2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

Several things to say, guess I have to start somewhere. And yes, I know I am digging up a dead and buried horse to beat it again, but I actually do have a point to make.

Ringo, Machin was talking about a theoretical constant power machine, which does not currently exist. He mentioned in passing that it would gain no benefit from a transmission. You argued that point with him. You then, in your OWN calculations, noted that with his theoretical constant power machine, which does not exist at present, as the rpm's aproached 0 the torque aproached infinity. You then said something to the effect of "that doesn't look right" and never mentioned it again.

However, you continued to argue that this theoretical, nonexistant constant power maching would still benefit from multiplying whatever torque through a transmission. And this is where we get to my point.

You aparently did not pause for a full second to ponder the ramifications of your own calculations. You glanced at them, concluded that they didn't look right, and moved on. This is really important, because it's a mistake that's been made by thousands of fully qualified engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone and everyone who has ever had need or cause to "do the math". It's caused god only knows how many fatalities throughout history.

A theoretical constant power machine, which does not exist at present, would indeed see it's torque aproach infinity as it's rpm's aproached 0. This is by definition. Now attach whatever reduction gear you please, and multiply this machines torque by the correct factor. What do you get when you multiply infinity by X?

I don't mean to be pedantic, but this really is an important issue considering you seem to be either in a field requiring you to "do the math" or in training for one. You did the math, didn't like the answer, blew it off, and juggled the figures until the results looked more "right". That's the cardinal sin, man.

Now, when Machin posited this whole thing to begin with, he mused over the possibility of 2013 cars running fewer transmission ratios. Someone countered that all cars run the maximum number of ratios allowed. This is demonstrably false. Before there were 7 speed boxes, there were 6 speed units, with no rule limiting the number of ratios. They could have run more, they just didn't feel the need.

Historically, the number of forward ratios is superficially tied to powerband, but since that is in large part a user tunable comodity, you'd really have to say it's tied to how long it takes to shift and how dangerous that shift is. In a world of multi second shifts and very fragile transmissions, you tend to have 2 or maybe 3 forward ratios and large displacement forced induction engines. If you can manage to shift fewer times than the other guys there's a very real chance that's all you need to win.

All indications are that the future engine will be capable of a very broad powerband compared to anything that's been hooked up to a 7 speed F1 gearbox. Complexity is still the enemy of reliability, so is it possible future cars will have fewer forward speeds without a rule mandating it?

Well if this were a few years ago and transmission failures were still a common occurance, I'd say not only possible but nearly guaranteed. But there is a maximum reliability that any human assembled system is capable of, and todays units are pretty darned reliable. They also shift so quickly and have so little impact on the cars handling that you'd have to have a very good reason for fooling with them. The only way I see using fewer forward ratios is for a Williams type installation, where they need the volume for aero reasons.

Oh, and White Blue, this one really is pedantic, but I'm fairly certain there is not a driver on the grid who wants his brakes to break, or for that matter have his car break while he's on the brakes.

well what you failed to realize is that i did agree with Machin on the subject. The car's acceleration would be the same.
More than one gear makes sense only at the initial move of, since we are dealing with a car that can have infinite torque, and simply cannot idle at zero engine speed. An extra high gear may make traction possible at move off with such high torque.
The single gear can be used for whatever top speed is needed.

I did not juggle anything. The engine accelerations vary with different gears. That was my only mistake. I don't fool around with numbers.

I am not shy to say i made a mistake. The truth is the truth.

[Sayshina]

Then I will apologize, I read 50 pages in a single go, and I missed any mention to that effect.

Moving on, on the subject of recycling Lithium, someone made the comment that it's still there and therefore subject to potential recycling. This is technically true. You went on to mention nuclear reactors and how the uranium and/or plutonium are still there. Boy did you pick a bad example.

In any case, the Li will not actually all still be there. Entropy dictates that some of it will wander off and get lost. More importantly, just because it's still there does not mean it's cost effective to retrieve. Going back to your nuclear example, yes, most of it is still there, but things have been done to it that make it significantly more dangerous to play with than what you originally dug out of the ground.

Ringo, during your refueling defense you made a comparison to fighter aircraft. You are in reality wrong there. A very large internal fuel load has historically been a deciding factor in air combat, and just a short list of examples off the top of my head would include the F-22, SU-27, F-14, F-15, F4, P-51 and P-38.

Combat pilots are trained to think in terms of energy. If one plane is at a higher elevation, he has more energy. If he has more fuel in the tank, he has more energy. You have to remember that empty tankage has very little mass for its volume, that a relatively large increase in total volume only requires a small increase in frontal area, and that both your speed and your agility are realistically dependant on your available fuel.

You don't see this directly in F1 because of the structure of the format, but you can find clear examples in other formats. From Nascar to Indy to 24hr endurance, anywhere you require multiple fuel stops they are forced to also require a maximum onboard fuel capacity. The original Audi deisel certainly have a number of advantages over its rivals, but one of the greatest was its ability to go a couple of extra laps between every stop.

I honestly was not aware there was such a thing as a fan of refueling. To my mind it's fundamentally anti-racing, as are mandatory tire stops, mandatory compound changes, grooved tires, ect. They're all examples of what happens when lawyers get to make technical decisions.

