2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[PlatinumZealot]

Votex tubes bleed excess air. So the calculation have to done done if the power output or reduction in drag from less radiator opening is worth the additional compressor work.

[wogx]

[Hoffman900]

I know people only hear / read what they what to hear / read, but…

“In the first year of the regulations, to have such a new concept of car, with the powertrain frozen, that was not good", "of course we had a lot of frustation being behind Mercedes, both us and Renault were struggling. If we had a chance to introduce some performance modifications during the year, Mercedes would have still won anyway, but we could have made their lives a bit harder"”but we couldn't introduce anything for performance. It was very frustrating already having an engine that was much better on the dyno but not being able to use it because of the regulations. So it was very good that the FIA accepted the change of regulations at the end of 2014, allowing teams to use tokens for performance during the race season".
"I think the FIA did a great job of coordinating the input from different manufacturers. At the very beginning, I remember, Toyota, BMW, and Honda were also present and involved in the definition of the rules. People now claim the rules were designed for Mercedes but that is completely wrong"
"I remember that at the time, some decisions had to be based on the taking the safer route. We thought reliability would have played a major role in the season, but in the end that was not the case. By the time we got to Bahrain we realized the deficit, but there was not time to react because we were already building engines for the first race".
“So we were struggling to handle a racing season where the company was expecting you to succeed, while at the same time you were using the dynos to run the new concept. We paid the price for that in 2013, as we developed the new engine on just one dyno and a single-cylinder engine. The V8 and the new engine could not share the same dyno. It was only at the end of 2013 that were were able to use all our facilities for the new powertrain"... "the overlapping period needed to be done with more redundancy". "This was the approaching taken by Mercedes, which by mid-2013 had a skeleton team working on its V8 program."

- Luca Marmorini from Race Engine Technology Issue 100, Feb 2017

[vorticism]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

[Hoffman900]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Let's set the record straight - with my colleagues I made a smaller size (engine) than Mercedes and Renault because that is what Mr (Nikolas) Tombazis, the project manager of the car, asked for.He said he wanted a very compact PU, with small radiators, because the reduced power would be compensated by aerodynamic solutions that give us an advantage over the Mercedes and Renault cars.

"It was exactly like that, except that when we found the competition, we had less power but the compensation from the aerodynamics was not there."

Marmorini said he was dismissed by Mattiacci, even though "in three months we saw each other twice - first for a greeting, the second when he gave me a letter that confirmed my departure from the company".

"Look, I don't want to accuse anyone," he added. "Really. But Ferrari is entrusting its racing department to inexperienced people who are putting blind faith in certain people who so far have shown nothing."

Marmorini said he is referring to Britons Pat Fry and James Allison.

"Ferrari also runs the risk of damaging the bedrock on which the many past successes were built," he added. "I don't speak for me as I'm already gone.

"But I'm sorry for the good engineers who are still there and demoralised."

[AR3-GP]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Let's set the record straight - with my colleagues I made a smaller size (engine) than Mercedes and Renault because that is what Mr (Nikolas) Tombazis, the project manager of the car, asked for.He said he wanted a very compact PU, with small radiators, because the reduced power would be compensated by aerodynamic solutions that give us an advantage over the Mercedes and Renault cars.

"It was exactly like that, except that when we found the competition, we had less power but the compensation from the aerodynamics was not there."

Marmorini said he was dismissed by Mattiacci, even though "in three months we saw each other twice - first for a greeting, the second when he gave me a letter that confirmed my departure from the company".

"Look, I don't want to accuse anyone," he added. "Really. But Ferrari is entrusting its racing department to inexperienced people who are putting blind faith in certain people who so far have shown nothing."

Marmorini said he is referring to Britons Pat Fry and James Allison.

"Ferrari also runs the risk of damaging the bedrock on which the many past successes were built," he added. "I don't speak for me as I'm already gone.

"But I'm sorry for the good engineers who are still there and demoralised."

Pat Fry and James Allison are highly regardly so in line with Marmorini having been fired, Marmorini almost seems a bit bitter that Ferrari was left in the hands of the "British invaders" (i.e not Italians...). Atleast that's the sentiment I get from it, the way he discusses it. When he says "risk damaging the bedrock upon which many past successes were built". Well that just sounds a heck of a lot like anti-british sentiment.

[Hoffman900]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Let's set the record straight - with my colleagues I made a smaller size (engine) than Mercedes and Renault because that is what Mr (Nikolas) Tombazis, the project manager of the car, asked for.He said he wanted a very compact PU, with small radiators, because the reduced power would be compensated by aerodynamic solutions that give us an advantage over the Mercedes and Renault cars.

"It was exactly like that, except that when we found the competition, we had less power but the compensation from the aerodynamics was not there."

Marmorini said he was dismissed by Mattiacci, even though "in three months we saw each other twice - first for a greeting, the second when he gave me a letter that confirmed my departure from the company".

