2021 Engine thread

[noname]

The inline engines wouldve needed a subframe to keep the engine as a stressed member, meaning alot more weight.

Inline engine would be more compact, with smaller block and just one head. I do not expect weight penalty, maybe it could be even lighter than v6. There are stressed inline engines around (Audi and Opel/Spiess come to my mind) showing how it can be done.

BTW, current v6 are also using subframes.

[wuzak]

The inline engines wouldve needed a subframe to keep the engine as a stressed member, meaning alot more weight.

Inline engine would be more compact, with smaller block and just one head. I do not expect weight penalty, maybe it could be even lighter than v6. There are stressed inline engines around (Audi and Opel/Spiess come to my mind) showing how it can be done.

BTW, current v6 are also using subframes.

An inline 4 is longer than a V6 with the same bore and stroke. And inline 6 is much longer.

Are you sure about the subframe on the current engines?

[noname]

An inline 4 is longer than a V6 with the same bore and stroke. And inline 6 is much longer.

Are you sure about the subframe on the current engines?

Inline would be also taller. Longer, taller, CoG placed higher... packaging would be more compromised than with v6, but I do not expect weight penalty.

Subframes are nicely integrated, but they are well visible. Triangle-like structures, oversized bottoms or bulkhead interfaces. One would not need them in non-stressed engine.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/18/11031 ... ngineering
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=705

[ESPImperium]

My ide a would be for this:

Offset V4 Turbo
16MJ of ERS (Raising limit by 3MJ every 2 years until it reaches a peak of 30MJ)
Fuel Limit per weekend* of 200Kg (Reducing by 10Kg per year for 5 years, then reducing by 5Kg per year for a further 5 years to reach a target of 125Kg per weekend) *Weekend is classed as Saturday/Sunday
Total power train weight limit of 350Kg (ICE/TC/MGU-H/MGU-K/ES/CE & Gearbox with no suspension added)
No Fuel Flow limit, rev limit or any of that crap.
Standardised final exhaust and placement
Each car must start Quali and the Race with at least 75Kg of fuel in the first year of the regulations (Reduces by 5Kg for first 5 years then 2.5KG for the next 5 years)
ES will be supplied to each car by a Standardised supplier and limited to 2per season, however a 3rd can be used on Fridays.
All other elements will be limited to 3 per season, gearboxes will be included in the pool rule, no longer shall they be consecutive races
Teams will be able to select 16 gear ratios per season to use in the 3 gearboxes that each car is allowed, however each gearbox can have one final drive change when they are in the pool.
Reduce gearboxes to a 6 speed with reverse from the present 8 speed and reverse
Token system shall be reintroduced, however there will be scope for a 'Engine Championship' in order to give a idea of who needs more tokens to catch the top manufacturer
Engine telemetry systems will require the source code to be shown on the SECU in order to prevent the 'works' machines from having a software advantage and having more 'toys' available here.
On a Telementry side, only 6 engineers per car trackside shall have access to the top 64 systems in the garage, No race control in factories. All other data shall be downloadable and sent back to the factories for analysis there. The pit wall of maximum 9 people will be able to have full access to all telemetry.
The 8 top sensors (Throttle/Brake/Temps/Revs) shall be open source and available to all in the paddock and trackside if they have a scanner/laptop to do so.
On the electronics side, id bring back the steering wheels to a maximum of 6 rotary functions and 13 buttons and two switches.

The result of this would be a high torque engine that gives speed but efficiency, driving the manufacturers to a engine that chases efficiency numbers over horsepower. Also to prevent a electronics war where works teams only give the customers a lesser telemetry integration. Allow the smaller teams to develop their own software to run the power units, and also to give the customers a chance to show they have a better chassis on certain tracks.

However, the present V6T engines will be extended to the end 2025 when a new engine formula will be found, the V8s were extended past their life by 2 or 3 years, so these present engines will be extended more as some of the technology will take until 2025 till it becomes available on the road in a mature, reliable and safe form.

No budgets, no limits on non trackside personnel, just a tough sporting and technical code they must abide by.

[wuzak]

An inline 4 is longer than a V6 with the same bore and stroke. And inline 6 is much longer.

Are you sure about the subframe on the current engines?

Inline would be also taller. Longer, taller, CoG placed higher... packaging would be more compromised than with v6, but I do not expect weight penalty.

Subframes are nicely integrated, but they are well visible. Triangle-like structures, oversized bottoms or bulkhead interfaces. One would not need them in non-stressed engine.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/18/11031 ... ngineering
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=705

Not sure that I would call them a subframe.

It is interesting, because those structures are required to bring the mounting points up to where they are required by the rules.

If the mounting points were free I doubt we would see the structures like that.

[FW17]

I would have everything the removed with exception of 100 kg/hr and 25 kg battery pack

[PlatinumZealot]

Not sure that I would call them a subframe.

It is interesting, because those structures are required to bring the mounting points up to where they are required by the rules.

If the mounting points were free I doubt we would see the structures like that.

You would expect the V6 to be stiffer than the V8 because its shorter (in fact it is stiffer!) So the valve cover ribs are not to add stiffness to the engine itself; they look that like that becuase a space has to be created behind the engine to mount the turbo and to form a "tunnel" for the exhaust, and this requires that the ribs rise up above the turbo to meet the rear mounting point as you can see in the photo below.

[Facts Only]

I hate to burst your bubble but those ribs are definitely there for stiffness.

They directly link the front and rear upper mount points and are essential for the engine structure.

These are't road car engines with a big stiff block, the crankcases are wafer thin so the mounting loads need to be carried through added structure, the engines essentially have an external mouting cradle machined into the heads and cases.

[Brian Coat]

That's right of course and Wuzak is also right to point out the the mandatory mount points drive a slightly sub-optimal solution.

[AJI]

How about 1 minor change to the current spec that could produce a fundamental shift in design philosophy ?

5.1.9 (2021) Engine exhaust gases may exit the cylinder head through outlets outboard of the cylinder bore centre line or from within the “V” centre.

[wuzak]

How about 1 minor change to the current spec that could produce a fundamental shift in design philosophy ?

5.1.9 (2021) Engine exhaust gases may exit the cylinder head through outlets outboard of the cylinder bore centre line or from within the “V” centre.

How about just deleting that rule?

[AJI]

How about 1 minor change to the current spec that could produce a fundamental shift in design philosophy ?

5.1.9 (2021) Engine exhaust gases may exit the cylinder head through outlets outboard of the cylinder bore centre line or from within the “V” centre.

How about just deleting that rule?

Well, my first draft was "5.1.9, deleted", but I figured it needed context...

Seriously though, I think I'm on to something here.

[wuzak]

How about 1 minor change to the current spec that could produce a fundamental shift in design philosophy ?

5.1.9 (2021) Engine exhaust gases may exit the cylinder head through outlets outboard of the cylinder bore centre line or from within the “V” centre.

How about just deleting that rule?

Well, my first draft was "5.1.9, deleted", but I figured it needed context...

Seriously though, I think I'm on to something here.

There was some discussion about exhaust in teh vee some years ago in the thread Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[AJI]

There was some discussion about exhaust in teh vee some years ago in the thread Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I never understood why they excluded exhaust in the 'V' in the PU spec? With an MGU-H set-up, phased direct port exhaust onto the turbine makes a lot of sense to me, and inlet outside of the 'V' solves some of the temperature related density problems, but I haven't done a huge amount of research on the subject, so I've probably missed something obvious...

[AJI]

There was some discussion about exhaust in teh vee some years ago in the thread Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Wow, 578 pages! I guess we'll continue this discussion after the 2021 rules are written.