Someone here argued that refueling was banned in order to promote efficiency, which runs counter to the way I remember things going. Refueling was introduced, almost imediatly banned (and rightfully so), reintroduced because they thought it would "spice up the show" and later banned when it failed miserably to spice up the show, because they hoped that banning it would "spice up the show".

As for banning it the first time, I don't see how you can claim they shouldn't have. It was clearly going to be necessary for all teams to immediately follow suit, and it was just as clearly going to be far too dangerous to allow that to happen without strong regulation, which the sanctioning body was not in any position to handle. You have to remember that at that time it was common for reporters and VIP's to wander across the pit lane, there was no speed limit, and pit crews wore shorts and ballcaps. The F1 of back then was just not professional enough to carry out a switch to refueling with an acceptable level of risk. Drivers could die, even the odd corner worker or crew member, but ask Mercedes what happens when something with your name on it becomes involved in the deaths of large numbers of fans.

Meh, refueling is crap. All it's done for F1 is put drivers into waiting patterns, hoping they can "pass" the car in front of them in the pits so they won't have to take chances doing it on the track. Anything that takes the drivers destiny out of his own hands sucks. I know it supposedly adds to the "team" aspect of the sport, but all of these artificial variables come from the same source. The people who make the rules have noticed that the most exciting races are usually ones where the fastest driver has had a bad day for some reason, and is forced to play catchup. The FIA is constantly trying to create that dynamic artificially, and they assume the fans are too stupid to notice the difference between fake and natural.

Oh, and exotic fuels weren't banned for efficiency reasons either. Somebody published a photo of the Ferrari crew refueling their car wearing practically full hazmat suits, and the public started asking the sort of questions that send lawyers screaming for the woods. You know, like "Could my kid get cancer from going to a F1 race?". Remember, F1 is run by lawyers. It shouldn't be a surprise that the fuel regs were changed to require pump gas, as in the same stuff mommy and daddy have been exposing you to for years.

[FW17]

More crazy talk from BE

"I meet people worldwide in all different walks of life - sponsors, promoters and journalists and I think there are two things that are really important for Formula One," Ecclestone told AAP. "One is Ferrari and second is the noise. People love and get excited about the noise. People who have never been to a Formula One race, when they leave you ask them what (they liked) and they say 'the noise'.

"I'm anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula," he added. "We don't need it and if it's so important it's the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing. The rest of it is basically PR - it's nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport. I'm sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I'm quite sure we'll lose TV."

He admitted that he does not see eye-to-eye with FIA president Jean Todt on the issue.

"He's not a promoter and he's not selling Formula One to be honest. Jean and I are a little bit at loggerheads over this engine. I don't see the reason for it. We had the KERS and this was supposed to solve the problem that Formula One is not green and now we've got something else."

Seriously! when is the WMSC signing off on the 2013 engine?

[CMSMJ1]

One of the most sensible quotes from BE in a long while.

Keep road relevance to the WTC series. Let F1 do the technology...

[FW17]

One of the most sensible quotes from BE in a long while.

Keep road relevance to the WTC series. Let F1 do the technology...

You mean to say keep the engine freeze year after year with an engine developed for 2006 and turn into NASCAR pushrod engine of 2013?

That is crazy, F1 needs innovation and the only way of doing that is with a smaller capacity engine with multiple forms of energy recovery.

We don't need another year of Renault bitching about Mercedes, everyone needs something new to talk about.

F1 also needs more than 3.5 engine suppliers.

[alelanza]

One of the most sensible quotes from BE in a long while.

Keep road relevance to the WTC series. Let F1 do the technology...

Agree. I don't often agree with what he says, but he has it spot on this time around.

[CMSMJ1]

@ Williams

Why can they not have a fuel limit and that is it?

Allow Kers, Hers..whatever. Just stop the FIA mandating a road car motor.

The V8s are awesome. The V10s were better... I never heard one of the V12s in person...but I bet you don't forget it!!

[Sayshina]

@ Williams

Why can they not have a fuel limit and that is it?

Allow Kers, Hers..whatever. Just stop the FIA mandating a road car motor.

The V8s are awesome. The V10s were better... I never heard one of the V12s in person...but I bet you don't forget it!!

Bernie has said on the record that he wants a single spec engine. He wants car manufacturers to be nothing more than badge sponsors. He has also said many times that the "average fan" does not know and does not care what's under the bodywork of an F1 car. In other words, he thinks we're all profoundly stupid. I don't think we should be looking to Bernie for technical leadership.

I am clueless about the whole "awesome sound" arguement. It makes no sense to me at all. The 2-stroke 500 gp bikes were vastly superior to todays silly 4-strokes. They were fire breathing dragons, and so what if they did sound like mopeds? Maybe it's because I first went to a F1 race when Mario Andretti was racing, but I just don't get it. You guys sound exactly like those guys 30 years ago who screamed that racing was dead and we should all go back to the glorious '60's when men were men. F1 engines have NEVER sounded the way they do today, throughout it's history. And yet you seem to think that the last few years are the only ones that are good, or at least good enough.

