2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[321apex]

my guess is if the mgu-h is safe from the whirling phenomenon at 125000 rpm a bit of 12000 rpm engine vibration won't hurt it
speaking as one who was paid to design stuff before FEA even existed
one who has 'always' found the direct drive mgu-h rather implausible

I appreciate your experience, but you admit to be relying on a guesstimate

However in my mind the safety of the design of a MGU-H rotor is surrounded with big question marks. To explain why, I would pose some simple questions.

If the MGU-H is to deliver 160HP of charging as some people here have said, then what should be the estimates of the following design parameters:
1. Average operating speed [RPM]
2. Length [mm]
3. Diameter [mm]

Unless some realistic numbers can be provided, there is no way to make any estimates as to it's nominal critical speed, and whether under some safety factor this device has a fighting chance to last 2600 km in rather tough environment.

[Holm86]

my guess is if the mgu-h is safe from the whirling phenomenon at 125000 rpm a bit of 12000 rpm engine vibration won't hurt it
speaking as one who was paid to design stuff before FEA even existed
one who has 'always' found the direct drive mgu-h rather implausible

I appreciate your experience, but you admit to be relying on a guesstimate

Unlike others who claim every thing they say as facts?

[tuj]

Couple of thoughts: Porsche is developing a V4 turbo engine for Le Mans which has worse balance issues than the V6's. If they can make a structural 90 degreeV4 winner, I don't see what the issues are for F1. Secondly, do we really know what firing order the teams are using? Sure there is a conventional wisdom that dictates the smoothest firing cycle, but I think we all know that the teams are doing things like cutting spark+fuel at times, which may lead to imbalances. Also, has anyone thought about what they did in MotoGP to manage the torque/traction events, ie. the 'big bang' firing order engines? They moved the power pulses from being evenly spaced to a more 'clustered' pattern to give the tires more time to recover from the initial traction event.

Based on the statements of the drivers (Hamilton, Sutil, Rosberg), these cars have significantly more torque available to the driver.

[Abarth]

[...]Do you follow?[...]

No.
If you'd read what I wrote, you can easily deduct that I do not agree with your statement, and I gave the necessary explanation.
And now I come to the conclusion that I would waste my time in discussing this topic further with you.

[langwadt]

but the 15K is sure nice to have so you don't end up like RB so many times; hitting the limiter and having trouble passing
with DRS

until we see some power curves it is hard to tell how high the power curve is "flat"

at higher RPM the friction is higher, but you only have same fuel so you need lower boost pressure, which means you can harvest more from the MGU-H, I think ...

As you probably know, cam timing determines the characteristics of engine's power envelope in terms of RPM. Unless you have switchable cam timing a'la Honda V-TEC, you have a relatively fixed "power envelope". I don't know if such solution is/will be practiced in F1, but the 2014 do not forbid it.
What that means is that the power peak and torque become "cast in stone" as an event in rev range. By adding or subtracting boost you may move these peaks up or down in value but not much in RPM.

It is true that the cams do determine much of the engines power curve. But much more so in an NA engine. In a boosted engine you can compensate alot with the boost.

And any sort of variable valve mechanism is prohibited by the regulations.

yes,

and the old rules of how a power curve looks goes out the window with the fixed fuel flow

[321apex]

Couple of thoughts: Porsche is developing a V4 turbo engine for Le Mans which has worse balance issues than the V6's. If they can make a structural 90 degreeV4 winner, I don't see what the issues are for F1. Secondly, do we really know what firing order the teams are using? Sure there is a conventional wisdom that dictates the smoothest firing cycle, but I think we all know that the teams are doing things like cutting spark+fuel at times, which may lead to imbalances. Also, has anyone thought about what they did in MotoGP to manage the torque/traction events, ie. the 'big bang' firing order engines? They moved the power pulses from being evenly spaced to a more 'clustered' pattern to give the tires more time to recover from the initial traction event.

Based on the statements of the drivers (Hamilton, Sutil, Rosberg), these cars have significantly more torque available to the driver.

Although the firing order may be arbitrary sometimes, the crankshaft geometrical form, determines vibratory effects. Take inline-4 as an example. You may use 1-3-4-2 or 1-2-4-3 and either way you have second order vertical shaking forces... all from kinematics. Now it is true, that the crankshaft will be "excited" differently changing altogether the torsional damping picture of those two examples. But my comment was not about the torsionals.

In essence, my remarks were about the kinematic vibration of the new V6 and the impact this may have caused upon the new ancillaries attached to the engine. Vibration is a nasty effect and by the time all manufacturers figure out how to make their parts last, we may be witnessing durability failures not seen before. I for one would have been a strong advocate for a balance shaft solution, since this is a well known technology and can be adopted into a form having negligible parasitic loss. For sure all ancillaries would have a much easier time "living" the prescribed 2600 km.

