2021 Engine thread

[The_table]

Why not just use an electrically driven supercharger. (ie: ONLY driven by electricity) and powered by electricity harvested from anywhere but the exhaust, once the havesting tech and batteries become better this should be possible.

(Also this seems like a simpler soluition because now they have to slow down the turbo at times and speed it up at other times, that coordination seems like it would be a nightmare.)
I'd keep TJI,because it sounds very relevant for road cars.

Question: Would less displacement but same fuel flow equal higher revving engines with the same power or just less power?
Second question: Does cost REALLY matter for engine makers, i mean they spend insane amounts of money anyway,improving combustion and hybrid tech seems like a REALLY good way to spend their money.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Hi Guys , I really enjoy this discussion. Well i suppose that The hybrid engines should be dropped. F1 should try other types of engines (e.g small jet engine) that would be awesome to watch =D> =D> and i know that could make it hard to follow someone. already have some troubles to overtake in '17 I believe there's a solution to that problem. What do you think guys ? share your opinion with us. Hopefully you have another solutions.
#JetEngineF1 That would be nice hhhh

why not rocket engines ?

[roon]

Why not just use an electrically driven supercharger. (ie: ONLY driven by electricity) and powered by electricity harvested from anywhere but the exhaust, once the havesting tech and batteries become better this should be possible.

(Also this seems like a simpler soluition because now they have to slow down the turbo at times and speed it up at other times, that coordination seems like it would be a nightmare.)
I'd keep TJI,because it sounds very relevant for road cars.

Question: Would less displacement but same fuel flow equal higher revving engines with the same power or just less power?
Second question: Does cost REALLY matter for engine makers, i mean they spend insane amounts of money anyway,improving combustion and hybrid tech seems like a REALLY good way to spend their money.

If fuel flow is the same, as in: peaking at 10.5k RPM, and displacement is decreased, then revs would either stay the same and cylinder pressure would increase (similar power output), or they'd rev higher to limit cylinder pressure at a cost to efficiency (less power). It would depend on being able to make the smaller engine durable enough to survive increasing combustion temp & pressure.

[roon]

Hi Guys , I really enjoy this discussion. Well i suppose that The hybrid engines should be dropped. F1 should try other types of engines (e.g small jet engine) that would be awesome to watch =D> =D> and i know that could make it hard to follow someone. already have some troubles to overtake in '17 I believe there's a solution to that problem. What do you think guys ? share your opinion with us. Hopefully you have another solutions.
#JetEngineF1 That would be nice hhhh

why not rocket engines ?

Why not nuclear? Refuel once per season.

[miguelbento]

Hi Guys , I really enjoy this discussion. Well i suppose that The hybrid engines should be dropped. F1 should try other types of engines (e.g small jet engine) that would be awesome to watch =D> =D> and i know that could make it hard to follow someone. already have some troubles to overtake in '17 I believe there's a solution to that problem. What do you think guys ? share your opinion with us. Hopefully you have another solutions.
#JetEngineF1 That would be nice hhhh

why not rocket engines ?

Why not nuclear? Refuel once per season.

We just have to make sure they don't reach 88 mph...

[roon]

why not rocket engines ?

Why not nuclear? Refuel once per season.

We just have to make sure they don't reach 88 mph...

No issue for Honda.

Maybe they've been trying to avoid a causality paradox this whole time. DeLorean-Honda 2018? Fernando McFly & Doc Hasegawa to show up at the start of the 2015 season with a "vastly improved" powerplant.

[seezung]

Rough translation of http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 40208.html

Rumours;
Alfa Romeo, Ilmor and VW attended 2021 Engine Meeting.

- MGU-H (the electric motor coupled to the turbo) may be abandoned. the current MGU-H regulation is seen as a major cost driver and its abolition creates simpler engines that also can be louder.
- Non-works teams in particular, favor a standardized KERS (MGU-K) unit. Mario Illien advised such an engine could be made for $10 million a piece.
- Volkswagen involvement could favor a push towards 4 cylinders instead of 6. The 2014 rules were intially about 4-cylinder engines as well, but veto'd by Ferrari.

[ripper]

I don't like it, looks like a big step back, to be honest I really love the idea of MGU-H + K and I hoped they would have pursued this layout in the future (or with another kind of MGU to harvest even more energy from the fuel).

