2021 Engine thread

[roon]

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

Regarding engine installation:

If the inline engine is mounted transversely, you could regain the installation stiffness. A preferable forward-facing height-to-width ratio is resumed, as in the v-layout. The inline engine could also be tilted forward or back to address the CoG penalty. The rear bulkhead of the monocoque could be shaped to accept the non-vertical mounting interface.

A downside would be that engine power would have to be transmitted through an extra 90 degree turn, depending on how the drivetrain was designed. A combined transverse engine, transverse transmission and, of course, transverse output differential, would eliminate this and save you a second 90 deg turn compared to the current cars' layout.

However, aerodynamics dictate that narrowness of the powertrain will still be desired at the rear of the car, meaning a continuation of long, smoothly tapered gearboxes. Designing that without an internal longitudinal driveshaft, as in the current cars, while maintaining the transverse layout would require a long belt, chain, or train of spur gears, which seem suboptimal compared to a driveshaft in this context.

I agree with the other posts regarding the appeal of a non-stressed engine. I'll add that isolating the engine from chassis torsion & impacts may benefit the engine's lifespan. A CF subframe, as others mentioned, or a longer monocoque could bridge the span to the gearbox.

FWIW the transmission in some of the current cars, Mercedes at least, is already designed in a somewhat similar way. The core, metallic component gearbox is not the load bearing structure, or at least not much of it—it is nested within the overall CF bellhousing. The same logic could be applied to the engine.

[noname]

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.

Audi did it with their LMP1 engine. Shame they abandoned this project.

[roon]

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.

Audi did it with their LMP1 engine. Shame they abandoned this project.

Are you refering to the 2017 Audi engine specifically? AFAIK the 2016 R18 and some prior years used a wide-angle turbodiesel V6 with a front axle MGUK. No MGUH. Porsche are the only LMP1 with MGUH—fed from a 90 deg V4 exhausting outside the V.

I think gg might be alluding to how a coaxial MGUH-compressor-turbine assembly presents issues with drawing and exhausting gases along the same axis. Regardless, consider that the Mercedes PU fits intake headers alongside the MGU already. Presumably exhaust headers would not be excessively larger than intake runners, so Merc are already proving that the geometry is at least there. The logs or equal-length collectors would reside pretty high up, as we see with the intakes, but it could be done.

But I'm not sure if this discussion is about rewriting certain regs, or looking for solutions & loopholes within the existing regs.

An aside- I wonder how much F1's variable intake manifolds weigh compared to the exhaust manifolds. If swapping the positions of the two, inside or outside V, would make much impact on COG.

[noname]

Are you refering to the 2017 Audi engine specifically?

I am refering to engine Audi was developing for 2014. One of Audi engineers described it in his PhD.

[roon]

Are you refering to the 2017 Audi engine specifically?

I am refering to engine Audi was developing for 2014. One of Audi engineers described it in his PhD.

Interesting. Do you have a link?

[Pingguest]

The current engine regulations were introduced to make Formula One more 'road relevant'. As government regulations force manufacturers to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn't Formula One follow that path? Any powertrain solution could be allowed, as long as emission standards are met.

[roon]

The current engine regulations were introduced to make Formula One more 'road relevant'. As government regulations force manufacturers to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn't Formula One follow that path? Any powertrain solution could be allowed, as long as emission standards are met.

I'm fine with it either way- explicit aims toward road relevance or none at all. I've appreciated seeing the development of both the V10s and the hybrid V6s.

I think inevitably F1 produces road relevance by its own nature of having well-funded clever, inspired, talented minds operating in civil competition. And this pool does not stay contained. A knowledge leak, a brain drain, connects motorsport & industry. Whether explicitly through hiring & fraternity, or indirectly through suppliers, or even simple observation.

ABS, turbocharging, traction control, direct injection, port injection, active suspension, impact structures—these were found amid eras in F1 unconcered with road relevance, yet are road relevant. I'm sure there are other examples.

As a contrast, consider drifting, rallycross & time attack. These popular (flourishing?) series are almost the antithesis of road relevance. An attack against it. They take a road car and hack it to pieces, reassembling it into something barely recognizeable, to complete a task the base car could not accomplish.