[321apex]

my guess is if the mgu-h is safe from the whirling phenomenon at 125000 rpm a bit of 12000 rpm engine vibration won't hurt it
speaking as one who was paid to design stuff before FEA even existed
one who has 'always' found the direct drive mgu-h rather implausible

I appreciate your experience, but you admit to be relying on a guesstimate

Unlike others who claim every thing they say as facts?

If you notice, our colleague TC has said "my guess is...", to which was my polite reply with tangible questions addressed. I for one never intended to diminish his reply.

Seems to me that this site is intended to be a forum for presenting opinions and discussing their merits.
Is it not?

[eslam1986]

Ferrari engineers are studying a system which allows to cool down the V6 taking advantage of a feature of the engines 2014: direct injection. Basically, when engine power is not required, there is absolutely no fuel and no ignition of the spark plug: air enters only through pressure from the turbo.This lead to a cooling of the piston crown, the cylinder and the combustion chamber without having to use, as they did with V8, a small amount of fuel.

[dren]

Ferrari engineers are studying a system which allows to cool down the V6 taking advantage of a feature of the engines 2014: direct injection. Basically, when engine power is not required, there is absolutely no fuel and no ignition of the spark plug: air enters only through pressure from the turbo.This lead to a cooling of the piston crown, the cylinder and the combustion chamber without having to use, as they did with V8, a small amount of fuel.

All engine manufacturers would be utilizing that system since it would be inherent in a DI ICE. The V8s would have pumped in air and done the same even with port injection.

[wuzak]

I believe that the biggest effect on the engine due to the 90° angle is not the linear vibrations, but the torsional vibrations.

With the 120° crank angle and the 90° vee there will be uneven firing intervals. This will cause more TVs in some situations and less in others. A balance shaft will do nought to deal with this problem.

All these vibrations should be seen in the test cell.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... Porsche is developing a V4 turbo engine for Le Mans which has worse balance issues than the V6's. If they can make a structural 90 degreeV4 winner
..... Also, has anyone thought about what they did in MotoGP to manage the torque/traction events, ie. the 'big bang' firing order engines? They moved the power pulses from being evenly spaced to a more 'clustered' pattern to give the tires more time to recover from the initial traction event.

in another thread I wrote IIRC that the suggested Porsche V4 would not make a good road car, because of the uneven firing intervals
though the twin clutch 'manual' transmission may manage the gear selection to avoid a transmission snatch issue ?
(a 2 throw 3 main bearing 180 deg crank seemed plausible in the racer, though a 1 throw 2 main bearing crank is conceivable)
now the rumour mill says that the V angle would be a lot more than 90 deg (for aesthetic continuity with flat engine tradition ?)
that would make the firing intervals closer to even, but introduce some uneveness in the inertial intervals
so a 2 split-throw crank could be good in the road version, directly substituting the race crank and giving near-equal firing intervals
the resulting uneven inertial intervals being unimportant for road use, it would be much like a flat 4 (but more compact etc ?)

IMO the 'big bang' is a myth, because .......
the late Prof Dr Blair implied that it was
and said that firing interval choice determined the power band etc due to induction system effects (his speciality)
the frequency of the torque ripple at eg 10000rpm is higher than could be transmitted to the road through the pneumatic tyre ?

square 4 cyl 2 strokes (1965 on) anyway had paired firing for balance and a simpler ignition system, so were naturally 'big bang'
the Doohan era Honda was a 76 ? deg V4, like the 60s Yamahas it would naturally have worse balance and rather even firing ie 'screamer'
(ie if the cranks were set in phase as in the square 4s)
but if the cranks were set out of phase eg by the V angle the firing would be paired ie 'big bang'
in principle it is possible to obtain any firing interval, even to have all 4 cylinders firing together
110 deg cranks are conceivable, and such, suitably phased, seem necessary to get 3 firings in 110 deg (the rumoured 'big bang')

so-called 'big bang' inline 4 cyl 4 strokes have cross-plane cranks giving even-spaced inertia (reciprocation) loads
(ie pistons take turns to stop eg at tdc) and uneven-spaced firing loads
this is the opposite of the conventional arrangement (uneven inertial intervals ie 2 pistons stop at tdc together etc)
and allows a lighter crank with smaller main and rod bearings (reducing friction) by helping keep the torsional natural frequency high
reciprocation loads become large at high rpm and are then more important than the firing loads, being at twice the frequency
the cross-plane crank also still causes vibration at double the 'rpm frequency' but this vibration is more evenly spread

[langwadt]

