2021 Engine thread

[wuzak]

Also, the N/A engines that replaced the turbo engines in 1988/89 were similar in weight to the turbos. With less power.

[J.A.W.]

Ok, but seems we are potentially envisioning - an F1 racing era - 'clean slate'..

So, as per piston aero-engines, where efficiency rather than arbitrary caps on swept volume - governs..
& whereby turbos.. are ( nowadays) primarily for altitude 'normalisation'.

Is there a 'golden mean' of an N/A which is light, large capacity but of low rpm, yet may be optimum, fuel efficiency-wise?

Perhaps if the bans on 2T/non-poppet valve engines - were also relaxed?

[stevesingo]

What about this

3litre V8 limited to 8000rpm- V8 noise, but lower engine speeds, so longer lasting engines and at road car relevant engine speeds.

Electrically driven supercharger-With boost levels limited either by how powerful manufacturers can make the compressor motor, or should that not be sufficient, a FiA mandated cap which will control ultimate power levels. Also, no subduing of the exhaust noise.

Limited fuel capacity to drive efficiency.

KERS with higher recovery say 250kw but lower deployment say 125kw-This would not be sustainable over a full lap (especially with the supercharger using electrical energy), but could be deployed strategically to facilitate overtaking.

How would that work out?

[wuzak]

What about this

3litre V8 limited to 8000rpm- V8 noise, but lower engine speeds, so longer lasting engines and at road car relevant engine speeds.

Electrically driven supercharger-With boost levels limited either by how powerful manufacturers can make the compressor motor, or should that not be sufficient, a FiA mandated cap which will control ultimate power levels. Also, no subduing of the exhaust noise.

Limited fuel capacity to drive efficiency.

KERS with higher recovery say 250kw but lower deployment say 125kw-This would not be sustainable over a full lap (especially with the supercharger using electrical energy), but could be deployed strategically to facilitate overtaking.

How would that work out?

You would need front brake recovery, I think, to get those sort of recovery numbers.

[Zynerji]

After 11 years of KERS (2009-2020), they should be looking at AWD KERS anyway.

Everyone knows that the most efficient recovery is on the front axle. By ignoring the front recovery, the rules are literally stopping the best use of this technology.

[63l8qrrfy6]

These discussions about allowing different engine configurations all look good on paper until someone pulls a 500I trick and get banned.

All it does is give manufacturers more opportunities to start off on a wrong path - and they seem to be doing this a lot even with the current regulations.

[Zynerji]

Why not start with a reference engine then?

Illmore could make the reference, then send to the teams to modify. We would end up with manufacturer specific engines, but the field would end up with a very close final HP.

[Singabule]

Im so sure that current v6 is no match for other engine, if NA engine want to compete with them, BOP should be taken in place. We know that BOP is no good at all.

[Holm86]

The huge advancement in todays F1 engines are in the combustion technology, not the turbos.
So in theory we could still have a N/A engine, with relatively high efficiency, if we keep the high pressure direct injection, and turbulent jet ignition.
So it should be possible to have a 2 liter engine, and keeping the 100kg/s max fuel flow would mean a roughly 19.000 max rpm readline at stoichiometric afr and 100% volumetric efficiency according to my calculations. And should keep the current HP figures, if the thermal efficiency stays roughly the same as the current engines.
Then its just a matter of deciding the number of cylinders, should it be an inline 4 for max efficiancy, or a V6 for compactness, or a V8 or even V10 for sound reasons? I really think the FIA could come up with something here which would both impress on the emotional side (sound and loudness) and on the technical development side (combustion technology). And stop trying to brand F1 as green. The FIA has the Formula E now to sustain its green image.
Let F1 be about the pinnacle of racing.

And when it comes to the ERS, it would not be able to generate anything from the turbo, as its gone, but they should keep the MGU-K mated to the engine, and then allow a generator only on the front axle. The deployment of engergy could be upped from the current 120kw to maybe 200kw?

Does this seem too unrealistic?

[stevesingo]

The issue I seen is there is no relevance to manufacturers in high rpm. Pneumatic valve actuation is completely irrelevant. 8000rpm with variable valve timing and 6speed gearboxes will push development towards wide power bands. Add in electrically driven supercharging and even moe so.

