2021 Engine thread

[ENGINE TUNER]

The longer i think about it, the more certain i am that the hyperefficient leanburn combustion engine is a dead end. Maybe Wartsila or MHI are interested, but it is not going to be important for cars.

Why?

Because i feel, that hi-end commuter cars will be full electrics within 10 years. Combustion engines will be kept simple for basic cars or range extenders. Manufacturers will want to focus on electric drivelines by then and lose interest in development and marketing of combustion engines.

Hypercars, supercars and high end grand tourers will have ICE for quite some time to come.

[NL_Fer]

Premium Mainstream is what makes profits.

[gruntguru]

The longer i think about it, the more certain i am that the hyperefficient leanburn combustion engine is a dead end. Maybe Wartsila or MHI are interested, but it is not going to be important for cars.

Why?

Because i feel, that hi-end commuter cars will be full electrics within 10 years. Combustion engines will be kept simple for basic cars or range extenders. Manufacturers will want to focus on electric drivelines by then and lose interest in development and marketing of combustion engines.

Yes, I agree on the shift to EV's, however efficiency will become increasingly important as fuel prices rise whilst technologies like TJI will become cheaper.

[wuzak]

My solution for the 2021 engine would be as follows:

- Keep the present V6 ICE, its a great wee unit and is well developed by then. Allow development of the ICE up until 2025 then have it fully frozen
- Place twin Turbos or Superchargers on the engine, manufacturers will be free to choose what they wish to use.
- Up the MGU-K to a 8mJ system, with the car being able to run up to 60 seconds a lap on full power.
- Standardised Control Electronics and Energy Store
- Each area of the engine is limited to 4 units per season, new manufacturers will be exempt from penalties for a period of two years (unless they score three victories in first season) and manufacturers who have no win in last 5 seasons will also be exempt, Manufacturers with no victories in past 3 seasons will be granted 6 of each unit per season.
- Fuel will be strictly limited to 250 litres per car for the weekend, of which each supplier will only be allowed 4 fuel mixes per season
- Gearboxes will be brought back to a 7 speed and have to last for 5 races. However with standardised Gearbox internals, however the gear ratios can be chosen for each gearbox for tailoring of ratios for each driver. The final gear can be changed at each event as well. Main gear ratios will be from a pool of 50 available with 10 available final ratios. Ratios chosen for each gearbox to be submitted and publicly shown, final drive ratio changes also shown publicly.
- Standardised electronics, new generation of SECU will have to have the manufacturer source code inputted into its micro-code so the standardised rotary that operates engine power to fuel efficiency can work, so all teams have access to full power, no works bias.
- Steering wheels to be simplified to 7 rotaries and a maximum of 14 buttons/switches
- Engine pool at factory side to be chosen at random, no manufacturer cherry picking in order to ensure that fairness is shown.

With this engines would be able to reach a easy 1,000plus BHP and be cost effective enough for a small team to spend €25m on a full supply of a rear end for the season. Id also make it that before each session the component number must be publicly shown via FIA web site for transparency.

Manufacturers of engines only (Honda) can supply a maximum of 5 teams, Manufacturers who have a works chassis side (Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda) can only supply two customer teams a season. In present terms, the manufacturers would be fine, but add a 11th and 12th entry and things would complicate as they would be locked into Honda or another supplier, or Ferrari once Sauber switch to Honda.

I think they will end up with a 1.6l V6 twin turbo with a flat fuel flow rate and boost limit - which should lead to higher rpm. The fuel flow rate would be raised to get the approximate power level desired.

[Holm86]

My solution for the 2021 engine would be as follows:

- Keep the present V6 ICE, its a great wee unit and is well developed by then. Allow development of the ICE up until 2025 then have it fully frozen
- Place twin Turbos or Superchargers on the engine, manufacturers will be free to choose what they wish to use.
- Up the MGU-K to a 8mJ system, with the car being able to run up to 60 seconds a lap on full power.
- Standardised Control Electronics and Energy Store
- Each area of the engine is limited to 4 units per season, new manufacturers will be exempt from penalties for a period of two years (unless they score three victories in first season) and manufacturers who have no win in last 5 seasons will also be exempt, Manufacturers with no victories in past 3 seasons will be granted 6 of each unit per season.
- Fuel will be strictly limited to 250 litres per car for the weekend, of which each supplier will only be allowed 4 fuel mixes per season
- Gearboxes will be brought back to a 7 speed and have to last for 5 races. However with standardised Gearbox internals, however the gear ratios can be chosen for each gearbox for tailoring of ratios for each driver. The final gear can be changed at each event as well. Main gear ratios will be from a pool of 50 available with 10 available final ratios. Ratios chosen for each gearbox to be submitted and publicly shown, final drive ratio changes also shown publicly.
- Standardised electronics, new generation of SECU will have to have the manufacturer source code inputted into its micro-code so the standardised rotary that operates engine power to fuel efficiency can work, so all teams have access to full power, no works bias.
- Steering wheels to be simplified to 7 rotaries and a maximum of 14 buttons/switches
- Engine pool at factory side to be chosen at random, no manufacturer cherry picking in order to ensure that fairness is shown.

