an IC engine.
The parameters have to be agreed on first. This is what you originally intended I think.
My thoughts are:
1. The current race formats and tracks are a given, so that governs fuel requirements.
2. The car format regarding recovered energy, that will govern fuel requirements. Currently we are at 1600cc, with the 2026 proposals it may be around 1200cc, is that getting ridiculous or is it our age old bias thinking that.
3. Aero limits , that will govern physical size
4. Fuel type, and you can see where the 2026 proposals are coming from, the question is will it be fast enough on a power to weight ratio.
5. Wheel drive, no thrust. Manual transmissions.
Quickly you can see this is resembling Le Mans thinking and engine wise I dont disagree, the Porsche 919 V4 was a successful format except maybe for the sound in regard to marketing.
Over to you...
More open regulations (less technical rules) would be very appealing.
1. Fuel flow maximum should be in there, as well as a maximum amount of energy that can be used during the course of a race (so if ERS of any form is used it can be balanced against other fuel/energy)
2. No limits on motive items (other than the above); physical limitations to the size of cars, based on a plan area (so if you want to build something long, it will have to be narrow); minimum weight for car 500kg, maximum starting weight of (say) 750kg (includes fuel & driver).
3. Aero (downforce) restricted to single element device at front & rear of car; within the wheelbase (apart from the central chassis/motive unit) bodywork height limited to wheel centre height - width of all bodywork limited to vehicle track width at each end of car, height limited to wheel/tyre height; within the wheel
4. Fuel/oil/coolant must be bio-degradable & recyclable and be created from renewable sources
5. Manual transmission, data transfers between car & garage limited to a plug-in link during races.
6. Maximum price for motive unit
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
80
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

To design an engine has to start at the end, something to consider:
If this is a global sport and America has to be included there should be consideration given to the oval races, a la the early days.
If so there would be no braking recovery much and there would have to be exhaust recovery, so the MGU-H is in.
Tenders for an optimised design are open

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
80
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Just a constructive comment Stu, too many minimums and maximums to be eligible for this thread :wink:

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
80
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

Safety requirements produce there own natural parameters (the forgotten commandment)

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
80
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Conceptual engine regulations

Post

vorticism wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:07 am
johnny comelately wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 1:30 am
vorticism wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:47 pm

You could definitely cart around an emissions test stand to the races if you wanted to. Some series use catalytic converters. A muffler and associated exhaust tuning could be permitted as well; might be useful at city venues. An inconel muffler would be volumetrically larger than ideal but not that heavy. Cost limits become an accountants game imo. Remember when RBT made the same car for RB and STR? Aesthetics are down to the artist and this reveals the polymaths amongst the engineers; FIA has been trying its hand somewhat at artistry in recent years and revealing themselves to be not very good at it.
I apologise for not explaining my points adequately, but where you have gone with them is not what was intended.

What I do propose is though is for all the able contributors in here to collaborate and actually design an IC engine.
The parameters have to be agreed on first. This is what you originally intended I think.
My thoughts are:
1. The current race formats and tracks are a given, so that governs fuel requirements.
2. The car format regarding recovered energy, that will govern fuel requirements. Currently we are at 1600cc, with the 2026 proposals it may be around 1200cc, is that getting ridiculous or is it our age old bias thinking that.
3. Aero limits , that will govern physical size
4. Fuel type, and you can see where the 2026 proposals are coming from, the question is will it be fast enough on a power to weight ratio.
5. Wheel drive, no thrust. Manual transmissions.
Quickly you can see this is resembling Le Mans thinking and engine wise I dont disagree, the Porsche 919 V4 was a successful format except maybe for the sound in regard to marketing.
Over to you...
Points taken. I just thought I'd make a thread where people can spout of their ideas--no agreement necessary. fwiw the 2026 regs do as published specify 1.6 l displacement with an 80mm bore. Yes, tracks are one of the immovable factors in all of this.

Point 3 - Aero limits could be interesting because we've yet to see this quantified in the history of the sport. f.e. you could say must not produce more than x N of downforce and test this with a travelling wind tunnel with an airliner turbofan on one end. Or limit peak drag and perform a coastdown at a spec tire pressure during the weekend on a given straight. Wind would be an issue though.
RE forensic accounting
this is the FIA blurb : https://www.fia.com/multimedia/publicat ... 2020-03-06

https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula ... ng-budget/