2021 Engine thread

[wuzak]

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.

1. Please god no.
2. Goodbye Ferrari.
3. Yes. First sensible thing you've said.
4. They are currently optional. The rules do not say "thou shall have and MGUK and an MGUH". It is just that you would be lost without them. Standardized. uuuugh. I say no MGUH don't bother with ERS at all.
5. See last point in 4.
6. All would use forced induction in order to maximize power as per 3.
7. As is the case now.

[wuzak]

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.

1. Don't want much now do you?
2. Not much different from current prices. I think the aim, from the reports, is $10m per season supply.
3. A sensible limit should not be too onerous. Say 8 new engines per season, with old engines allowed to be refurbished (if cheaper) for practice use (ie Fridays).
4. As above, I'm thinking of a different route. Get rid of the ERS, save at least 50kg which should compensate for the loss of 160hp.
5. With removal of the ERS we can get the weight down. Not sure about 600kg. It may be possible with more engines per season.
a. That is an excellent idea. I believe Indy has a similar rule. All drivers would be then on an equal footing.
b. I believe that with the fuel flow rate pegged at 100kg/h you don't need a race fuel limit. And since I say no ERS then no need for battery pack.
6. The ECU is currently standard. I believe the maps are teh same for every race, except f r development improvements.
7. Again, I advocate no ERS.
8. I disagree. I would limit the data to trackside personnel only, and nominate a maximum number that can access the data.
9. Status quo on that one.

[Singabule]

1 K at front, 160hp, 8mj
2 100kg/H at 12000rpm, refueling
3 v6 1600cc, free design
4 classic and humble twin turbo, with ALS!
5 no K at back
Thats it, plain and Simple

[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.

1. Please god no.
2. Goodbye Ferrari.
3. Yes. First sensible thing you've said.
4. They are currently optional. The rules do not say "thou shall have and MGUK and an MGUH". It is just that you would be lost without them. Standardized. uuuugh. I say no MGUH don't bother with ERS at all.
5. See last point in 4.
6. All would use forced induction in order to maximize power as per 3.
7. As is the case now.

1. I'm actually surprised that the "spaceship engines" has such a support. I for one, would really like to have a engine with F1 pedigree in my car. And it's not something new either, remember the 80ies BMW engines.

2. Well, adding the 458 and California T together should be somewhere around there. But sure, the sport has adopted to the special needs of Ferrari before. I just wanted a number high enough to make homologation specials inhibitive.

3. Well, thanks.

4-5. I know, but with a strict formula on the ICE there is no way around it, is there? With different engines the needs would be different. Mating a rotary engine with a MGU-H would perhaps cure some of it's inherent problems, whilst the gains might be smaller with another engine. I see no point in banning technical solutions.

6. Would they really? With a fuel flow restriction more air being pushed into the engine would not equal more power.

7. Of course.

[CBeck113]

1. Don't want much now do you?

More power = harder to drive (no changes to the tires + less aero)

2. Not much different from current prices. I think the aim, from the reports, is $10m per season supply.

$10mil would be even better, downward is no limit. I would like to see the goal being return on investment, so that even the small teams can make a profit, even if they don't compete for the championship - it's a business, that is why they are there (sadly)

3. A sensible limit should not be too onerous. Say 8 new engines per season, with old engines allowed to be refurbished (if cheaper) for practice use (ie Fridays).

I'd rather see no fixed limit on the number of engines, but maybe a "fund" for waste produced during the season (which would also block certain drivers from competing - I'm lookin' at Maldonaldo and his padowan Stroll )

4. As above, I'm thinking of a different route. Get rid of the ERS, save at least 50kg which should compensate for the loss of 160hp.

They'd be free to do so, or just use ERS to charge an e-turbo...there are so many opportunities, but the teams would look at the costs and benefits, and FIA would decide

5. With removal of the ERS we can get the weight down. Not sure about 600kg. It may be possible with more engines per season.

See above, free to choose - that will drive different designs (hopefully, unless everyone uses the same simulation software)

a. That is an excellent idea. I believe Indy has a similar rule. All drivers would be then on an equal footing.

b. I believe that with the fuel flow rate pegged at 100kg/h you don't need a race fuel limit. And since I say no ERS then no need for battery pack.

