2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[bhall]

I don't know how you're getting that.

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.

...is essentially the same thing as...

5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control the engine torque is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator) pedal.

...except that it incorporates KERS and HERS to prevent them from being used for propulsion independent of the engine. In other words, it means torque from all sources must be applied concurrently if applied at all.

Further...

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.

...only applies to individual power unit torque maps, not overall power unit torque. Engine mapping, by the way, is not limited in 2014...yet.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't know how you're getting that.

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.

...is essentially the same thing as...

5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control the engine torque is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator) pedal.

...except that it incorporates KERS and HERS to prevent them from being used for propulsion independent of the engine. In other words, it means torque from all sources must be applied concurrently if applied at all...

I'm getting it from the regulations that you have quoted yourself. The 2012 and 2014 regulations differentiate between torque to the drive wheels (2014) and engine torque (2012). It is a big difference! In 2012 the throttle pedal exclusively controls the engine torque and the KERS button controls the KERS MGU electric discharge torque. In 2014 the throttle pedal has to control the total torque delivered to the driven rear wheels. This prohibits the use of a push to pass button for the activation of electric torque. The power management system will have to mesh electric torque and ICE torque continuously to satisfy that regulation.
It would also help if you would adopt the proper terms for 2014. There is no such thing as KERS and HERS in the 2014 regulations. The appropriate units are called MGU-K and MGU-H. We should use these terms to avoid more confusion.

[bhall]

I'm getting it from the regulations that you have quoted yourself. the 2012 and 2014 regulations differentiate between torque to the drive wheels (2014) and engine torque (2012). It is a big difference! In 2012 the throttle pedal exclusively controls the engine torque and the KERS button controls the KERS MGU electric discharge torque. In 2014 the throttle pedal has to control the total torque delivered to the driven rear wheels. This prohibits the use of a push to pass button for the activation of electric torque. The power management system will have to mesh electric torque and ICE torque continuously to satisfy that regulation.
It would also help if you would adopt the proper terms for 2014. There is no such thing as KERS and HERS in the 2014 regulations. The appropriate units are called MGU-K and MGU-H. We should use these terms to avoid more confusion.

Your interpretation is flawed. The KERS button doesn't control KERS discharge, it enables KERS discharge. The accelerator pedal controls that discharge. If the rule was applied by your interpretation, fuel mixture adjustments from the steering wheel would be illegal since they affect engine torque, but are not made via the accelerator pedal.

You also ignored the key part of my statement. Though KERS and HERS torque must be applied concurrently with engine torque, there's no requirement that KERS and HERS torque be applied evenly or fully. Regulation 5.5.3 only ties accelerator travel to the power unit map in use. There's nothing to prevent teams from using variable percentages of torque across a range of different power unit maps, which can be programmed to provide a push-to-pass function.

[WhiteBlue]

Your interpretation is flawed. The KERS button doesn't control KERS discharge, it enables KERS discharge. The accelerator pedal controls that discharge.

I disagree. And I do not intend to take that disagreement or argument any further because it would be counter productive to this thread. The point of the matter is that push to pass KERS as we know it will be abolished in 2014. It was widely reported at the introduction of the rules by the media outlets commentating the rule changes. It was on the BBC for example.

[bhall]

I think facts befit all discussions. When you say, "All acceleration and braking torque must be commanded uniformly by the drivers throttle and brake pedals only," you're incorrect, and maintaining that position is a disservice to the discussion. Remember, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Let's not rely on others, especially pundits, to do our thinking for us. Knock the dust off the ol' cabeza, and put her to work.

When the regulations allow both the KERS and HERS units to be clutched [5.2.7 & 5.2.8] and tie accelerator travel only to "the
minimum and maximum available torque with the currently selected power unit torque map" [5.5.3], I'd say that leaves the door wide open for anything but "uniform command" of acceleration torque by the driver's "throttle pedal."

[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?

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.

I have not personally, but I'm going by Scarbs' analysis of these very 2014 regulations and he found the following:
-A narrower front wing (combined with a low nose).
-A shallower rear wing.
-No beam wing!
Also floor blowing will not bring any benefits as the energy will have been taken out by the turbo. Would also be difficult to achieve with a single pipe exhaust.

So downforce levels will be significantly reduced.

[FW17]

I have not personally, but I'm going by Scarbs' analysis of these very 2014 regulations and he found the following:
-A narrower front wing (combined with a low nose).
-A shallower rear wing.
-No beam wing!
Also floor blowing will not bring any benefits as the energy will have been taken out by the turbo. Would also be difficult to achieve with a single pipe exhaust.

So downforce levels will be significantly reduced.

Quiet sure that rules will be revised again for 2015 once they realize that 2014 rules are too slow in comparison to 2013 cars.

This will be quiet embarrassing for FIA and F1 as a whole, but hoping that they revert to the original ground effect regulations of 2013/2014 that were blocked by the now leading teams.

