2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

This opinion on the friction losses is not consistent with all the experiences we have had for 20 years in F1. V12 engines were not competitive with V10 because they were too thirsty. Each generation of F1 engines with fewer cylinders became more fuel efficient and in the general automotive industry downsizing and downspeeding is always improving efficiency of the engine. The participants of the EWG were by no means noobs with no understanding. One of the guys who made remarks I remember was Audi's top engine man Baretzki and I also remember Tim Routsis of Cosworth giving several comments about the process in the group.

[xpensive]

Standard fuel is coming to F1.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/09/27/f ... -supplier/

Didn't someone predict this development some time back?

[GitanesBlondes]

Standard fuel is coming to F1.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/09/27/f ... -supplier/

Didn't someone predict this development some time back?

That would be one of the worst ideas to ever grace F1...and there are many of them over the past few years.

[xpensive]

Not necessarily, it was only a matter of time before someone within the FIA realized what many of us members of F1T could
see coming a long time ago, that there was a lab-rat competition of packing the most MJ/kg into the fuel on the horizon.

[Holm86]

Its fine by me. I would rather have development focused on increasing engine efficiency than have a chemist war on fuels.

[GitanesBlondes]

Not necessarily, it was only a matter of time before someone within the FIA realized what many of us members of F1T could
see coming a long time ago, that there was a lab-rat competition of packing the most MJ/kg into the fuel on the horizon.

Well, if engine development were open the entire season, it wouldn't bother me if a single fuel supplier were used. But as we know that's never coming back, I'd like to see what the lab-rats could come up with, since it'd be something interesting no doubt.

[Tommy Cookers]

broadly speaking at 10500 rpm the engine has a designed boost and a (maximal) CR matched to this boost

They can design for max CR at higher rpm, should they find revving higher beneficial for total power, at lower rpm they would just not exploit the full fuel rate due to reduced boost.
With correct gearing (even if fixed for all championship 8 gears are good enough for it) it's possible to have, in the WOT power limited areas, the engine revving in a range 2k rpm wide or little more, and when out of that range car is in grip limited areas of lap where it's not necessary to use the full fuel rate anyway.
Without sure data we shouldn't exclude the possibility that they could optimize for a 2k or so rpm range, anywhere in the max fuel rate band (which is potentially 4.5k rpm wide), could be 10.5-12.5k as you say, or shifted 1-1.5k rpm higher, potentially up to 13k-15k (albeit unlikely), it all depends by what they find convenient for global performance.

over a year ago I suggested the 2 'options' for consideration, the 10500-12300 engine and the 13000-15000 engine
the 13000-15000 would have more friction and coolant losses but less supercharging work and a higher CR

WB should know that those stupid? Honda people went from V10 to V12
the prime downside of the V12 is usually held to be its length, which the car designer hates

[Reca]

This opinion on the friction losses is not consistent with all the experiences we have had for 20 years in F1. V12 engines were not competitive with V10 because they were too thirsty. Each generation of F1 engines with fewer cylinders became more fuel efficient and in the general automotive industry downsizing and downspeeding is always improving efficiency of the engine. The participants of the EWG were by no means noobs with no understanding. One of the guys who made remarks I remember was Audi's top engine man Baretzki and I also remember Tim Routsis of Cosworth giving several comments about the process in the group.

The V12 was more thirsty because it was more powerful and that was because was revving higher (which is possible, amongst other factors, exactly because of lower losses at a given rpm).
For confirmation go ask Schumacher what he found after he drove the 412T2 at Fiorano, how he was impressed by the power of the V12 compared with the Renault he won the WDC with.

For some more technical information though you can read this SAE paper if you have access:
Boretti, A. and Cantore, G., "Comparison of V10 and V12 F1 Engines," SAE Technical Paper 983035, 1998,
or this one
http://not2fast.com/engine/sae1998-3036.pdf
which is publicly available and has a short summary of the results of the other in the introduction.

Just couple of examples of papers showing that result, you can find more by yourself.