[gruntguru]

The huge advancement in todays F1 engines are in the combustion technology, not the turbos.
So in theory we could still have a N/A engine, with relatively high efficiency, if we keep the high pressure direct injection, and turbulent jet ignition.
So it should be possible to have a 2 liter engine, and keeping the 100kg/s max fuel flow would mean a roughly 19.000 max rpm readline at stoichiometric afr and 100% volumetric efficiency according to my calculations. And should keep the current HP figures, if the thermal efficiency stays roughly the same as the current engines.

You should read Wuzak's post again. The thermal efficiency achieved by the current engines relies on very lean mixtures (>20:1) and very high overall CR. Then you have thermal efficiency gains from the turbo machinery - even without an MGUH.

With efficient turbo design MAP >> EBP, leading to negative pumping work in the piston engine.

[63l8qrrfy6]

The huge advancement in todays F1 engines are in the combustion technology, not the turbos.
So in theory we could still have a N/A engine, with relatively high efficiency, if we keep the high pressure direct injection, and turbulent jet ignition.
So it should be possible to have a 2 liter engine, and keeping the 100kg/s max fuel flow would mean a roughly 19.000 max rpm readline at stoichiometric afr and 100% volumetric efficiency according to my calculations. And should keep the current HP figures, if the thermal efficiency stays roughly the same as the current engines.

You should read Wuzak's post again. The thermal efficiency achieved by the current engines relies on very lean mixtures (>20:1) and very high overall CR. Then you have thermal efficiency gains from the turbo machinery - even without an MGUH.

With efficient turbo design MAP >> EBP, leading to negative pumping work in the piston engine.

Is EBP before the turbine? Isn't it usually greater than MAP ?

[Singabule]

Wuzak proposal is the most make sense in the context of to make NA engine to compete with v6 turbo. But of course no one want to run v16 as in auto union 30's formula car. Rigidity problem and vibration problem only gotten worse. Higher rpm you run, efficiency got worsen because of parasitic loss. Geometric wise you can not design CC with more than 2.5 B to S ratio. Longer stroke almost always lead to better efficiency from expansion ratio. In old v10 some manufacturer try to increase compression ratio to 17:1 only to return to 14:1 because Geometrically Flow inside CC gotten worse. You need long stroke engine to achieve efficiency from increased compression, but worsen the volumetric efficiency on the other hand. My conclusion is, NA engine would never beat supercharged engine, especially the turbocharged one.

[Tommy Cookers]

the biggest argument against NA here is surely the greater heat loss to coolant
notionally NA would need at least 4x the displacement ie c.2.5x the cylinder surface area and related heat loss
mechanical friction would also rise, but in somewhat lesser proportion due to the lower cylinder pressure

depending on rpm achievable the NA displacement and losses might increase by more than the above
of course NA benefits more from 'free supercharging' - this will tend to reduce the displacement increase needed for NA

the traditional downside of boosting has been eliminated in F1 by allowing unlimited fuel octane and super DI
physically a poppet valve NA race engine cannot realise a high enough CR to benefit from these
(a road NA engine can also offset pumping loss at WOT with a correspondingly higher CR)

and thermodynamically the very lean AFR gains more efficiency from super high CR (than does conventional AFR)
so the NA engine is best designed around near-stoichiometric running at WOT, this allowing leaner running for lower powers without throttling

and electric driving of a centrifugal supercharger now also makes such a boosted engine an NA-beater even on F1 type tracks

[NL_Fer]

Not much talk recently, but it looks like most parties want to settle for a Twin Turbo V6, keep the current block with much cheaper conventional turbochargers, completed with a (standard) KERS.

The teams have invested a lot in the V6, so i understand they want to keep them. But what will the use to limit the power? Keep the fuel flow limiter or use something else like a boost/pressure limit?

Fuel flow limit will let the manufacturers continue the development road of lean combustion, but also keep the revs and noise levels down. A boost/pressure limit could increase the revs and noise, but it just sounds so... old fashioned.