2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

I may have understood wrong but my impression is that both units will share one common battery. And the rules allow a mechanical link only from the MGU-H to the turbine. And the harvested and stored energy can be used by both units as demanded for driving the wheels and eliminating turbo lag respectively.

That is mainly correct, but there can be an electrical link between the MGU-H and the MGU-K. It opens the option to consume the generated energy from the MGU-H by the MGU-K without having it stored intermediately by the ES (battery). That way the losses are only occurring in the electric inverters that modulate the electricity and not for loading and unloading the battery.

[WhiteBlue]

Is it legal on the new engines to offset the cylinder bore from the center of the crankshaft?? Some engines has this to reduce friction and gain a bit more torque.

I do not remember any paragraph in the technical regulations that would prohibit such a design. AFAIK they define the bore, the sweep volume, the V-angle, the number of cylinders, the CoG, the positioning of the turbo shaft relative to the crank shaft, the orientation of the exhaust ports and those are pretty much all geometric restrictions you have.

[Holm86]

Is it legal on the new engines to offset the cylinder bore from the center of the crankshaft?? Some engines has this to reduce friction and gain a bit more torque.

I do not remember any paragraph in the technical regulations that would prohibit such a design. AFAIK they define the bore, the sweep volume, the V-angle, the number of cylinders, the CoG, the positioning of the turbo shaft relative to the crank shaft, the orientation of the exhaust ports and those are pretty much all geometric restrictions you have.

So it should be legal. But then the question is if you would gain anything by such a design in a race engine.

[Dragonfly]

Current V8 regulation also define the spacing between cylinder bore centers.

Is it legal on the new engines to offset the cylinder bore from the center of the crankshaft?? Some engines has this to reduce friction and gain a bit more torque.

Its just offset by a few mills so when peakpressure occurs the piston rod is parallel to the cylinderwall so the peakpressure forces i directet straight down to the crank.

Isn't this leading to the same effect like having the piston pins slightly off-center.

[Holm86]

Current V8 regulation also define the spacing between cylinder bore centers.

Is it legal on the new engines to offset the cylinder bore from the center of the crankshaft?? Some engines has this to reduce friction and gain a bit more torque.

Its just offset by a few mills so when peakpressure occurs the piston rod is parallel to the cylinderwall so the peakpressure forces i directet straight down to the crank.

Isn't this leading to the same effect like having the piston pins slightly off-center.

Yes its the same. But if you offset the pins the piston will still tip slightly. Offsetting the bore should prevent the piston from tipping. Reducing friction.

I have read that Mitsubishi did this on their new 1.8 diesel in the lancer etc.

[agip]

Could someone explain this to me please?

(from the Racecar Engineering article)

"The fuel flow limit and tank size on the new cars will result in much lower downforce levels, with the cars running Monza levels of downforce at Monaco."

Are they really going to be that slow?

[WhiteBlue]

Could someone explain this to me please? (from the Racecar Engineering article)

"The fuel flow limit and tank size on the new cars will result in much lower downforce levels, with the cars running Monza levels of downforce at Monaco."

Are they really going to be that slow?

This is something that puzzeled me as well. Irrespective of the tank size and fuel flow limit the available power should be very simillar. They should not have to compromise that much. If they are down in power by 5 percent it should Not have that much impact on downforce. There was a plan long time ago to go to a tunnel floor with much lower downforce, but it was bined by the teams. Perhaps that is what White referred to by error.

[Timstr]

Isn't it a reference to the more restrictive 2014 aero regulations which will result in much lower downforce levels, in combination with limitations on power generation due to fuel restrictions?

[aleks_ader]

That is mainly correct, but there can be an electrical link between the MGU-H and the MGU-K. It opens the option to consume the generated energy from the MGU-H by the MGU-K without having it stored intermediately by the ES (battery). That way the losses are only occurring in the electric inverters that modulate the electricity and not for loading and unloading the battery.

