2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

the normal and natural characteristic of an electric drive would amount to some or other degree of resistance to wheelspin (also some skid resistance with generation under braking)

[dren]

So, maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but is the exhaust turbine the furthest one from the engine? It almost looks like the intake is the round opening for the compressor, and then it directly compresses the air box/cooler.

Maybe the 6 into 1 is better for ICE performance?

[pgfpro]

So, maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but is the exhaust turbine the furthest one from the engine? It almost looks like the intake is the round opening for the compressor, and then it directly compresses the air box/cooler.

Maybe the 6 into 1 is better for ICE performance?

The exhaust turbine is the furthest from the engine. The intake on the compressor goes underneath the intake box. The compressor outlet is pointing towards the back of the picture. Exhaust turbine intake is pointing down in this picture towards where the gear box would be.

[dren]

Ahh yeah...duh, I had the compressor backwards. Thanks.

[Ferraripilot]

the normal and natural characteristic of an electric drive would amount to some or other degree of resistance to wheelspin (also some skid resistance with generation under braking)

One would think just the opposite with electric drive considering torque is pretty much instantly maximum output from 0 rpm.

[piast9]

So I would say that the airbox as known today could be given up.

So there should also be possibility to give up that mandatory triangular piece of bodywork from behind the the airbox entry to the gearbox. Even in 2012 cars bodywork at the rear was slimmer than this mandatory shape which resulted in ugly fins (for example Williams). I dream about something like the modern incarnation of Brabham BT55.

[dren]

This sounds massively complicated, but tuning a harvest for a circuit could prove benficial, especially if all other powertrains on a circuit are running 100% output on both systems and simply relying on a driver to keep slip from occuring.

I think you'd want a very useable power band that also has high power output. I don't see this changing much between races. Maybe make the MCUH power harvest more gradual on a track like Monaco. What do teams do now?

It will be interesting to see what directions the teams go in optimising their power units.

[ringo]

... Does anyone have an image of the Renault concept hanging around...

Renault engine here: (racecar-engineering) http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... f1-engine/

Very interesting! I had previously assumed the airbox redundant thanks to the turbo (...and being too lazy to check rules), but looking at Merc, Renault and PURE (defunct but still interesting) designs I see it's footprint engine side still there...? Digging further I can see the rules mandate the airbox inlet still above the drivers head... I consider myself schooled in the matter!

Renault have shown more ancillaries attached - airbox direct to turbo, and a box where the airbox would have terminated in the NA engines of old. Merc has the airbox terminating in the NA fashion but feeding the turbo air, with the same structure also handing the pressured air inlet to engine (chambered one assumes). Intercooler in the box? or is that's position mandated ala turbo?

That renault engine looks like a systematic representation. The dead giveaway is the intercooler location. I feel this is just like to say what connects to what on the engine.
The turbo inlet is also a give away, the inlet style is indicating a radial design. I could be wrong but i don't think they are using a radial turbing. Maybe they found a better solution to centrifugal? i don't know, but this is a fishy picture.

[ringo]

The rules mandate a maximum of two air intakes located between the front of the cockpit and 500mm before the rear axle and more than 200mm above the reference plane.

So I would say that the airbox as known today could be given up.

The position of the intercoolers is not mandated and you can use air-to-water-coolers. So why not placing it in the box.

Air to water may be used but i don't think a team will opt to. An F1 car already has such minimal volume and is packaged so well that the advantages seen with air to water coolers on bigger vehicles may not be seen on an F1 car, which basically has no internal room for your water heat exchanger. Keep in mind that with air to water, you will still need an aditional heat exchanger which will be in the form of a radiator in the side pods i guess.
You may have you charge air to water cooler somewhere else, but the space is limited.

It's interesting, but i suppose the raw power gains from a less torturous charge air rout may have to be weighed against the additional hardware and weight and volume.

Though, i'm not sure how much shorter the route will be with the airbox right on top the engine. The cooler may go almost right where the radiator is, defeating the purpose.

[FW17]

The rules mandate a maximum of two air intakes located between the front of the cockpit and 500mm before the rear axle and more than 200mm above the reference plane.

200 mm above reference plane? even the cockpit bulkhead is 625 mm above the reference plane.

[FW17]

But why do Mercedes reveal pictures of a complete engine this soon?? To put pressure on FIA to keep the engine regulations for 2014??

So anyone got a clue??

It is a concept picture for journalists to publish, with probably their earliest ideas in graphical form. Quiet sure that the arrangement as per the picture is not going to be acceptable to any of the F1 designers.

Renault showed more by indicating the MGU connected to the turbo within the V of the cylinders.

[Blanchimont]

Scarbs says the picture of the 2014 mercedes engine shows a very early state.

https://twitter.com/stefan_f1/status/290047297935519745

[autogyro]

Scarbs says the merc pictures were of a very early state!!?

So far all I have seen are pictures of power units almost exactly the same as scribbles done at Lotus in the early 1970s.
In fact there were also far better ideas, mainly because of the experience (of some of the engineers) and the then fairly recent use of hybrid piston and turbine aero engine technology post ww2.

It is a shame that the regulations are so tight on the 2014 engine layout.
There would be so much potential for increased power and better energy savings if they were more open.
IMO it is just paying lip service to the concept of better fuel use, for political reasons.

I understand the need to keep the power to a maximum level for race safety but I hope things are changed in the future after 2014, so as to open up hybrid development. If this does not happen F1 will be at great risk.

[Tommy Cookers]

the normal and natural characteristic of an electric drive would amount to some or other degree of resistance to wheelspin (also some skid resistance with generation under braking)

One would think just the opposite with electric drive considering torque is pretty much instantly maximum output from 0 rpm.

torque would only be maximum at 0 rpm if the voltage supplied to the motor was fixed (that's primitive)
(torque is proportional to current, but the speed-related back emf (voltage) reduces current with speed with a fixed supply voltage)
but one would expect the applied voltage to be continuously varied to give the desired torque at all times regardless of rpm
this would make much better use of all the elements of the electrical drive system

whatever the applied voltage at any moment if the driven wheels start to spin the EM torque will fall as the EM rpm rises
this is the inherent contribution against wheelspin
similarly under electric braking action the resistng torque of the MGUK in generator mode will fall if the wheels start to skid

if the rules required EM torque to be a fixed proportion of ICE torque at all times the supply voltage would necessarily be continuously varied according to ICE torque and the above effects would be cancelled
the rules only seem to require that the EM torque is accessed only by use of the accelerator pedal in controlling the ICE ?
the rules don't seem to require EM torque to be a fixed proportion to ICE torque at all times ?

[dren]

The rules look like they specify torque as a function of pedal travel, within a small variance compared to a torque map. This is for the power unit as a whole, not ICE or EM individually.