With this engines would be able to reach a easy 1,000plus BHP and be cost effective enough for a small team to spend €25m on a full supply of a rear end for the season. Id also make it that before each session the component number must be publicly shown via FIA web site for transparency.

Manufacturers of engines only (Honda) can supply a maximum of 5 teams, Manufacturers who have a works chassis side (Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda) can only supply two customer teams a season. In present terms, the manufacturers would be fine, but add a 11th and 12th entry and things would complicate as they would be locked into Honda or another supplier, or Ferrari once Sauber switch to Honda.

I think they will end up with a 1.6l V6 twin turbo with a flat fuel flow rate and boost limit - which should lead to higher rpm. The fuel flow rate would be raised to get the approximate power level desired.

Not a fan of limiting the boost, unlimited boost is a great way to compensate for altitude diffirences of the different tracks. They should rather set the max fuel flow rate at 15.000 rpm instead.
Even though the MGU-H is an amazing piece of tech, and makes these engine very efficient, they should ditch it in favor of twin turbos. Allow the MGU-K to harvest more than 120kw, but only release 120kw to compensate for the lack of MGU-H. Even let the MGU-K harvest under acceleration, except in 1-2. gear, to prevent using it for traction control. Increase the displacement to 2000cc so the turbos does not need to be so big (laggy) when there is no MGU-H to help them spin up. Maybe open up the the regulations in the crank area, to allow split throws.
Other than that, just keep the V6 high pressure direct injection platform.

[wuzak]

Not a fan of limiting the boost, unlimited boost is a great way to compensate for altitude diffirences of the different tracks. They should rather set the max fuel flow rate at 15.000 rpm instead.
Even though the MGU-H is an amazing piece of tech, and makes these engine very efficient, they should ditch it in favor of twin turbos. Allow the MGU-K to harvest more than 120kw, but only release 120kw to compensate for the lack of MGU-H. Even let the MGU-K harvest under acceleration, except in 1-2. gear, to prevent using it for traction control. Increase the displacement to 2000cc so the turbos does not need to be so big (laggy) when there is no MGU-H to help them spin up. Maybe open up the the regulations in the crank area, to allow split throws.
Other than that, just keep the V6 high pressure direct injection platform.

Boost, at least in WW2 aircraft, was defined as the pressure above the standard sea level pressure.

Generally how I use it too.

But I think that in F1 boost will not be limited, but rather Manifold Absolute Pressure. This means the turbos can still compensate for higher altitudes and give the same engine performance.

Don't think they need to move to 2l, 1.6l should be plenty string enough to spin up twin turbos.

Without the MGUH I don't feel the fuel flow rate needs to be linked to rpm. The fear with the MGUH was that the maximum boost could be obtained at very low rpm and this the maximum power would be at low rpm.

If the turbos were able to hit maximum boost at low rpm they would probably be too small to give the maximum performance.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=wuzak]Boost, at least in WW2 aircraft, was defined as the pressure above the standard sea level pressure.
Generally how I use it too.
But I think that in F1 boost will not be limited, but rather Manifold Absolute Pressure. This means the turbos can still compensate for higher altitudes and give the same engine performance.[/quote]

boost was manifold pressure relative to the ambient pressure around the vehicle (RETRO-EDIT this point seems WRONG - see later post)
presumably 'gauge' (open reference) pressure - simple, foolproof and failsafe but not rigorous in its relationship with power
one nation's boost was a pressure increment (or with NA a decrement) to ambient, one other nation's was a multiplier of ambient

but the USA used absolute pressure (presumably needing a sealed reference pressure capsule) and this MAP rather became a convention
eg some current NA helicopters eg R44 have engines autothrottled to an MAP limit eg 22" of Hg abs
ie they automatically throttle up to this abs pressure limit regardless of ambient pressure (due to altitude)
nominally this fixes maximum power regardless of altitude (and adds 'flat-rating' the engine for longevity)
in many NA others the pilot limits power demands so the auto throttle stays within a limit eg 25"
as in many supercharged planes the pilot throttled 'strictly' by reference to gauge eg 38" abs limit

exact altitude compensation of power will not be achieved by fixing boost or by fixing MAP ?
see these ?
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-226540.html
http://helicopterforum.verticalreferenc ... -throttle/

[NL_Fer]

Yes manifold pressure limited is the right term.

To continue on the need of high efficiency engines, because of electric drivelines, the kilometers driven on combustion will become less and less. Sure high fuel prices will ask for efficient engines, but when used as a range enxtender, they also need to be compact and affordable.

Also the current f1 engines are superefficient at max power, where streetcars need to be efficient at low power situations. Check current turbo gasoline 1,4-1,6l engines, efficient when cruising at 100km/h but thirty when you put your foot down.

[gruntguru]

eg some current NA helicopters eg R44 have engines autothrottled to an MAP limit eg 22" of Hg abs

Below atmospheric - typo?

