2021 Engine thread

[Holm86]

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.

Sounds too simplyfied for my taste. And IF they stay with the V6 config, at least I hope they'll change the bank angle from 90º to 60º for no technical reason what so ever, but purely for the sound

[godlameroso]

If they want to spruce up the technology, why not make RCCI engines, as that has real promise, and could be very road relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J7yRVT-8wk

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/201 ... _reitz.pdf

[wuzak]

If they want to spruce up the technology, why not make RCCI engines, as that has real promise, and could be very road relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J7yRVT-8wk

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/201 ... _reitz.pdf

Because it is for low speed engines?

And low power?

[godlameroso]

Well if teams are burning oil then they're already using RCCI or premix combustion. So no, it's not like HCCI which is only for low loads and engine speeds.

[Steven]

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.

Who says they're not aiming at a combination of a small and a large turbo, or even variable geometry turbos to make up for the lag?
Or, power from the MGU-K could be used to spin up the turbos?

But I guess then we end up with similar complex power units as we already have them...

[Holm86]

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.

Who says they're not aiming at a combination of a small and a large turbo, or even variable geometry turbos to make up for the lag?
Or, power from the MGU-K could be used to spin up the turbos?

But I guess then we end up with similar complex power units as we already have them...

How would the MGU-K spin the turbo's?
VGT could be a possibility, and I also think they should allow a hot-vee configuration, which I dont even get why is illegal today.
But running an asymmetric setup with one large turbo on one bank, and a smaller on the other, I dont see happening.
But even though theres two turbo's they still need to be rather big to provide the around 3 bars of boost needed.

[Steven]

How would the MGU-K spin the turbo's?
VGT could be a possibility, and I also think they should allow a hot-vee configuration, which I dont even get why is illegal today.
But running an asymmetric setup with one large turbo on one bank, and a smaller on the other, I dont see happening.
But even though theres two turbo's they still need to be rather big to provide the around 3 bars of boost needed.

I was suggesting to add a small electric motor that could spin the turbo with battery power (without the ability to extract power from the turbo, like on the current MGU-H).

Also, as for the turbo, I also believe it's highly unlikely to have unequal turbos on either cylinder bank, but can't they consider sequential turbos, or perhaps a design where each bank's exhaust pipe merges, and then splits into two for the seperately sized turbos?

But again, as said, I guess this would all make things more complicated than they seem to want.

[bill shoe]

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.

I guarantee they will not use a flat fuel-flow rate. This would lead to roughly constant-power engines and therefore single-gear driving. This can be a very effective and cheap way to go fast, but it lacks the traditional ramp-up step-down sound of the engine as it accelerates through the gears, and this traditional sound is considered an absolute must in F1 circles. The new regs will continue with a variable fuel-flow limit that's a function of rpm, and a minimum number of gears.

The joker is if they mandate a standard turbo, this would effectively force many aspects of engine operation without having to explicitly write them in the rules...

I think a high rpm range can be forced with either a flat boost limit or a ramped fuel-flow limit?

[gruntguru]

I have often wondered whether a slight ramping of the currently "flat" section of fuel flow from 10,500 to 15,000 rpm might be a useful incentive to run at higher revs?

[Holm86]

How would the MGU-K spin the turbo's?
VGT could be a possibility, and I also think they should allow a hot-vee configuration, which I dont even get why is illegal today.
But running an asymmetric setup with one large turbo on one bank, and a smaller on the other, I dont see happening.
But even though theres two turbo's they still need to be rather big to provide the around 3 bars of boost needed.

I was suggesting to add a small electric motor that could spin the turbo with battery power (without the ability to extract power from the turbo, like on the current MGU-H).

Also, as for the turbo, I also believe it's highly unlikely to have unequal turbos on either cylinder bank, but can't they consider sequential turbos, or perhaps a design where each bank's exhaust pipe merges, and then splits into two for the seperately sized turbos?

But again, as said, I guess this would all make things more complicated than they seem to want.

It would all be possible, but also somewhat complex. Im pretty sure, if they go twin turbo, they will be equal in size, with no electronic help.

I have often wondered whether a slight ramping of the currently "flat" section of fuel flow from 10,500 to 15,000 rpm might be a useful incentive to rune at higher revs?

Moving the point of the max flow rate higher up the RPM scale would make the engines rev higher for sure. And I see why they created the flat rate from 10.500 to 15.000, so the penalty of having fixed gear ratios wouldnt be too big. It's pretty clever, but unfortunatly its designed for drivability, as if it was a roadcar engine, and not a race engine.

