2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[saviour stivala]

The resultant effects on the internal combustion engine operational mode by the use of only one engine mode during qualifying and race as mandated by the rules. ‘’Although the teams also retains the use of ‘overtake button’, this must only affect the ‘energy deployment’ and have no effect on the way that the ‘internal combustion engine’ runs’’.

Actually, we don't know that for sure. The issue is, as far as i know, this "rule" was only ever writen down in a technical directive. Unfortunately TDs aren't published on the FIA page so we don't know the exact wording they used. I would really like to see the original document because often enough what we get through the media outlets is inaccurate when it comes to such things.
It's like "any doesn't mean all." The exact wording can be very importent in such cases.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29310

I reckon this was the very long thread that would give the answers.

My recall is that the engine (ICE) modes could no longer be amended between qually and race - therefore the ICE maps were set at commencement of Qually. The overtake is an ERS deployment rather than engine ICE mapping.

Happy to be educated, but am working..and a 45 page thread isn't part of my workload today

Yes correct, the ''only one engine mode for qualifying and race'' directive eleminated the 'selectable by the driver' level of agressivness of the ICE apart from other possible things. Before said directive the overtake/defend button used to be 'qualifying mode with selecable by the driver levels of agressivness of the ICE and ERS deployment combined. Now the overtake/defend button is just 'full ERS deploy', not only without 'selectable' changes in the way the ICE is run, but also without the possibility of the driver selecting or being instructed to select a level of deploy. (only full deploy).

[johnny comelately]

A request to any German speaking members, is there anything significant in this:

[vorticism]

Does anyone know how this era came to be? How involved were Mercedes before 2014 in the drafting of these regs and generally in pushing for an end to the NA era?

[Holm86]

Does anyone know how this era came to be? How involved were Mercedes before 2014 in the drafting of these regs and generally in pushing for an end to the NA era?

As far as I remember, it was Jean Todt who brought up the idea of a global race engine, where the same block was used all across F1, WRC, WEC etc. just with different hp outputs.

The regulations started as a 1.6 4 cylinder, but Ferrari lobbied FIA to change that to a V6. When Mercedes entered in 2010 the regulations was pretty far in their writings I believe.

[vorticism]

Does anyone know how this era came to be? How involved were Mercedes before 2014 in the drafting of these regs and generally in pushing for an end to the NA era?

As far as I remember, it was Jean Todt who brought up the idea of a global race engine, where the same block was used all across F1, WRC, WEC etc. just with different hp outputs.

The regulations started as a 1.6 4 cylinder, but Ferrari lobbied FIA to change that to a V6. When Mercedes entered in 2010 the regulations was pretty far in their writings I believe.

Do you think Renault or Ferrari had any idea they were going to be shooting themselves in the foot for eight seasons?

Were running costs that slim that Ferrari were on board with a spec engine block? How much did the 2008 economy factor in?

[vorticism]

I'm hearing the 2013 engine rules are: mandated 1.6l I4 turbo, 88mm bores, direct injection, 100kg\h fuel flow rate.

That is great news!!! We are going to have progress with the engines eventually. I don't really mind that they mandate a L4. It is not so short and rigid as a V4 but should be very efficient friction wise.

The 88 mm bore is just one mm outside of the 87 mm GRE specification. So they want to signal that it is not GRE but allow the GRE manufacturers to use their basic designs.

I'm not too surprised by the fuel flow limit either. Today we have 150 kg per race and the FiA wants to cut this to 70% at least. So they are aiming for 105 kg of race fuel. At full throttle the flow restriction would give us 133.3 kg for a 80 min race. It means that the race would be run at an average of 79% of peak power. That makes sense.

bump

[Holm86]

Does anyone know how this era came to be? How involved were Mercedes before 2014 in the drafting of these regs and generally in pushing for an end to the NA era?

As far as I remember, it was Jean Todt who brought up the idea of a global race engine, where the same block was used all across F1, WRC, WEC etc. just with different hp outputs.