BTW, the fact that evolution in F1 moved to less cylinders is pointless to this debate, few years after all went to V10 (some moving down from 12, like Ferrari, some moving up from 8, like Cosworth) the number of cylinder became fixed in rules.
And that was, just so you now, because Toyota wanted to enter with a V12 thinking that at that point the technology was improved enough to allow to fully exploit its advantages without suffering disadvantages.
For fear they could be right, which would have forced everybody else to design new engines, other manufacturer decided to preventively impose the V10.
The passage to V8 then was simply a matter of convenience, reduce total displacement (to reduce power, nothing to do with fuel at the time) but maintaining same unitary displacement pretending it would reduce cost of the transition.

Worth also mentioning that the above comparisons are about 10 vs 12, law of diminishing returns applies, the gains I mentioned are way more relevant passing from a 4 to a 6 because the difference is larger so the dominance over other factors is more evident. (incidentally, it's not coincidence if in the previous turbo era all the manufacturer that designed the engine from scratch went for the V6, the I4's were all derived from existing blocks, and were hardly competitive, bar BMW for a short period of time; that's when they used "particular", or should I say illegal, fuel though, not because their engine was really better)

Also some of the packaging disadvantages a 12 has compared with a 10 don't apply to the V6 vs I4, the former for example is shorter, not longer, and better suited from a structural point of view.

Last but not least, the past examples come (almost all) from an unrestricted fuel formula, now will be a regulated consumption one, in the former the advantage of more cylinders was exploited going for more power via doing more cycles in the unit of time thus ending up using more fuel, nowadays the target is different so the mechanical advantages would be exploited differently.

All of that then is about race engines which is was only counts for F1, what kind of choices the manufacturers make for their production engine is not necessarily related to engine performance per se, or best choices for a race unit, as much as marketing would make you think so. For instance the I4 is popular in road cars because less parts needed reduce cost of production and because being narrow and relatively short is well suited to small FWD vehicles gaining cabin room.

Anyway, that's it for me on this matter, if you aren't convinced so be it, maybe someone else found it useful.
For those who didn't, apologizes for going OT.

[xpensive]

Not necessarily, it was only a matter of time before someone within the FIA realized what many of us members of F1T could
see coming a long time ago, that there was a lab-rat competition of packing the most MJ/kg into the fuel on the horizon.

Well, if engine development were open the entire season, it wouldn't bother me if a single fuel supplier were used. But as we know that's never coming back, I'd like to see what the lab-rats could come up with, since it'd be something interesting no doubt.

My sentiments precisely, the new engines will soon be frozen, or whatever the call it, and that will be the end to all xcitement.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ Reca
great reference, the SAE paper
the 'broad arrow' W engine has a long history eg the Napier Lion (400 mph on land) and Isotta-Fraschini
(though these had master/slave rods which would save bearing friction and reduce engine size)
Ferrari was rumoured to have made a W18 cyl F1 engine based on parts from the 2 litre hillclimb flat 12
and others made or schemed W12 engines for F1
not quite the same as the recent VW etc W engines

IMO the V6 would have greater losses to coolant than the 4 but a higher CR (two sides of the same coin) and less bearing friction
conventionally the optimum efficiency cylinder size for a road SI engine is about 400cc ?
due to the dominant need to minimise losses to coolant, at the mainly part-throttle working ?
hence the earlier choice of 1600cc inline 4 ?

[xpensive]

Don't forget the necessary balance-shafts for an I4, they are nor running for free either.

[rjsa]

Standard fuel is coming to F1.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/09/27/f ... -supplier/

Didn't someone predict this development some time back?

That would be one of the worst ideas to ever grace F1...and there are many of them over the past few years.

TBH of all the crap rules around this would be the least damaging.

[langwadt]

Don't forget the necessary balance-shafts for an I4, they are nor running for free either.

are they really needed? what they have now is basically two I4s so it must have the same vibration and it revs higher
V6 isn't balanced either

[xpensive]

Don't know really, I thought they were?

[WhiteBlue]

Fuel is standardized in LMP1 and the FiA seeks to bring the sets of rules closer to each other. There is really no point in blowing out huge sums of money in fuel formulations. The main objectives should be promoting sustainability and fuel efficiency not spending millions of dollars for fuels that have no other purpose.