[63l8qrrfy6]

I apologize for repeating myself but I don't get VW at all - they are in the middle of a massive shitstorm yet they attempt to negotiate f1 engine specs ? ATM they can't afford to run a WRC team and they plan to reduce their workforce by 30000 until 2021.

How on earth can they even show up for that conference ? Does anyone realistically expect them to join F1 as an engine manufacturer ?

It really triggers me that they dare turn up and demand their shitty little inline 4 no one else wanted in the first place.

[bill shoe]

What's the over/under for when Mercedez-Benz High Performance Engines will have their first early prototype 2021 powertrain running on a dyno? -- maybe winter 2017/18?

What's the over/under for when Honda Performance Development will have their first early prototype 2021 powertrain running on the dyno? -- maybe winter 2020/21?

[AJI]

What's the over/under for when Mercedez-Benz High Performance Engines will have their first early prototype 2021 powertrain running on a dyno? -- maybe winter 2017/18?

What's the over/under for when Honda Performance Development will have their first early prototype 2021 powertrain running on the dyno? -- maybe winter 2020/21?

Mercedes have already built it.

Honda won't even participate.

[UlleGulle]

Formula One, and motor sport in general has three great problems. The first are spiraling costs and the second is road relevance. The third is tight rules and teams converging on specific technical solutions, making the series looking more or less like a one-supplier-formula.

We can argue all year about which sort of engine has the best legacy/sound/technical future. I suggest we let the teams fight it out on track.

My humble proposal for a new regulation would be the following:
1. The engine block, pistons, rods and crank must be pulled of the line of a road car assembly. Manufacturers may change the material of pistons, rods and crank to a set of materials approved, but are not allowed to change their design.
2. This engine must be a part of a production run of at least 3000 engines.
3. Keep the fuel flow restrictions - power through efficiency
4. The MGU systems are standardized but optional.
5. Battery is optional, and it's capacity is not limited by rules.
6. Forced induction is allowed, but unregulated.
7. Unobtanium, vibranium, kryptonite and other exotic metals are banned.

This set of rules would lower the costs since it's low tech. Teams would not risk being caught out without an engine, like Red Bull a couple of years ago. The marketing for manufacturers value would also be greater since they would actually run the same engine in the racecar as in your Renault or Ferrari. The costs would also be curtailed since it's no way these engines would cost 22 million dollars. Not even if you started with quali-engines again. Teams would also find different ways to performance.

[CBeck113]

Formula One, and motor sport in general has three great problems. The first are spiraling costs and the second is road relevance. The third is tight rules and teams converging on specific technical solutions, making the series looking more or less like a one-supplier-formula.

We can argue all year about which sort of engine has the best legacy/sound/technical future. I suggest we let the teams fight it out on track.

My humble proposal for a new regulation would be the following:
1. The engine block, pistons, rods and crank must be pulled of the line of a road car assembly. Manufacturers may change the material of pistons, rods and crank to a set of materials approved, but are not allowed to change their design.
2. This engine must be a part of a production run of at least 3000 engines.
3. Keep the fuel flow restrictions - power through efficiency
4. The MGU systems are standardized but optional.
5. Battery is optional, and it's capacity is not limited by rules.
6. Forced induction is allowed, but unregulated.
7. Unobtanium, vibranium, kryptonite and other exotic metals are banned.

This set of rules would lower the costs since it's low tech. Teams would not risk being caught out without an engine, like Red Bull a couple of years ago. The marketing for manufacturers value would also be greater since they would actually run the same engine in the racecar as in your Renault or Ferrari. The costs would also be curtailed since it's no way these engines would cost 22 million dollars. Not even if you started with quali-engines again. Teams would also find different ways to performance.

Who wants road relevance? Only the manufacturers, not the fans - or have you gone into a car dealership and asked for an open wheeled one-seater? Sorry when I xplode here, but this argument is utter bullshit - if they want to sell their fekkin cars in a race series then they should do it in a road relevant series, like WTCC, DTM, V8 Supercars etc. With less xpensive engines you get manufacturers like Cosworth or Illmore back, and the other will stay as well (xcept maybe Honda, unless they get their act together).
It's easier than that:
1. Maximum combined PSU power: 1000kW
2. All PSU manufacturers must make their PSUs including software available to customers for $15mil for the complete season
3. No limit on the number of PSUs for the season
4. No limit on the electrical storage
5. Minimum car weight 600kg, maximum weight 700kg
a. Driver weight including seat = 85kg
b. Fuel & electrical storage = 120kg
6. One firm-/software & map for the PSU and its control mechanisms (pedals etc.) for the season (i.e. same injection maps for Monaco and Monza, same MGU recovery maps as well)
7. Standard MGU for all teams, storage is open
8. No active telemetrie monitoring in the pits, with the exception of fluid temperatures and pressures before entry into the motor block, recording for after-race analysis allowed
9. No refueling / recharging from an external source
No changes to the current material rules. This "open" concept will force the manufacturers to make compromises for the season (additional weight for e-storage, or more fuel? TT-i4, NA-V8, or e-turbo v6?), which would allow the individual teams to focus on certain track types, letting smaller teams a chance to go all-in for one race.