The regulations started as a 1.6 4 cylinder, but Ferrari lobbied FIA to change that to a V6. When Mercedes entered in 2010 the regulations was pretty far in their writings I believe.

Do you think Renault or Ferrari had any idea they were going to be shooting themselves in the foot for eight seasons?

Were running costs that slim that Ferrari were on board with a spec engine block? How much did the 2008 economy factor in?

No, I think it was a matter of Mercedes being really good at thinking outside the box, and getting a concept that really worked well early on.

The 2008 economic recession played a big role, and I think even more the big focus on the environment at that time.
Thats why Jean Todt had a vision that F1 should be leaders in fuel efficiency, and these regulations are actually very well thought through, and they gave us the most efficient engines in any cars ever. Only thing I don't like is the sound, and thats nothing to do with the volume, or the turbos, but I just don't like the frequency of a odd firing 90° V6 engine ...

[vorticism]

As far as I remember, it was Jean Todt who brought up the idea of a global race engine, where the same block was used all across F1, WRC, WEC etc. just with different hp outputs.

The regulations started as a 1.6 4 cylinder, but Ferrari lobbied FIA to change that to a V6. When Mercedes entered in 2010 the regulations was pretty far in their writings I believe.

Do you think Renault or Ferrari had any idea they were going to be shooting themselves in the foot for eight seasons?

Were running costs that slim that Ferrari were on board with a spec engine block? How much did the 2008 economy factor in?

No, I think it was a matter of Mercedes being really good at thinking outside the box, and getting a concept that really worked well early on.

The 2008 economic recession played a big role, and I think even more the big focus on the environment at that time.
Thats why Jean Todt had a vision that F1 should be leaders in fuel efficiency, and these regulations are actually very well thought through, and they gave us the most efficient engines in any cars ever. Only thing I don't like is the sound, and thats nothing to do with the volume, or the turbos, but I just don't like the frequency of a odd firing 90° V6 engine ...

There was some engineering intrigue in maximizing the efficiency of a race engine, but ultimately it was a contrived feather in the cap. It came at the cost of a heavier car, more expensive development, the general aesthetic appeal (vs more balanced/smoother multi cylinder engines). A downside of the formula becoming more political. Auto makers and motorsports itself lost its halo car, the F1 car. They tried to rebrand what a halo car/series was by saying that a fuel flow rate is just as important as a lap time. They tried to make F1 about being a moral paragon, but it never was that. The result was as boring as a Hollywood reboot.

I'm not sure how transferable the IP was to the manufacturers, f.e. Toyota did not compete in this formula yet still compete in the consumer market for the same sales.

[gruntguru]

The idea of a fuel flow regulated engine was floated by Keith Duckworth several decades ago. It has considerable merit and can only be partly blamed for the shortcomings of the current formula.

[NL_Fer]

Does anyone know how this era came to be? How involved were Mercedes before 2014 in the drafting of these regs and generally in pushing for an end to the NA era?

It was both Mercedes and Renault pushing for an efficient turbo 4 cilinder and Audi/VW in the background hinting a return if such an engine would be ruled. Than somewhere 2011-2012 Merc discovered the benefit of a split turbo in a V6 engine and started backing Ferrari for a V6 instead of an i4.

After 2008 most big manufacturers wanted to showcase their “green” efficient technology, except Ferrari. Ironic they have the best engine it the end…

[NL_Fer]

Actually, we don't know that for sure. The issue is, as far as i know, this "rule" was only ever writen down in a technical directive. Unfortunately TDs aren't published on the FIA page so we don't know the exact wording they used. I would really like to see the original document because often enough what we get through the media outlets is inaccurate when it comes to such things.
It's like "any doesn't mean all." The exact wording can be very importent in such cases.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29310

I reckon this was the very long thread that would give the answers.

My recall is that the engine (ICE) modes could no longer be amended between qually and race - therefore the ICE maps were set at commencement of Qually. The overtake is an ERS deployment rather than engine ICE mapping.

