2021 Engine thread

[toraabe]

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.

Because of the 90 degree angle and common crank pin, all engines has uneven firing order.
If they could use split crank pin or the engine vee is 60 or 120 degree the sound could improve :=)

[wuzak]

This Alfa had a 90° bank angle and I doubt it had split journals

[Holm86]

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.

Because of the 90 degree angle and common crank pin, all engines has uneven firing order.
If they could use split crank pin or the engine vee is 60 or 120 degree the sound could improve :=)

I agree, the easiest way would be to allow split journals. Quite sure it would improve the sound.
The problem with the modern engines is not that they lack noise, its a matter of the frequency of the engine.
And maybe the way too liniar powerband in the revrange these engines operate in, making the sound a bit monotonous.

Allow split journals, an change the fuelflow map, so the max fuel flow isnt available from 10.000 to 15.000. It shouldnt be reached before 14.000 rpm.

[Tommy Cookers]

afaik
a 60 deg V6 with 3 pins will sound worse than the present engines as the firing intervals will be more uneven
no-one ever made such an engine unless it was a 2 stroke eg diesel
though TAG their proposals to McLaren apparently included a 60 deg option
the various 90 deg V6 Alfas were/are based on split throw engines ??

[roon]

Per previous implications, we could specify an artificially peaky engine via the fuel flow rate, which would be reduced until, say, 17k RPM, at which point the fuel flow doubles, and then triples at ~20k RPM. Fill the gearbox with fifty, maybe a hundred really short gears and mandate that gears cannot be skipped. You'll have dozens of gear shifts before you even get to the first corner, and hundreds, maybe thousands of gear changes per lap. Even the most jaded fan will bow down in the stands, sobbing, raising their hands to the sky crying "Praise Liberty, Inc.!"

[BanMeToo]

Hahahah

[NL_Fer]

If we remove the MGU-K the turbo('s) will lag during spinup. Almost undriveable if we keep current boostlevel and rev range. To improve drivability revs will increase and boost wil decrease. So more noise even if the flow limiter stays.

Maybe they will increase the powerband from 9000-18000. Driving high revs if precision and low lag is needed for dificult parts of the track, and trying lower revs on parts where they can handle the lag.

[63l8qrrfy6]

No one would go for split journals, too hard to make the crank strong enough.
If it was to be imposed it would translate into massive spending just to get it to work.

I think the reason it was banned in the first place was to keep costs down.

[wuzak]

If we remove the MGU-K the turbo('s) will lag during spinup. Almost undriveable if we keep current boostlevel and rev range. To improve drivability revs will increase and boost wil decrease. So more noise even if the flow limiter stays.

Maybe they will increase the powerband from 9000-18000. Driving high revs if precision and low lag is needed for dificult parts of the track, and trying lower revs on parts where they can handle the lag.

If they change to smaller twin turbos the lag issue would be much reduced.

They are running somewhere between 1987 and 1988 levels of boost (4.0 bar MAP and 2.5 bar MAP).

[toraabe]

If we remove the MGU-K the turbo('s) will lag during spinup. Almost undriveable if we keep current boostlevel and rev range. To improve drivability revs will increase and boost wil decrease. So more noise even if the flow limiter stays.

Maybe they will increase the powerband from 9000-18000. Driving high revs if precision and low lag is needed for dificult parts of the track, and trying lower revs on parts where they can handle the lag.

If they change to smaller twin turbos the lag issue would be much reduced.

They are running somewhere between 1987 and 1988 levels of boost (4.0 bar MAP and 2.5 bar MAP).

If they would allow rpm up to 18000 completely new engines has to be made.
This is due to the 53mm stroke and 80 mm bore
You just cannot rev more than 15000 rpm with that long stoke due to piston speed.

[63l8qrrfy6]

If we remove the MGU-K the turbo('s) will lag during spinup. Almost undriveable if we keep current boostlevel and rev range. To improve drivability revs will increase and boost wil decrease. So more noise even if the flow limiter stays.

Maybe they will increase the powerband from 9000-18000. Driving high revs if precision and low lag is needed for dificult parts of the track, and trying lower revs on parts where they can handle the lag.

If they change to smaller twin turbos the lag issue would be much reduced.

They are running somewhere between 1987 and 1988 levels of boost (4.0 bar MAP and 2.5 bar MAP).

If they would allow rpm up to 18000 completely new engines has to be made.
This is due to the 53mm stroke and 80 mm bore
You just cannot rev more than 15000 rpm with that long stoke due to piston speed.

how did you work that out ?

[Selvariabell]

If we remove the MGU-K the turbo('s) will lag during spinup. Almost undriveable if we keep current boostlevel and rev range. To improve drivability revs will increase and boost wil decrease. So more noise even if the flow limiter stays.

Maybe they will increase the powerband from 9000-18000. Driving high revs if precision and low lag is needed for dificult parts of the track, and trying lower revs on parts where they can handle the lag.

AFAIK, it is the MGU-H that will be removed, while the MGU-K is here to stay.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=Mudflap post]
[quote=toraabe post]
If they would allow rpm up to 18000 completely new engines has to be made.
This is due to the 53mm stroke and 80 mm bore
You just cannot rev more than 15000 rpm with that long stoke due to piston speed.[/quote]

how did you work that out ?[/quote]

simple comparison with the rpm and stroke of the frozen NA engines shows that .....
the square root of the ratio of the 53 mm stroke to the NA stroke c.39 mm is 1.16
so the 53 stroke engine rpm should be 1.16x lower ie 86% of the NA rpm (for engine life as currently demanded)
for the same acceleration of the reciprocating parts and so about the same stresses
also current pistons are apparently steel or partly steel so relatively heavier

toraabe is spot on

[NL_Fer]

If we remove the MGU-K the turbo('s) will lag during spinup. Almost undriveable if we keep current boostlevel and rev range. To improve drivability revs will increase and boost wil decrease. So more noise even if the flow limiter stays.

Maybe they will increase the powerband from 9000-18000. Driving high revs if precision and low lag is needed for dificult parts of the track, and trying lower revs on parts where they can handle the lag.

AFAIK, it is the MGU-H that will be removed, while the MGU-K is here to stay.

Yes i mean MGU-H gone and replaced by two conventional turbo's and even smaller, they will lag if 4 bar is the working boost level.

[wuzak]

If we remove the MGU-K the turbo('s) will lag during spinup. Almost undriveable if we keep current boostlevel and rev range. To improve drivability revs will increase and boost wil decrease. So more noise even if the flow limiter stays.

Maybe they will increase the powerband from 9000-18000. Driving high revs if precision and low lag is needed for dificult parts of the track, and trying lower revs on parts where they can handle the lag.

AFAIK, it is the MGU-H that will be removed, while the MGU-K is here to stay.

Yes i mean MGU-H gone and replaced by two conventional turbo's and even smaller, they will lag if 4 bar is the working boost level.

Not sure about that.

If they allow variable geometry turbos, or anti-lag, or the manufacturers use a sequential system lag may be minimal.

The current configuration turbos are way ovesized in both the compressor and, especially the turbine.

I wondered if they could also use a single turbine/twin compressor concept, with the compressors mounted on the same shaft back to back. I believe such a solution was proposed in the V6 engine thread.