2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Holm86]

How many manufacturers have dry sumped stressed engines in production?
Plus high displacement engines will be at a clear disadvantage with a fuel flow limited formula..

Are you sure about the displacement?? I think that a larger displacement would mean that the turbo should use less energy in creating boost, as the boost pressure would be lower with larger displacement. That means the turbo could use more of its energy for harvesting in the mgu-h, and also would mean that the turbo would need less mgu-h deployment for spooling up. The compressor of the turbo could be smaller, yet the turbine side could stay roughly the same as now??

The turbo is still relevant in making sure the airflow is controlled just as precisely as the fuel flow, but the more the engine can pump air by itself, the better I would think. But I guess there would be an optimal cross over point.
I know a larger displacement would have more internal friction, but don't know how big a factor it would be??

There's a very good reason there is a minimum displacement limit with current engines!

Any pumping work the engine is doing is at the expense of crank power. Compressor energy is much cheaper.
A larger engine has higher friction losses and higher thermal losses, far from optimal for thermal efficiency.
Also, it's bigger!

You could be right, but there was no minimum limit, only a maximum limit of 2 liters in LMP1 when Porsche entered the 2.0 90 degree V4 turbo engine. Why did they not push it with a smaller displacement if it's more efficient?

[63l8qrrfy6]

Are you sure about the displacement?? I think that a larger displacement would mean that the turbo should use less energy in creating boost, as the boost pressure would be lower with larger displacement. That means the turbo could use more of its energy for harvesting in the mgu-h, and also would mean that the turbo would need less mgu-h deployment for spooling up. The compressor of the turbo could be smaller, yet the turbine side could stay roughly the same as now??

The turbo is still relevant in making sure the airflow is controlled just as precisely as the fuel flow, but the more the engine can pump air by itself, the better I would think. But I guess there would be an optimal cross over point.
I know a larger displacement would have more internal friction, but don't know how big a factor it would be??

There's a very good reason there is a minimum displacement limit with current engines!

Any pumping work the engine is doing is at the expense of crank power. Compressor energy is much cheaper.
A larger engine has higher friction losses and higher thermal losses, far from optimal for thermal efficiency.
Also, it's bigger!

You could be right, but there was no minimum limit, only a maximum limit of 2 liters in LMP1 when Porsche entered the 2.0 90 degree V4 turbo engine. Why did they not push it with a smaller displacement if it's more efficient?

Because power was set by regulations by adjusting the fuel flow for each manufacturer individually so thermal efficiency was not as rewarding. Which is why Toyota won with a N/A 3.7l V8..

In F1 the fuel flow rate is the same for everyone so the best TE brings the most power.

[flexcon]

So a few posts in this topic have gotten me pondering on two specific questions

1)With the new Ban on Engine Mapping changes after Qualifying, are any of these engines now running at the max fuel flow rate of 105kg/h. I cannot seem to thing of any way the teams could now offer this to their driver based on the new map rules - except for a thought on point 2

2) Variable resistance in the accelerator pedal?

So I have read that its against the rules for the throttle to be broken up into different stages. This would be easy of course allowing different maps to kick in depending on the throttle position.

However, what about a scenario where the driver must "push" "hard" right at the end of the accelerator to allow the engine full power for a moment in time. So no obvious step in the accelerator but rather a clever higher resistance the further down the accelerator went, thus allowing a comfortable pressure for race mode, but a harder push of the pedal to give the maximum power output for overtaking for example?. Is this possible?

[Zynerji]

So a few posts in this topic have gotten me pondering on two specific questions

1)With the new Ban on Engine Mapping changes after Qualifying, are any of these engines now running at the max fuel flow rate of 105kg/h. I cannot seem to thing of any way the teams could now offer this to their driver based on the new map rules - except for a thought on point 2

2) Variable resistance in the accelerator pedal?

So I have read that its against the rules for the throttle to be broken up into different stages. This would be easy of course allowing different maps to kick in depending on the throttle position.

However, what about a scenario where the driver must "push" "hard" right at the end of the accelerator to allow the engine full power for a moment in time. So no obvious step in the accelerator but rather a clever higher resistance the further down the accelerator went, thus allowing a comfortable pressure for race mode, but a harder push of the pedal to give the maximum power output for overtaking for example?. Is this possible?

Isn't this exactly what the "overtake" button on the steering wheel does?