Happy to be educated, but am working..and a 45 page thread isn't part of my workload today

Yes correct, the ''only one engine mode for qualifying and race'' directive eleminated the 'selectable by the driver' level of agressivness of the ICE apart from other possible things. Before said directive the overtake/defend button used to be 'qualifying mode with selecable by the driver levels of agressivness of the ICE and ERS deployment combined. Now the overtake/defend button is just 'full ERS deploy', not only without 'selectable' changes in the way the ICE is run, but also without the possibility of the driver selecting or being instructed to select a level of deploy. (only full deploy).

They can demand more electric supercharge mode with the overtake button, because it is only another form of electric deployment. For example, if in a straight on a normal mapping you have 5 seconds e-supercharge, with the overtake button you get 10 seconds of e-supercharge.

But I still believe they can exploit e-supercharge to use an agressive part the mapping. Because the fixed mapping will have area’s for all deployment states of the powerunit.

[Tzk]

Iirc the decision against the I4 and for the V6 was made because the V6 can attach with both cylinderheads to the monocoque, effectively giving better load paths and a stiffer car, because the mounting points from the monocoque to the engine are further apart. So it's easier to get good torsional between the monocoque and the rear suspension. If they had gode for a I4 engine, then they'd either need additional reinforcements to widen the mounting points or the loads on the engine would've been a lot higher than now.

No clue why they stuck to 1.6L, (also iirc) they wanted four cylinders and 1.6L, as per-cylinder volume would've been 400ml then. Most efficient roadcars got about 400-500ml of cylinder volume. For example 1.2L I3 or 1.6 to 2L I4. Or even 2.5L I5, 3L I6 or V6. Or even 4L V8.

[mzso]

Iirc the decision against the I4 and for the V6 was made because the V6 can attach with both cylinderheads to the monocoque, effectively giving better load paths and a stiffer car, because the mounting points from the monocoque to the engine are further apart.

I remember that Ferrari simply vetoed the straight four engines. Because they had no engine of relevance.

[Stu]

Iirc the decision against the I4 and for the V6 was made because the V6 can attach with both cylinderheads to the monocoque, effectively giving better load paths and a stiffer car, because the mounting points from the monocoque to the engine are further apart.

I remember that Ferrari simply vetoed the straight four engines. Because they had no engine of relevance.

Ferrari. Irrelevant. Not a shock!!

[saviour stivala]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29310

I reckon this was the very long thread that would give the answers.

My recall is that the engine (ICE) modes could no longer be amended between qually and race - therefore the ICE maps were set at commencement of Qually. The overtake is an ERS deployment rather than engine ICE mapping.

Happy to be educated, but am working..and a 45 page thread isn't part of my workload today

Yes correct, the ''only one engine mode for qualifying and race'' directive eleminated the 'selectable by the driver' level of agressivness of the ICE apart from other possible things. Before said directive the overtake/defend button used to be 'qualifying mode with selecable by the driver levels of agressivness of the ICE and ERS deployment combined. Now the overtake/defend button is just 'full ERS deploy', not only without 'selectable' changes in the way the ICE is run, but also without the possibility of the driver selecting or being instructed to select a level of deploy. (only full deploy).

They can demand more electric supercharge mode with the overtake button, because it is only another form of electric deployment. For example, if in a straight on a normal mapping you have 5 seconds e-supercharge, with the overtake button you get 10 seconds of e-supercharge.

But I still believe they can exploit e-supercharge to use an agressive part the mapping. Because the fixed mapping will have area’s for all deployment states of the powerunit.

The driver cannot 'select' a level of deploy. Only full deploy. How agressive full deploy is depends on the level of agresivness of the engine map chosen for qualifying and race. A selected engine map for qualifying and race can contain full deply of ES power stored at time of deployment through the MGU-K. or a more agresive engine map can be selected for qualifying and race that contain full deploy of ES power stored at time of deplyment which is shared by both MGU-K and MGU-H, (engine in electric supercharger mode with waste-gates open) - maximum power possible.