"Look, I don't want to accuse anyone," he added. "Really. But Ferrari is entrusting its racing department to inexperienced people who are putting blind faith in certain people who so far have shown nothing."

Marmorini said he is referring to Britons Pat Fry and James Allison.

"Ferrari also runs the risk of damaging the bedrock on which the many past successes were built," he added. "I don't speak for me as I'm already gone.

"But I'm sorry for the good engineers who are still there and demoralised."

Pat Fry and James Allison are highly regardly so in line with Marmorini having been fired, Marmorini almost seems a bit bitter that Ferrari was left in the hands of the "British invaders" (i.e not Italians...). Atleast that's the sentiment I get from it, the way he discusses it. When he says "risk damaging the bedrock upon which many past successes were built". Well that just sounds a heck of a lot like anti-british sentiment.

There does seem to be some of that, but Motorsport.com is also a British publication, so there may be some prying at the behest of the writer. Like most things, the real story is probably a lot muddier than it is seemed made.

[AR3-GP]

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Pat Fry and James Allison are highly regardly so in line with Marmorini having been fired, Marmorini almost seems a bit bitter that Ferrari was left in the hands of the "British invaders" (i.e not Italians...). Atleast that's the sentiment I get from it, the way he discusses it. When he says "risk damaging the bedrock upon which many past successes were built". Well that just sounds a heck of a lot like anti-british sentiment.

There does seem to be some of that, but Motorsport.com is also a British publication, so there may be some prying at the behest of the writer. Like most things, the real story is probably a lot muddier than it is seemed made.

Well maybe Motorsport.com was on a fishing expedition, but they didn't make him say anything he didn't already want to say

[mzso]

I wonder what this was about. Not a good idea to link tweets (or anything really) without comment.

[dren]

There does seem to be some of that, but Motorsport.com is also a British publication, so there may be some prying at the behest of the writer. Like most things, the real story is probably a lot muddier than it is seemed made.

It reads like the author took some liberties with the quotes to make it jucier than it really is. Journalism at its finest...

Sounds like Ferrari got caught out a bit like Mclaren-Honda did with the PU size vs aero gains.

[dren]

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.

Couldn't you leave the ICE mappings alone and alter the pedal mappings?

[saviour stivala]

When driver use the OT button the full energy stored in ES at the time is made available true the 'k', meaning more HP to the engine is available, which makes the car go faster. But, for the 'K' and 'H' to be sharing ES available power "free-load-mode'' - ''electric supercharging mode'' when OT button is used, the engine mapping will also have to be called upon, this because ''free-load-mode'' - ''electric supercharger mode'' happens only at full fueling, so if the engine is not at full fueling at the time the OT button is used, the mapping which also contains it (the full fueling mode) cannot be called upon by the OT button. because that will also makes it (the full fueling mode) selectable by the OT button.

[wuzak]

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.

Couldn't you leave the ICE mappings alone and alter the pedal mappings?

I believe that only one pedal mapping is allowed for dry conditions, and one for wet conditions.

[saviour stivala]

Re overtake/defend button. In my opinion the overtake/defend button is allowed deploy/add all energy stored in ES at time used to the crankshaft through the 'K'. This added 'HP' to the crankshaft is 'extra' power call to the ICE throttle demand at time of call (ICE/THROTTLE MAP IN USE). I don't believe that the overtake/defend button allows the 'K' and 'H' to share ES stored energy as this will also involve the ICE mapping to go into full fueling mode (free-load-mode/electric supercharging mode). When the overtake/defend button is called upon by the driver, the ICE is not at full fueling mode, the ICE through the throttle, will be starting its journey to produce full power, and only at full power (10500 rpm) can the maximum fueling flow mode be reached.

[AR3-GP]

When the driver goes off-the-throttle-pedal the engine throttles are closed, as soon as the throttles to each cylinder are closed the pistons inside those cylinders cannot pump anything out of the exhaust valve as they cannot breathe any air. When pistons cannot breathe any air, and have nothing to push into the turbine, the turbine is as good as useless in regards powering/rotating the MGU-H, which when switched into recovery itself needs power so as to harvest/recover. It will be acting like a brake with the turbine having no power to overtake that brake effect.

The throttle isn't entirely closed when the throttle isn't pressed. If it was, the engine would stall for a lack of any oxygen to burn. Thus, cold pumping still happens.

There's a point here, but I think you've gone the wrong way about it.

It's true that an engine has to "idle" when it's disengaged from the transmission by the clutch.

However, when the car is moving at 300km/h and you take your foot off, there is no "throttle input". the engine doesn't "stall" because it's rotation is being driven by the connection between the wheels and the crankshaft. This is a bit like coasting a manual transmission car in gear. There is no fuel input. Only when you put the clutch in do the revs fall to idle revs and idle fueling.