[flexcon]

Isn't this exactly what the "overtake" button on the steering wheel does?

I assumed the overtake button was just an override for the pre agreed ERS map (recovery vs performance) and not to change the MAP anymore since that is now banned.

[Zynerji]

Isn't this exactly what the "overtake" button on the steering wheel does?

I assumed the overtake button was just an override for the pre agreed ERS map (recovery vs performance) and not to change the MAP anymore since that is now banned.

I always thought is was a current map "modifier". So, can modify multiple variables.

I could be 100% incorrect in my assumption, so I'm open to more knowledgeable posters weighing in.

[godlameroso]

Typically when you refer to engine mapping you mean fuel and timing advance tables creating a map of the how the engine behaves. I don't know if that's the type of maps they're referring to in the "one map to rule them all" rule. I would imagine that these maps have some influence on ERS harvesting and deployment, but not a whole lot. That ERS strategies are somewhat independent of engine maps, and that due to the nature of these power units, you still have a difference between qualifying and the race. That has to do with the unlimited energy pathways, and whether they count to the 4MJ SOC limit.

[saviour stivala]

A more aggressive or less aggressive power unit mode involves Engine maps, fuelling and ignition timing, ERS harvesting and deploying as well as overtaking button use. They are all part of a power unit ‘MODE’. The directive ‘’only one power unit mode to be used from qualifying to end of race’’. But not from track-to-track. Would all have been worked-out as operating conditions in advance on the dyno and simulations for a particular track. A more aggressive or less aggressive mode cannot now be used.

[gruntguru]

Or a boost pressure limit?

I suggest you read the 647 pages of this thread and see if you can work out why that is not a useful suggestion.

[hurril]

For the short future, would another current sensor and energy recovery limit for the MGU-H put a big brake on development?

At the moment MGU-H is unrestricted. A limit could equalise the difference in performance between the manufacturers.

Any thoughts?

Again: why? What problem is this trying to solve? How about: Lewis Hamilton must only be allowed to drive flawlessly for 4/5 tracks and only 2/3 laps on those laps.

Any thoughts?

What about less water in the drink bottle?

[NL_Fer]

For the short future, would another current sensor and energy recovery limit for the MGU-H put a big brake on development?

At the moment MGU-H is unrestricted. A limit could equalise the difference in performance between the manufacturers.

Any thoughts?

Again: why? What problem is this trying to solve? How about: Lewis Hamilton must only be allowed to drive flawlessly for 4/5 tracks and only 2/3 laps on those laps.

Any thoughts?

What about less water in the drink bottle?

Because the last decade I have been watching the best drivers of the world wasting their talent in shitty cars.

This year is horrible. Only 2 cars that are championship eligible and even than one is 0,3s faster.

Honestly the fun of an open class is gone when teams can put 900 engineer en several gigaquads of supercomputing powers to calculate the best result.

[hurril]

For the short future, would another current sensor and energy recovery limit for the MGU-H put a big brake on development?

At the moment MGU-H is unrestricted. A limit could equalise the difference in performance between the manufacturers.

Any thoughts?

Again: why? What problem is this trying to solve? How about: Lewis Hamilton must only be allowed to drive flawlessly for 4/5 tracks and only 2/3 laps on those laps.

Any thoughts?

What about less water in the drink bottle?

Because the last decade I have been watching the best drivers of the world wasting their talent in shitty cars.

This year is horrible. Only 2 cars that are championship eligible and even than one is 0,3s faster.

Honestly the fun of an open class is gone when teams can put 900 engineer en several gigaquads of supercomputing powers to calculate the best result.

It is a driver and car championship. Sometimes someone manages to build the better car and if that isn't what you like then maybe you should look at other forms of motor sport where that cannot happen. Why should F1 have to adopt your preferences?

[godlameroso]

It doesn't, but if no one cares about F1 then it won't exist.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Luckly I'd like to believe most forum users want to see a technological war just as much as they enjoy a good race.
Otherwise we'd have engine and aero BOP and F1 would be an instrument for measuring driver ability. I personally don't care for that.

Imagine the wonderful place this forum would be if all we had to debate was driver performance.

[godlameroso]

Detonation may not add much meaningful energy to the piston(I disagree, seen detonation launch enough pistons through a cylinder head), it can have a very powerful effect at the turbine.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-577

If you can time the detonations, and the associated turbine acceleration you could increase MGU-H harvesting.