2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[gruntguru]

If that is the case (and I don't doubt it fro a second) where is Mercedes - perhaps 45 percent? These are probably already the most efficient SI engines on earth. Does anyone know if this is the case? I recall Toyota claiming 42% from research engines for the next generation Prius.

[J.A.W.]

This Ricardo presentation includes a page on the significant differences between motorsport & road mills..

"Some special problems for motorsport engines"
http://www.ricardo.com/PageFiles/35412/ ... ngines.pdf

Also maintains that as little as ~15sec WFO can create max piston heat values..
(& includes a Monza circuit piston heat map).

[chip engineer]

Gevo selling renewable isooctane to Total for formulation into F1 racing fuel
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/10 ... -gevo.html
Since they are publishing this, it is probably obsolete at this point, but still a little info on how the renewable portion of Total's fuel has been met.

[321apex]

this is nothing to do with the mythical 'big bang' motorcycles
for 20 years (pre Doohan era) all 4 cylinder GP 2 strokes were more or less BB but no-one noticed ....
until, going to 67? deg V, Honda had the option of BB or the (Doohan's choice) small bang aka screamer and suddenly people noticed BB
if you are interested in BB do a search (this site) and you can read posts, mostly mine, (or message me)

Greetings again.
Can you provide brief comment what was the benefit of "big bang" engines you mentioned? I had always heard it had primarily to do with rear wheel bike power down traction. Is this true?

Now forwarding to 2014 F1, what may be the benefit of "big bang" here?
Thanks.

[Tommy Cookers]

this is nothing to do with the mythical 'big bang' motorcycles
for 20 years (pre Doohan era) all 4 cylinder GP 2 strokes were more or less BB but no-one noticed ....
until, going to 67? deg V, Honda had the option of BB or the (Doohan's choice) small bang aka screamer and suddenly people noticed BB
if you are interested in BB do a search (this site) and you can read posts, mostly mine, (or message me)

Greetings again.
Can you provide brief comment what was the benefit of "big bang" engines you mentioned? I had always heard it had primarily to do with rear wheel bike power down traction. Is this true?
Now forwarding to 2014 F1, what may be the benefit of "big bang" here?
Thanks.

no benefit
since square 4 2 stroke and related narrow angle so-called V4s of the 60s they had paired firing or nearly paired for convenience
ie 2 biggish bangs per rev(sq 4), (or quite close to that eg with 15 deg V4 Yamahas) not 4 small bangs
(EDIT but anyone can re-mesh the crank coupling gears eg of their RG500 and get 4 small bangs ie firing every 90 deg or so)
when Honda chose the bigger V angle the quite close to 2 biggish bangs became 3 bangs quite close then 1 rather seperate
this was the origin of the BB term (recordings were said to show 3 firings within about 110 deg of crank rotation)
maybe Honda redesigned the crankshafts (towards cross-plane) to do this (not possible with 180 deg cranks ?)
and this redesign could with different meshing also give roughly 4 small bangs 'the screamer' ?
the late Prof Gordon Blair said that there would be power band differences with different firing intervals (his line of work)
Honda riders had a choice

a 12000 rpm torque ripple won't reach Earth via a loaded tyre because this won't pass any ripple above about 5 Hz
and if you wanted a torque ripple in pursuit of improved traction you could engineer the transmission to do this anyway
the reason sprockets don't have less than about 12 teeth is to avoid creating torque ripple aka vibration
so BB for traction is a myth
(Gordon Jackson etc won trials by using a only a few hundred rpm , that single cylinder torque ripple did get through to the ground)

the firing intervals are uneven in F1 only because a 90 deg V6 with 3 crank throws is dictated by the rules
the turbine would prefer equispacing, this was used by having 120 deg V eg in the Cosworth F1 turbo and older F1 Ferraris

each pin counterweighted by 1 reciprocating mass eliminates all vibration at engine rpm ('primary frequency') in a 90 deg V
ie all throws at 0 deg would allow 3 cylinders to all fire at 0 deg, then the other 3 all at 90 deg, then the first 3 (at 720 deg) etc
a really BB crankshaft, and it's legal, but pointless or worse

[321apex]

Thanks for this BB insight.
Such big bang engine would undoubtedly vibrate a lot more than a similar one without the BB effect. Vibration is not desirable in racing engines, but not from the OEM type NVH comfort criteria. Rather due to increased internal friction, likely lowered life expectancy of moving parts and electronics function. Sensors and ancillaries which may rattle their life away and fail just when you try to taste the champagne.

So the idea is to accommodate vibration if in exchange it brings a tangible benefit elsewhere.

[J.A.W.]

Current 90`V-twin superbike engine.. http://www.motographite.com/2011/10/duc ... ngine.html

& the F1 V6 is mandated to be an evenly disposed tripling of this arrangement?

[ringo]

Thanks for this BB insight.
Such big bang engine would undoubtedly vibrate a lot more than a similar one without the BB effect. Vibration is not desirable in racing engines, but not from the OEM type NVH comfort criteria. Rather due to increased internal friction, likely lowered life expectancy of moving parts and electronics function. Sensors and ancillaries which may rattle their life away and fail just when you try to taste the champagne.

So the idea is to accommodate vibration if in exchange it brings a tangible benefit elsewhere.

For reliability purposes of the engine, you don't want too much vibration, just to add to what you have already said.
Next year it's 4 power units right?
So reducing unwanted vibration is even more useful.

[J.A.W.]

& so - is there any evidence of NVH mitigation in the current F1 units, per balance shaft type solutions?

[wuzak]

& so - is there any evidence of NVH mitigation in the current F1 units, per balance shaft type solutions?

Doubtful thatthey use balance shafts - they cost power.

[J.A.W.]

Well, W - that's what a couple of recent posts were considering..

At what point does engine balance/harmonic integrity/mechanical longevity - become worth such a trade-off?

& if so, would such a device be able to be incorporated into a shaft used for other functions as well,
- in order to reduce inertia/frictional losses?

[trinidefender]

& so - is there any evidence of NVH mitigation in the current F1 units, per balance shaft type solutions?

Doubtful thatthey use balance shafts - they cost power.

It doesn't only cost power. It makes the engine less responsive, crucial in a series like F1. It adds weight. It adds space.

Personal opinion, as it stands right now, is that they wouldn't use balancer shafts.

[J.A.W.]

Personal opinion, & perhaps based on road vehicle results - is fair enough..
..but what is actually known about it - in relation to current F1 mills?

Anyone seen a patent applicable to high speed shaft duty sharing?

[J.A.W.]

Certainly, as shown in this Kevin Cameron article below, Cosworth were game to try it ~40 years ago..

http://www.classicbike.biz/Norton/Mags/ ... Norton.pdf

[wuzak]

Certainly, as shown in this Kevin Cameron article below, Cosworth were game to try it ~40 years ago..

http://www.classicbike.biz/Norton/Mags/ ... Norton.pdf

As I read that, the balance shaft solution was for a road bike twin, that would also be used as a race engine.

The Cosworth DFV, on which it was based, did not have balance shafts.