Personally I think the fuel map should be much peakier, (not as in turbolag peaky) so the cars would be more difficult to drive. Also think they would sound better, not as monotonous as they do now.

[wuzak]

They are talking of upping the fuel flow rate, so they could just move the fixed point up the scale and follow the same ramp to that point.

An extra couple of thousand rpm should get the engines pretty close to 1000hp without ERS.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=Holm86]
Personally I think the fuel map should be much peakier, (not as in turbolag peaky) so the cars would be more difficult to drive. Also think they would sound better, not as monotonous as they do now.[/quote]

the 1987 V6 Cosworth 'Ford' TEC (4 bar) according to Doug Nye had lag too small to be measured (and iirc was the best engine)
and of course its 120 deg V angle gave (Holm-favoured) even firing with 3 throws (a 60 deg V wouldn't unless the crank had 6 throws)

or are people saying that even in 2021 lag would be a problem due to the lower energy state of the high AFR exhaust ?

[roon]

I'm fond of the MGU-H and would like to see it stay. I think it's one of the more interesting devices ever used in F1.

I don't consider it to be the cost/complexity driver that people make it out to be, compared to the combustion tech necessitated by the fuel flow rate. If PU costs are a concern, would it not be more effective to scrap the fuel flow rate than to scrap hybrid system components?

As such, a bigger MGU-H is interesting to me. As in, "MGU-H with engine attached," along with a bigger ES.

Further along these lines, combine the MGU-H & MGU-K into one larger motor, and drop the ICE to replace it with a combustor.

The resulting "MGU-HK" would be a single large electric motor with a compressor at one end and turbine at the other, with a combustor(s) atop or alongside. All components sharing a common shaft, spinning at the same speed. Say, ~500hp from the motor, and ~500 additional from the turbomachinery. One output shaft and reduction gearing would connect this to an F1-type multi-ratio transmission.

The MGU-HK would have a useful speed range from zero rpm to 60k+ rpm (whatever normal operating speed would be for a medium-size jet engine). Below the jet engine componentry's minimum operational speed, fuel would be cut and it would be all electric drive. This would create a lag/off-boost sort of transition in power output.

The MGU-HK would harvest from both the jet exhaust stream and the transmission directly (H & K), storing energy in an enlarged ES. A non-linear fuel flow rate could ensure that the MGU-HK has a power curve necessitating gear shifts and rev changes. Motor assistance and variable compressor & turbine geometry might enable quick throttle response not usually associated with jet engines.

Race starts would be silent for a split second until the MGU-HK is spinning fast enough to start burning fuel effectively. Then the jet blast sound kicks in across the field. Then: zoom & rising and falling whirs & roars as the MGU-HKs rise and fall through tens of thousands of RPM per gear.

One positive refrain I've noticed from the current formula is that people seem to like the MGU-H spin-down sound once the engine is off. This sort of frequency range could become the primary engine sound. Mandate helical cut gears to eliminate the gear whine component. Blown diffusers could return more blown than ever.

In sum: A shiftable, rev-able electric turboshaft with H & K regen. Let's not drop the H, let's make it all H.

[roon]

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.

Who says they're not aiming at a combination of a small and a large turbo, or even variable geometry turbos to make up for the lag?
Or, power from the MGU-K could be used to spin up the turbos?

But I guess then we end up with similar complex power units as we already have them...

One downside to a hot-vee in this context would be the higher placement of the exhaust manifold mass. I assume F1's inconel headers are significantly heavier than their CF intake manifolds. That said, the variable intake mechanisms do add some weight beyond plain CF manifolds.

If the rules for twin turbos aren't too wordy, one can imagine someone will try to get clever with the layout. Might even the packaging or thermal benefits of a split-turbo still be desirable? Twin split turbos. Per bank, or coaxial, as in a two stage compressor up front and a two stage turbo out back. Like the current Merc setup sans H, with extra compression & expansion stages.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=roon]
I'm fond of the MGU-H and would like to see it stay. I think it's one of the more interesting devices ever used in F1 [/quote]

I agree with this part of roon's post

we could have and should have one electric machine (like the current MGU-H) ......
ie the turbo should be geared to the crankshaft via a combining arrangement (as today in eg Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive)

this combining gives continuous variability of the ratio between turbo and crankshaft
and so enables one electric machine to do the jobs presently done by the MGU-H and the MGU-K

btw (with two electric machines) combining the K at the gearbox output would allow constant ICE rpm all along the straights