Car manufacturers would also have something from this concept: motivation to lower the weight of electrical storage, more fuel efficiency, and achieving this with one engine map for all functions - just like on a road car (xcept VW, they did it differently). The aero can be tuned for the individual tracks, but not the PSU.

[CriXus]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 55986.html

V6-Biturbo with 1,200 hp?
On Friday, March 31, 2017, the design of the future of Formula One began in Paris. It started with a discussion about the engines after 2020. The Concorde agreement guarantees the engine manufacturers of the Formula 1 stability by the end of 2020. But meanwhile, the opinion prevails that one has maneuvered with the current drive units into a dead end.
The current V6 mono turbos are too complicated, too expensive and too quiet. The restriction to 4 units per car dictates to the driver too often the pace. Because he can only drive a limited round number with full power. And the reduction to 3 units in 2018 will also push the development budget up. Honda representatives said the restriction to fewer engines costs more than it does.
Jean Todt once again mentioned the astounding progress achieved with the hybrid generation. It has reached 900 to 1,000 hp, with 30 per cent less fuel consumption and closer to the magical limit of 50 per cent of thermal efficiency.

Serial relevance is no longer critical
Ross Brawn, FIA experts, FIA, Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda, Renault, Audi and Ilmor took part in the first discussion round on the next drive formula. FIA President Jean Todt chaired the meeting. For Ross Brawn the agreement on a new engine concept starting from 2021 is elementary: "Before we think about a sustainable vehicle concept for the Formula 1, the Motorfrage must be clarified. Everything else depends on it. "
A first point of discussion was the serial relevance. In the future, it will only be decisive in terms of consumption and efficiency, but it does not necessarily have to include technologies that are installed in the road cars of the future. Ross Brawn explained the departure from the previous philosophy by saying that a Formula 1 car is far from the series because of its open wheels and aerodynamics, and therefore does not have to have a motor like a road car.
The MGU-H was also questioned. It is expensive and the main reason for the bad sound. On the test stand was also the question, whether in the future every manufacturer must develop its own battery and its own turbocharger. Both components are standard components, because their development devours a lot of money but are not perceived by the fan.

FIA wants to see specific engine proposals
The Expert Council agreed in Paris on common goal: the cost must be reduced, the technique simplified, the performance increased and the sound improved. FIA President Todt was satisfied with the result of the meeting: "It is positive that so many participants could agree on a direction in which we want to go with the engines for the Formula 1 World Championship." The common goal is one Point, the implementation of another. All participants were asked to make concrete proposals within two months.
An idea that you can hear over and over again provides for a V6 biturbo based on the current architecture. This is coupled with a strong electric machine, which derives its power exclusively from the recuperation of kinetic energy (MGU-K). For example also on the front axle. The expensive MGU-H, which also dampens the sound, should be dropped completely.
This would make an extra boost of up to 300 hp possible. This would be necessary to realize services beyond 1,000 hp. The test stands of the manufacturers are currently limited to a maximum of 1,000 HP. No one is interested in having to build new test rigs.
Toto Wolff said in an interview with auto motor and sport before the motors meeting that the performance weight of the MotoGP could be an example for the Formula 1. In order to meet the formula "more power than downforce", this engine would have to have 1,225 hp on the basis of the current cars. Or the cars would have to be lighter.

[Tommy Cookers]

'derives its power exclusively from the recuperation of kinetic energy ???'

KERS and whatever we call it now has always derived much of its power directly ie in real-time from the burning of fuel
despite the FIAs endless statements and implications of the contrary

the MGU-H has economies of cost and weight and bulk etc because it timeshares with the K much of the electric system
enlarging the total K means a larger electrical system than the present one
burning fuel to charge directly the ES is for this and other reasons is even more desirable than at present