[hpras]

120kg of fuel for the race. Customer engines must be the same spec as works, and cost $5M per season all in. No beryllium. Otherwise, have at it. Less prescription, more innovation.

[Just_a_fan]

[

ABS, turbocharging, traction control, direct injection, port injection, active suspension, impact structures—these were found amid eras in F1 unconcered with road relevance, yet are road relevant. I'm sure there are other examples.

All of those were brought in to F1, they weren't invented / developed in F1. Most were on road cars before they got into F1 cars.

[roon]

[

ABS, turbocharging, traction control, direct injection, port injection, active suspension, impact structures—these were found amid eras in F1 unconcered with road relevance, yet are road relevant. I'm sure there are other examples.

All of those were brought in to F1, they weren't invented / developed in F1. Most were on road cars before they got into F1 cars.

Didn't mean to imply they were. Just pointing out that these technologies were found in eras of F1 where there wasn't an explicit intention toward road-relevance. The connection is inevitably there, down to the fundamentals- wheel bearings, air filters, four wheels & tires.

[Twl197860]

Why limit all of the teams to a single layout and aspiration?
You can't have no batteries - besides what are you trying to achieve?
Why 75kg/hr? Seems pretty arbitrary and again, what are you trying to achieve? It clearly isn't road relevance because you want to ban batteries.

....
The previous hybrid Porsche WEC entries prior to 2016 did not use batteries, it used an electromechanical flywheel that Williams F1 produced. This flywheel was capable of being used over several seasons with 1 unit. It is non-toxic and non flammable, and much more efficient than batteries(and lighter as well). Power density is also higher I believe.
...

No they didn't. Audi ran the Williams flywheel, but they switched to batteries due to weight, power density and capacity.
Porsche always used batteries. Toyota used to run super caps. But for this season everyone of them chose batteries.

Actually giving the same fuel same displacement a v12 would have a much higher rpm which produces more HP for the allowed amount of fuel flow . The only down side would be weight which is why the original plan was to go with a I4 instead of a v6 but leave it to Ferrari ( the largest group of cry babies in racing ) to complain about it and leave it to F1 & WEC both to listen to them .

[hollus]

...Actually giving the same fuel same displacement ... higher rpm ... produces more HP for the allowed amount of fuel flow .

That only worked in the air limited formula and not with the same fuel flow. I show 2014-2016 as proof if one is needed.

[Twl197860]

No ICE. Electric only.???

I'd be surprised. I would only expect F1 to go fully electric once formula e has proven the technologies and is starting to challenge F1 in performance. Whilst things like car changes and short slow tracks are OK for F e, they certainly wouldn't be for F1. Maybe around 2030?

Going all electric would work if they can perfect & get the cost down on carbon nanotube motors & carbon nanotube super capacitors which I think will be around 2025-2030 ( hopefully ) . I also think they're still testing these on very small scale about the size of RC car motors . The main reason for the small scale is carbon nanotube thread isn't easy to make in long lengths . Longest I've seen is 50 meters and was only the size of a human hair if even that . It has been a while since I've checked up on the progress of these and am waiting for a callback from a friend who said she'll ask her professor what she can and cannot tell me about them .

[godlameroso]

If there is some battery breakthrough and we wind up with a power density of 500w hr/kg it'll be a game changer. Overnight the ICE will be forgotten and discarded. Luckily that's not going to happen for another 15 years.

Currently(pun intended) the best batteries have an energy density of 380W hrs/kg. These are new top of the line batteries coming to the Model 3.

[Twl197860]

...Actually giving the same fuel same displacement ... higher rpm ... produces more HP for the allowed amount of fuel flow .

That only worked in the air limited formula and not with the same fuel flow. I show 2014-2016 as proof if one is needed.

I'd say read all the post of this subject but it appears that the main 1 that comment was for has been deleted they were saying to uncap the rpm and not allow as much fuel which means more cylinders will have a HP advantage but fewer cylinders will have a weight & TQ advantage