Are you sure that? Is alowed to do that "loop boonding"? Or is that grey area of 2014 engine rules? In the rules explicity explaines that MGU-H and MGU-K most have two dividet connections (like we all already mentioned)... In rules are also written numbers of (i dont know exactly how much from my head, i must check again and serch it) alowable energy usage per lap... Maybe im wrong but i will check this out...

[Tommy Cookers]

the 2014 limit on energy/lap is in the megaJoule range for this reason ?

[Tommy Cookers]

Current V8 regulation also define the spacing between cylinder bore centers.

Is it legal on the new engines to offset the cylinder bore from the center of the crankshaft?? Some engines has this to reduce friction and gain a bit more torque.

Its just offset by a few mills so when peakpressure occurs the piston rod is parallel to the cylinderwall so the peakpressure forces i directet straight down to the crank.

Isn't this leading to the same effect like having the piston pins slightly off-center.

Yes its the same. But if you offset the pins the piston will still tip slightly. Offsetting the bore should prevent the piston from tipping. Reducing friction.

I have read that Mitsubishi did this on their new 1.8 diesel in the lancer etc.

this would be disadvantageous in a high speed engine eg current F1
largely because maximum side thrust depends on all/any load in the rod, not just combustion load
at high rpm higher rod loads occur eg with piston deceleration near TDC than with peak combustion load
asymmetry (offset) as suggested would increase the peak (inertial/eg deceleration) loads
inertial loads are the fundamental limit to rpm and power under capacity-limited rules (or they were!)

the offset was widely used in race engines 100 years ago (rpm was then very low, combustion loads were dominant)
today it makes sense only in an engine that has very high combustion loads relative to the inertial loads
as you say, a diesel, or a dragster ?

BTW used eg in the VW V5 etc to get 2 rows of cylinders in 1 block and head, the (big) offset can only be right for 1 row ??

it might be worth considering in 2014 (never thought I'd say that)
(the rpm/inertial loads won't be critical to design, combustion heat release near TDC for best expansion and efficiency will be)
(this is also enhanced by (eg short) rod length relative to stroke, although that increases side thrust and peak inertial load)

near-ideal heat release will be made possible by complex injection strategies, in effect controlling combustion, hence efficiency

[WhiteBlue]

Isn't it a reference to the more restrictive 2014 aero regulations which will result in much lower downforce levels, in combination with limitations on power generation due to fuel restrictions?

The 2014 aero rules are all there in the regulations on the FiA Web site. So you simply can read the paragraphs you refer to when you talk about facts. I have not found those aero restrictions that you mentioned. If you have followed this thread you will also be aware that the fuel flow limitation are not going to limit power substantially. The engine manufacturers and our own calculations predict a power and performance level on par with the current cars.

[WhiteBlue]

the 2014 limit on energy/lap is in the megaJoule range for this reason ?

There is no such thing as a per lap energy. The energy is limited by time. It is 27.8 g/s of fuel. Since lap times are variable the per lap energy is also a variable figure.
If you are referring to the 4 MJ battery charging und uncharging limit I have to say that it will not become a bottle neck either.

5.2.3 Energy input from the MGUK to the ES may not exceed 2MJ in any one lap and energy released from the ES to the MGUK may not exceed 4MJ in any one lap.
The difference between the maximum and minimum state of charge of the ES may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track.

As we know the current push to pass KERS mode will be prohibited. All acceleration and braking torque must be commanded uniformly by the drivers throttle and brake pedals only. This is referred to as true dual torque mode in this thread.

5.5 Torque control :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via
a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator) pedal.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by
the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 The minimum and maximum accelerator pedal travel positions must correspond to the
minimum and maximum available torque with the currently selected power unit torque map.

[Dragonfly]

..........
As we know KERS will be prohibited.

?? How shall we understand this?

[WhiteBlue]

..........As we know KERS will be prohibited.

?? How shall we understand this?

I have elaborated quite a bit on the push to pass aspect of this statement. Please read my comments and the original regulation paragraph there.