.... Porsche is developing a V4 turbo engine for Le Mans which has worse balance issues than the V6's. If they can make a structural 90 degreeV4 winner
..... Also, has anyone thought about what they did in MotoGP to manage the torque/traction events, ie. the 'big bang' firing order engines? They moved the power pulses from being evenly spaced to a more 'clustered' pattern to give the tires more time to recover from the initial traction event.

in another thread I wrote IIRC that the suggested Porsche V4 would not make a good road car, because of the uneven firing intervals
now the rumour mill says that the V angle would be a lot more than 90 deg
that would reduce the uneveness of the firing intervals

IMO the 'big bang' is a myth, because .......
the late Prof Dr Blair implied that it was
and said that firing interval choice affected the power band due to induction system effects (his speciality)
the frequency of the torque ripple at eg 10000rpm is higher than could be transmitted to the road through the pneumatic tyre ?

the winning 4 cyl 2 strokes (1965 on) anyway had paired firing because it was simpler and de-bulked the ignition
the Doohan era Honda was a 76 ? deg V4, so it would have be difficult not to have more uneven firing than the above
though Mr Doohan used the more complex version with relatively even firing

so-called 'big bang' inline 4 cyl 4 strokes have cross-plane cranks giving even-spaced inertia (reciprocation) loads
and uneven-spaced firing loads
this is the opposite of the conventional arrangement
and allows a lighter crank with smaller main and rod bearings (reducing friction) by helping keep the torsional natural frequency high
reciprocation loads become large at high rpm and are then more important than the firing loads, being at twice the frequency

as I remember it the screamer had more power the the big bang, it was just that Doohan was pretty much the only one that could ride it and not crash.

I read that a rival theory for the tractions event being the advantage of big bang, was that the uneven firing changed the ratio of combustion power vs. engine inertia i.e. it is more controllable because of a more direct relation between throttle and torque

[Holm86]

.... Porsche is developing a V4 turbo engine for Le Mans which has worse balance issues than the V6's. If they can make a structural 90 degreeV4 winner
..... Also, has anyone thought about what they did in MotoGP to manage the torque/traction events, ie. the 'big bang' firing order engines? They moved the power pulses from being evenly spaced to a more 'clustered' pattern to give the tires more time to recover from the initial traction event.

in another thread I wrote IIRC that the suggested Porsche V4 would not make a good road car, because of the uneven firing intervals
now the rumour mill says that the V angle would be a lot more than 90 deg
that would reduce the uneveness of the firing intervals

IMO the 'big bang' is a myth, because .......
the late Prof Dr Blair implied that it was
and said that firing interval choice affected the power band due to induction system effects (his speciality)
the frequency of the torque ripple at eg 10000rpm is higher than could be transmitted to the road through the pneumatic tyre ?

the winning 4 cyl 2 strokes (1965 on) anyway had paired firing because it was simpler and de-bulked the ignition
the Doohan era Honda was a 76 ? deg V4, so it would have be difficult not to have more uneven firing than the above
though Mr Doohan used the more complex version with relatively even firing

so-called 'big bang' inline 4 cyl 4 strokes have cross-plane cranks giving even-spaced inertia (reciprocation) loads
and uneven-spaced firing loads
this is the opposite of the conventional arrangement
and allows a lighter crank with smaller main and rod bearings (reducing friction) by helping keep the torsional natural frequency high
reciprocation loads become large at high rpm and are then more important than the firing loads, being at twice the frequency

as I remember it the screamer had more power the the big bang, it was just that Doohan was pretty much the only one that could ride it and not crash.

I read that a rival theory for the tractions event being the advantage of big bang, was that the uneven firing changed the ratio of combustion power vs. engine inertia i.e. it is more controllable because of a more direct relation between throttle and torque

Its being explained pretty well in this clip. Look from around 2.15 mins in.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myfp2sUducE[/youtube]

I think bikes are much more sensitive to this.

[tuj]

I think bikes are much more sensitive to this.

I agree, and I believe this is a consequence of their relatively small tire contact patch. But with F1 using harder tires (and wheel width is unchanged, right?), I would think that the traction issues of MotoGP would start to surface once again in F1. Sutil said he spun when he upshifted from 3rd->4th and was surprised by the power he dropped into. I don't think the V8's, once up to speed, had the violence of these new engines to thrash the tires at speed. Couple that with a major decrease in down-force from the regs and the F1 car is starting to seem to be traction-limited a lot more often, much more like a MotoGP bike than in the past.

IMHO of course.

[CBeck113]

Here, to help the discussion, is a chart of the free forces which excite motors and should / must be dealt with in order to make it run smoothly (i.e. prolong its life):


Sorry it's German, but I think everyone will understand it.