[Tommy Cookers]

22" was my intent - no I didn't check (people can read the links to check and for detail)

iirc the 4 seat 'death egg' aka Robinson helicopter will run a max of approx 22" from 0' to approx 12000'
ie iirc it's flat rated for altitude and flat rated for extra (or acceptable) TBO

iirc in the 2 seat you will see about 26" max and this falls with altitude

about the same in a plane
manifold pressure gauge being fitted with constant-speed props - or similarly you can't set the power as rpm doesn't change with power

such few NA engines that similarly had boost gauges would always read a minus pressure
some had 'super-compression' ie WOT at low altitude and takeoff was not permissible
ie a NA engine rather compensated/'flat-rated' for altitude


normal NA cars will always have a sub-atmospheric manifold pressure - and hence always a higher exhaust ('back') pressure
too many people forget this

[wuzak]

presumably 'gauge' (open reference) pressure - simple, foolproof and failsafe but not rigorous in its relationship with power
one nation's boost was a pressure increment (or with NA a decrement) to ambient, one other nation's was a multiplier of ambient

No, the British used boost relative to standard sea level pressure.

Thus an engine sees the same pressure whether it is at 0ft or 30,000ft.

Looking at the Merlin (2 speeds) you get a saw-tooth pattern for the power with respect to altitude.

The peak power in each supercharger gear is termed the Full Throttle Height (FTH). This is the point at which the throttle is wide open to give the specified boost.

Above this altitude the supercharger cannot maintain the boost, below this altitude the intake is throttled, the supercharger works less efficiently and consumes more power. Note that the supercharger could provide more boost, but likely the engine couldn't cope with this.

In 2 speed systems you would change up to the next gear above the first gear's FTH. Power would be again rise, as the supercharger is again throttled, until the FTH for that gear is reached. The power is less in this gear than teh first as it is being spun faster, thus consuming more air (higher pressure ratio).

Cruising at low power could see the engine operate at negative boost, that is, the MAP is below standard sea level atmospheric. This is particularly true of low boost engines.

[Tommy Cookers]

you say 'thus an engine sees the same pressure whether at 0 ft or 30000 ft'

if you mean inlet manifold pressure ....
10 lb boost at sea level was 10 lb forward pressure but 10 lb boost at altitude was more than 10 lb forward pressure
wouldn't this term contribute in the sense of power increase with altitude ?
yes of course the dominant factor is (absolute) inlet manifold pressure, driving massflow

before writing yesterday I checked and got this, written by Bill Gunston
'boost pressure is the difference between ambient atmospheric pressure and the pressure in the supercharger delivery manifold feeding the cylinders'
and 'in German engines 1.7 ata (1.7 times local atmospheric pressure)'

(my take was) ....
if he meant sea level atmospheric pressure why did he say ambient ?
if he meant sea level atmospheric pressure why did he say local atmospheric pressure ? (Berlin or 5000' Munich ? of Thain/Manchester United notoriety)
Gunston's diagram of a British boost controller is not helpful

but today, looking at the Sensitive Aneroid paragraph in this
http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Rol ... nABC.shtml
it shows the aneroid pressure was a mass production-line approach to vacuum (elsewhere aneroids are defined as partially evacuated)
and ok the designed system was presumably calibration-checked at nominally sea level

our 2021 car (turbo, if no recovery) might slightly increase power with altitude at fixed MAP
and MAP fixed by rule is difficult to implement, so (as in 1987-8) backup limiters are needed ie fuel quantity

[wuzak]

Firstly, 1.7ata is 1.7 atmospheres absolute. ie MAP.

Look at this chart for the Merlin 66:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg

Look at the +18psi boost (normal boost for "regular" fuel).

Power increases as the throttle is opened with altitude until Full Throttle Height is reached at about 9,500ft.

After this height the boost cannot be maintained, and the power drops, rather rapidly. So then the supercharger is changed to 2nd gear.

Power again rises, until the FTH is reached for that - about 20,000ft.

The downward lines after FTH are what the graph would look like if the boost was related to outside ambient.

The upward diagonal lines below FTH are lines of constant boost.

Boost is maintained using throttling.

The supercharger can make more boost at low altitudes than it is allowed to do. That is evidenced by the lines for +25psi and +28psi boost, both of which required special fuel.

As the supercharger and gearing isn't changed for those boost levels, the FTH is at lower altitudes.

At 20,000ft the outside air pressure is about 7psi absolute compared to 14.7psi at sea level.

[garrett]

German am & s writes that a basic agreement among the basic structure of the new Power Units has been found: 1,6 V6 twin-turbo without MGU-H with standardized battery and turbochargers, with PCI and with sole MGU-K on the rear axle.

[J.A.W.]

German am & s writes that a basic agreement among the basic structure of the new Power Units has been found: 1,6 V6 twin-turbo without MGU-H with standardized battery and turbochargers, with PCI and with sole MGU-K on the rear axle.

Well, if that report turns out to be accurate, then perhaps - we really are in a post-Bernie era of technical progress..