2021 Engine thread

[factory_p]

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.

GP3 style !

http://www.teos-engineering.com/mbFiles ... ing-v6.jpg

[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.

GP3 style !

http://www.teos-engineering.com/mbFiles ... ing-v6.jpg

Actually, 80's Ferrari F1 style was what gave me the idea, but sure, GP3. It's not exactly a new idea, but I'm not sure why it was excluded from the PU era spec? It makes a lot of sense to hit the turbine straight from the port with an MGU-H setup!

[matt21]

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.

The only thing I can think of you were on to, are exhausts on both sides of the head which makes only sense if you´re using more than one turbine. And in the case of a V-engine it makes absolutely no sense, as the intake would become a mess.

On an inline engine it could have a benefit to do something like this


instead of this

[AJI]

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.

The only thing I can think of you were on to, are exhausts on both sides of the head which makes only sense if you´re using more than one turbine. And in the case of a V-engine it makes absolutely no sense, as the intake would become a mess.

Okay, perhaps I should explain my thoughts a little more thoroughly.
Yes, a single turbine hit directly from the ports inside the V is where I see some of the benefits. The PU designers are currently using complex and large exhaust headers to get to the turbine with an enormous amount of insulation to retain heat. V exhaust deletes most of the plumbing and retains the heat.
I don't really see a major problem with intake. Is it really that much more messy than the current exhaust setup? Sure, there would have to be 2 plenums and perhaps the variable intake could get difficult, but the air intake, the compressor inlet and outlet and the IC would all be the same. The IC outlet would just have to go to either side of the bank instead of up to the top of the current very tall plenum. It's probably the same amount of plumbing?
I can see real thermal management benefits in a 'V exhaust/outside intake' design, as well as lowering the overall weight of the PU and lowering the centre of gravity.

Re: The top inline picture. All they have done is add the complexity of a twin turbo V engine setup to an in-line engine with the added difficulty of cramming an intake port in between the cams. I like a lateral approach, but that is truly demented. Was that the same designer that came up with the H16?

[wuzak]

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.

Unfortunately it is hard to search the thread.

I will have a quick look to see if I could find it.

[wuzak]

This is what I found so far.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ad#p267693

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ut#p553804

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ee#p264271

I do recall sketches of possible engine/turbo layouts being discussed, including the split turbo.

[AJI]

This is what I found so far.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ad#p267693

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ut#p553804

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ee#p264271

I do recall sketches of possible engine/turbo layouts being discussed, including the split turbo.

Thanks so much! I spent a few hours trying to find it, but keyword searches are either too broad (exhaust) or so narrow (v, vee, 'v') the search engine wouldn't allow it. I'll have a read.

[AJI]

wuzak, thanks for that. I replied earlier, but it seems to have been modded out of existence?

The BMW twin turbo design is interesting, but complicated and unnecessary compared to a big single with MGU-H. Apparently the new Audi S5 V6T has a 'v' mounted turbo, but I'm not sure if it is 'v' exhaust?

[Pierce89]

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.

GP3 style !

http://www.teos-engineering.com/mbFiles ... ing-v6.jpg

Actually, 80's Ferrari F1 style was what gave me the idea, but sure, GP3. It's not exactly a new idea, but I'm not sure why it was excluded from the PU era spec? It makes a lot of sense to hit the turbine straight from the port with an MGU-H setup!

Or Audi WEC v6 diesels also used this setup with a single turbo in the v.As stated, its not a new idea.

[AJI]

Or Audi WEC v6 diesels also used this setup with a single turbo in the v.As stated, its not a new idea.

No, not a new idea. I guess it's ironic that the one perfect application for a 'v' exhaust turbine is in a current F1 car. They specify where the turbine must be placed and where the exhaust has to exit, which are perfect for the application, but deliberately exclude 'v' exhaust.
I know the Mosely's of the world wanted a single spec engine, and they have effectively got it with these narrow regulations, but they really missed a huge opportunity with this one.

Anyway, I just thought I'd float the idea of improving the current spec instead of saying, "I think we should have a 2 litre , 20,000 RPM, v10, quad turbo engine with a 900kg/h fuel flow!"

[NL_Fer]

I was thinking of this, but never knew the block was wide angle 112 degree. It is stil different.

[AJI]

http://fourtitude.com/wp-content/upload ... f6e60e.jpg

WOW! I've never seen that picture!
I have to admit, when 'diesel-gate' happened I was devastated, I knew what was coming... I'm an Audi guy. I was sure they'd get into F1 and the 2016 WEC car was beautiful, but alas VW 'interpreted' the emissions rules testing like a clever F1 engineer would...

[gruntguru]

Neither the turbine nor the compressor belong in the vee (ask Honda). Mercedes solution seems to be the best with a pancake compressor to minimise PU length, turbine at the other end of the cylinder block and MGUH in the vee. Too hot in there for the MGUH if you exhaust into the vee and there isn't a sensible alternative spot for it in the MB layout.

Essentially - to exhaust into the vee, you need to package the hot manifolds, the turbine, the compressor and the MGUH - all along the same axis - doesn't work.

[AJI]

Neither the turbine nor the compressor belong in the vee (ask Honda). Mercedes solution seems to be the best with a pancake compressor to minimise PU length, turbine at the other end of the cylinder block and MGUH in the vee. Too hot in there for the MGUH if you exhaust into the vee and there isn't a sensible alternative spot for it in the MB layout.

Essentially - to exhaust into the vee, you need to package the hot manifolds, the turbine, the compressor and the MGUH - all along the same axis - doesn't work.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't the turbine, compressor and MGU-H mounted on the same axis in all the current designs?
My initial idea was: turbine mounted above the centre cylinders, compressor forward (just outside of the 'v') and MGU-H ahead of that, but it probably makes more sense to liquid cool the MGU-H and mount it in-between the turbine and compressor?

[NL_Fer]

Turbo in front would make the engine cover under the upper air intake to fat. Remember for COG the pu is close behind the driverseat. Mercedes has the compressor their, Ferrari an intercooler (i believe) but it is not much and in front of the ICE, not on top.

Currently turbo in the back is not that bad. Air intake vents directly in the compressor and airflow cools an back intercooler and the turbine. Hot air directly leaves the back of the car.

I still think the manufacturers want to keep the Ice for another 3-5 years, lik we kept the v10 and v8 for almost 10 years each. And add some front regenerative brakes, and increase mgu-k to 300kw and keep the ES. We wouldn't want them to have 1200hp for the complete lap right?