I don't like the idea of limiting fuel flow, but to say to have to carry or generate all your energy from the start will force an efficiency/power balance

6. The ECU is currently standard. I believe the maps are the same for every race, except for development improvements.

The driveers can actuall select different maps during the race (power, fuel efficiency, something in between, rain, etc.) and these parameters are not shared between the PSU manufacturers and their customers. I want the drivers to control the engine and not the maps

7. Again, I advocate no ERS.

And I having a choice

8. I disagree. I would limit the data to trackside personnel only, and nominate a maximum number that can access the data.

I am actually against radio from the pit to the driver too, they have a board to use , but this is a personal spleen of mine that the drivers are left to control their vehicles from start to end

9. Status quo on that one.

With a good reason, as I mentioned above: All energy must be on board at the start of the race, and carried the complete distance.

[Edis]

If F1 have a problem with engine manufacturers who struggle to catch up, and fans not knowing what goes on under the engine covers there is one simple solution. After the championship is finished the FIA could reveal the technical details of all the engines. That would help new and struggling engine manufacturers while also give the fans a much better understanding of the technology - And it wouldn't cost anything.

Getting rid of the MGU-H I think will end in disappointment. Disappointment because it will not improve the sound as significantly as some think, and the weight of the unit will be offset by the increased fuel consumption. Not to mention that the turbo lag needs to be dealt with some other way if the engines should remain turbocharged.

If they want to change the engine sound significantly they need to change cylinder count, firing order and/or engine speed. The V6 engines used in F1 are probably odd firing given their configuration, so even the inline four which was ditched in the last moment might have had a more high pitched sound.

[roon]

Speaking of F1, remember those Apollo engines? Man, that's what a rocket engine is supposed to sound like. These newfangled SpaceX rockets just sound like vacuum cleaners. They burn too efficiently. We need to go back to older rocket designs. Rocketry has lost its way.

[Blackout]

Yeah if the teams think they can harvest anough K energy to produce 300hp, and if they want a better sound, so why not "simply" ditch the turbine and replace it with an electric compressor?
We can get a higher RPM better sounding lighter engine. Yes we can
Obviously we cant keep the same V6 as now, we'd need a new one... and we should take advantage of that and modernise it for a better efficiency, weight etc.

[dren]

Mandatory V7s just because nobody would ever make one. Everything else is open.

[roon]

Manufacturers must roll two dice prior to the season start. One is 26-sided and contains the letters of the alphabet. The other is 24-sided and numeric. The result of this dice roll determines the engine layout they must build.

[NL_Fer]

1. Ditch MGU-H: to expensive, noise killer
2. Add Front wheel hubmotors, harvesting only

2 Will make up for the efficiency lost with 1.

But what to do with the fuel flow limiter? It pushes development in effecient lean-burn combustion, but this makes it expensive and also limits noise and revs. And more important, how road relevant will any combustion technology be in the 2020's. How wrong would total development focus on electric propulsion be?

And added bonus, conventional turbo's will introduce lag. Cars will be even harder to handle, more spins and sudden oversteer/wheelspin moments for us to see.

[ME4ME]

1. Ditch MGU-H: to expensive, noise killer
2. Add Front wheel hubmotors, harvesting only

From a cost perspective that's one step forward and two steps back. Why?

[roon]

The hub motors meme never dies. (What is unsprung weight?)

[dren]

Front motors add unsprung weight and a redundant function that the MGUK serves. The turbine is a big player in the sound reduction, not the MGUH.

[Cold Fussion]

If F1 have a problem with engine manufacturers who struggle to catch up, and fans not knowing what goes on under the engine covers there is one simple solution. After the championship is finished the FIA could reveal the technical details of all the engines. That would help new and struggling engine manufacturers while also give the fans a much better understanding of the technology - And it wouldn't cost anything.

I don't think it makes much difference if fans understand the engines or not because it's likely the average fan will have no understand of how any part of an F1 car works no matter the ruleset.