I also don't get all the complaints about efficiency. A lot of guys here have said something to the effect that efficiency has no place in racing. Do you really not understand that every engine builder in racing strives to make their designes as efficient as possible, regardless of the rules? Nascar chases efficiency, of course F1 does as well. Always has, always should.

The real problem with the new engine rules is that the FIA doesn't seem to have a clue. They want a standard configuration because they want a team to be able to change engine partners and simply hook up the new unit and move on. They don't seem to have the slightest idea how much detail work is still left to sort out. They want a "universal engine" because they still think it will tempt more manufacturers in. Well, when was the last time a F1 race was won by an engine not specifically designed for F1 from the outset? That stopped being possible decades ago.

We can expect many more restrictions to come. We might see variable valve timing, partly because manufacturers might want it for marketing purposes, and mostly because it does little to nothing to improve the performance of a race engine. We're clearly going to have heavy restrictions on turbo's, if not a spec unit, because the cost of a turbo war would be much greater than the cost of the already restricted bore and stroke ratio.

I'd expect most of the other rules to look a lot like todays, and I'd be very surprised if we don't have another engine freeze within 3 or 4 seasons of the new rules. The same people are in charge, it's fantasy to think they'll make radically different decisions in the near future than they've made in the recent past.

[PlatinumZealot]

More crazy talk from BE

"I meet people worldwide in all different walks of life - sponsors, promoters and journalists and I think there are two things that are really important for Formula One," Ecclestone told AAP. "One is Ferrari and second is the noise. People love and get excited about the noise. People who have never been to a Formula One race, when they leave you ask them what (they liked) and they say 'the noise'.

"I'm anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula," he added. "We don't need it and if it's so important it's the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing. The rest of it is basically PR - it's nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport. I'm sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I'm quite sure we'll lose TV."

He admitted that he does not see eye-to-eye with FIA president Jean Todt on the issue.

"He's not a promoter and he's not selling Formula One to be honest. Jean and I are a little bit at loggerheads over this engine. I don't see the reason for it. We had the KERS and this was supposed to solve the problem that Formula One is not green and now we've got something else."

Seriously! when is the WMSC signing off on the 2013 engine?

I agree with bernie.. we should keep the engines and add the turbos.

[noname]

I agree with bernie.. we should keep the engines and add the turbos.

Turbos for I4 will be huge (think of something you can find under the bonnet of the trucks) and packaging would be a serious issue, the ones for the current engines would be even bigger. We may forget small sidepods and tight asses of the current F1 bolids.

As for the noise, if the turbos would be wastegated (and I bet they will) they will create enough of noise by themselves... one we can not here at the moment.

[horse]

One of the most sensible quotes from BE in a long while.

Keep road relevance to the WTC series. Let F1 do the technology...

Dying technology is that? Let's face it, every car manufacturer is preparing to change their drives trains and performance manufacturers will be under the most pressure to bring down their CO2 output / cost per mile. Having F1 on the forefront of this technological change is exactly the right thing to do and reduces the folley of the whole affair. F1 is very proud of its technological hand-me-downs and I'm sure there are a number of engine manufactures who would love to be leaders in high performance, low carbon technologies.

As for TV leaving because of a formula change - what twaddle!

[agip]

Twitter @ ScarbsF1

Rumours of a delay in introducing the small capacity turbos in 2013, might now be 1 to 2 years later

[godlameroso]

I agree with bernie.. we should keep the engines and add the turbos.

Turbos for I4 will be huge (think of something you can find under the bonnet of the trucks) and packaging would be a serious issue, the ones for the current engines would be even bigger. We may forget small sidepods and tight asses of the current F1 bolids.

As for the noise, if the turbos would be wastegated (and I bet they will) they will create enough of noise by themselves... one we can not here at the moment.

The turbo won't be that big. To make 600bhp from 1.6 liters assuming no restrictor you need something like this

[Holm86]

I agree with bernie.. we should keep the engines and add the turbos.

Turbos for I4 will be huge (think of something you can find under the bonnet of the trucks) and packaging would be a serious issue, the ones for the current engines would be even bigger. We may forget small sidepods and tight asses of the current F1 bolids.

As for the noise, if the turbos would be wastegated (and I bet they will) they will create enough of noise by themselves... one we can not here at the moment.

What on earth are you talking about? The turbos dont need to be that big.

And almost all turbos are wastegated except for those with variable geometry. So why should that influence the noise?
I bet you are thinking of tuned street cars with open wastegates that bypasses the entire exhaust system. That ofcourse makes alot of noise but on a f1 car the exhaust system aint dampening much of the sound anyways.

[noname]

The turbo won't be that big. To make 600bhp from 1.6 liters assuming no restrictor you need something like this

That's one of the commercial TCs we are doing, rather small toy. Good enough to make the sprint from the lights.

Try to estimate mass flow, required boost, outlet temperature and pressure ratio for the 1.6 revved to >10k RPM, keep in mind you want low delta P and you will know the size of the wheels you need to put inside.

The one for R18 is far bigger than this, and the ones for F1 would be even bigger.