[WhiteBlue]

@ Timstr, ok those points are going to reduce downforce. But it will not be the same baseline as today. The cars will have different shape due to the different engines. And I agree with Williams that there will be at least one more rule change before they launch. The important point is the common objective to achieve today's performance level.

[matt21]

Renault has revealed the first pictures





From what I see it is sporting a twin scroll turbine housing similar to the Audi LMP1 engine.
The light blue part at crankshaft height should be the MGUK and the MGUH lies in the vee.
The intercooler looks a little bit small in my eyes regarding the huge air flow. Also the placement between the tank and the engine makes no sense in my eyes from a mounting point of view and in the way cooling air has ro be ducted there.

IMO the layout will definitly change until 2014. The installation on the dyno may be a hint that the definite intercooler is in the side pod. But dyno and car a at this stage two different things.

in general the layout reminds me of the 1977 EF1 mono-turbo engine.
It also had the aftercooler in this place.

[FW17]

Renault has revealed the first pictures

If that is the size of the plumbing expected the designers will all climb a wall

[stfn_ger]

Renault has revealed the first pictures

Can anyone tell me what the cyan - colored part underneath the exhaust manifold is ?

EDIT: Nvm, i just took the effort to read matt21's post instead of just looking at the pictures ... my bad

[Forza]

Renault has revealed the first pictures
From what I see it is sporting a twin scroll turbine housing similar to the Audi LMP1 engine.
The light blue part at crankshaft height should be the MGUK and the MGUH lies in the vee.
The intercooler looks a little bit small in my eyes regarding the huge air flow. Also the placement between the tank and the engine makes no sense in my eyes from a mounting point of view and in the way cooling air has ro be ducted there.

IMO the layout will definitly change until 2014. The installation on the dyno may be a hint that the definite intercooler is in the side pod. But dyno and car a at this stage two different things.

If you read the interview in Racecar-engineering (as posted before by WhiteBlue and Scarbs) Rob White describes this picture as "very provisonal" model that shows the basic design guide lines of 2014 regulations, not the cad drawing of actual engine.

[WhiteBlue]

The light blue part at crankshaft height should be the MGUK and the MGUH lies in the vee.
The intercooler looks a little bit small in my eyes regarding the huge air flow. Also the placement between the tank and the engine makes no sense in my eyes from a mounting point of view and in the way cooling air has ro be ducted there. IMO the layout will definitly change until 2014...

If you read the interview in Racecar-engineering (as posted before by WhiteBlue and Scarbs) Rob White describes this picture as "very provisonal" model that shows the basic design guide lines of 2014 regulations, not the cad drawing of actual engine.

Renault called the drawing an artists rendering. Obviously they did not want to give away some aspects of their design. A couple of things come to mind:
1. Of course the inter cooler design must be different as matt21 already pointed out.
2. The MGU-K may be a big diameter high torque unit mounted coaxially before or behind the engine.
3. The MGU-H looks ok as a slim, long unit in the V because it may run at 100,000 rpm.

[WhiteBlue]

There are also suggestions that Bernie Ecclestone may be pushing for an equivalency formula between the new generation engines and the current old machinery, to help the smaller teams pay for engines in in 2014. The key question with such an idea would be to work out how best to equalise the engines so that the backmarkers and old technology does not outperform the new machinery.

That sounds like a sensible proposal. It also shows that Ecclestone has probably come off his quest to stop the turbo engines. I have thought several times about a suitable equivalence formula. In principle it sounds very easy to give the V8 teams a higher fuel allowance than the V6 teams but not enough to challenge the new engines. In reality you would also have to think about the energy recovery systems which will see a massive change. I would think it best to leave the whole 2013 package of engines and KERS the same and restrict the V8 power by a suitable fuel restriction. The back markers would still be on push to pass and the mid fielders not. It would be an easy way to avoid a ton of modifications and further development cost to the old engines. Perhaps Cosworth would want to pick up the job because all the engine manufacturers will be busy with the V6 power trains and have no mind to adapt the V8s to fuel flow control.

[garrett]

Thought of this opportunity too, also about the Cosworth possibility. But I think it is rather another game by Ecclestone; obviously he realized he missed the point of no return concerning the turbos, with the current proposal he tries to keep the V8 question on board at least, maybe he will try to disavow the turbos via fuel allowance or something. The perfect equivalence formula is a very complicated one, it is almost impossible. Watch the WTCC (tdi-diesel vs. petrol). How should it work? If you restrict them too much the "small teams" will be upset; if you don´t the manufacturers will complain. And which teams should be equipped with the V8? Only the backmarkers Caterham, Marussia, HRT or more "small teams"? I think the money and work spent on equivalence would be better used for the turbo development than for an endangered species.

And consider the testing will be still restricted despite we will see a big technical discontinuity in 2014; so it is almost possible we could see a lot of engine failures at the beginning of that season, whereas the small teams could benefit from this with their V8; you can imagine the rest. "Look at those cra... little engines don´t work, I´ve told you...." Chaos, like Ecclestone wanted to provoke down in 1982 during the "FIA-FOCA war". I am really fed up with BCE games.