2021 Engine thread

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
04 Sep 2017, 20:27
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.
The fuel flow limit will likely be increased, but boost and compression ratio will also be limited (as it will for the current formula next year or so).

Secret Formula
Secret Formula
0
Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 11:15

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

1. Bring back the V10 engine. But, make the V10 engine 3.6 l instead of 3.0 l or 3.5 l. With the angle of the engine remains at 90°.

2. Add Quad (4) Turbo Chargers, Quad (4) Super Chargers, Formula-e Electric Engine, Formula-e Electric Motor, Formula-e Electric Battery, ERS (Energy Recovery System) with stronger MGU-K and stronger MGU-H, Blown Diffuser, NOS (Nitrous Oxide), Methanol, and radiator.

3. Last but not least, don't put rev limiter on the engine, don't limit the exhaust flow rate, and don't limit the oil burn. This kind of regulation is not only makes the car slower, but also killing innovation!
Last edited by Secret Formula on 08 Sep 2017, 17:19, edited 3 times in total.

krisfx
krisfx
14
Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 23:07

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Secret Formula wrote:
08 Sep 2017, 12:02
1. Bring back the V10 engine. But, make the V10 engine 3.6 l instead of 3.0 l or 3.5 l. With the angle of the engine remains at 90°. Also, don't put rev limiter on the engine, don't put limitation on the oil burn, and don't put limitation on the exhaust flow if it makes the car slower. Not just that, these kind of regulation actually killing innovation!

2. Last but not least, add Quad (4) Turbo Chargers, Quad (4) Super Chargers, Formula-e Electric Engine, Formula-e Electric Motor, Formula-e Electric Battery, ERS (Energy Recovery System) with stronger MGU-K and stronger MGU-H, Blown Diffuser, NOS (Nitrous Oxide), Methanol, and radiator.
I want whatever you're on =D>

User avatar
lio007
316
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 23:03
Location: Austria

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 61588.html

Oh my goodness…the current prospects for the new engine formula:

Rough translation:
# there have been fuel consumption measurements in Spa: Mercedes is 2.5% in front of Ferrari, 4% in front of Renault and 7% in front of Honda. In this engine formula fuel consumption reflects engine power.
# in former times, when there were stable regulations, the different engine manufacturers more or less converged within 4 years in terms of power output, but not in the current V6-formula
# not even big players are able to close the gap, which is going to deter new engine suppliers from joining F1
# therefore half of the field has no chance to win

# next year is going to be worse in terms of grid penalties, because one PU less than in 2017 and one race more (3 PU’s, and 21 races)
# Mercedes and Renault are not willing to increase the available PU-elements for 2018, because they have already developed their PU’s for the required / increased milage
(=> my opinion: I can understand Mercedes, but Renault?? There is no single Renault-Team without grid penalties caused by exceeded use of PU components this year)

# a different penalty system won’t help
Pros: it’s easier to understand for the fans
Cons: if a team gets a constructers points penalty for exceeding the PU-components, it’s not fair to customers [because they don’t build the PU’s] and they are not responsible for engine failures. Or if a team gets a monetary penalty it isn’t fair either and helps the rich teams.

# another problem of the current system: there are only 4 suppliers and they have their own works outfits, so they also have their own interests for their works teams.
# an independent supplier is not possible because the current engine formula is way to complicated
# as a result F1 is in the hands of car manufacturers. If a team is not happy with a certain PU it’s nearly impossible to get another, because the works outfits don’t want to strengthen a competitor and it costs millions to supply an additional team (because of infrastructure and so on)
# McLaren now is very similar to Red Bull in 2015
# 40 years ago it was a no brainer for Cosworth whether they supply 5 or 8 teams.

# the intention of the new 2021 engine formula was simplification: V6 Biturbo without MGU-H, a stronger MGU-K and spec parts for e-motor, battery and TC
# but, the longer the discussions take, the more the basic idea gets washed out
# the manufacturers want to distinguish their PU-solutions and want as little spec parts as possible.
# Merc and Renault want to keep the MGU-H (with the TC the most complicated part of the current PU) because they say it’s kind of a future technology
# and it’s looking good for them because Brawn already said, they would allow the MGU-H, but only as a spec part.

# conclusion: apart from high costs, the manufacturers have gained not much. The vast majority of fans don’t care or don’t know what kind of technical masterpieces are in the cars. And for Merc PR would have been the same, if they would have won their 3 titles with simpler V6-Biturbos+KERS.

morrisond
morrisond
2
Joined: 10 Sep 2017, 14:01

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

I like what they are doing with the new Regs by keeping it simple.

However I would suggest even further Simplification.

The most relevant engine size/layout to todays current road cars are 2.0 Liter in line 4 Cyclinders.

Turbo 4's didn't sound so bad back in the 1980's with the BMW 4 the most powerful engine on the grid.

Manufacturers should be really happy with that layout as you can see a point not too far in the future where that layout (with boost and electric supplements) could be in a huge % of Cars/trucks. I doubt we will see many 1.6L V6's in passenger cars.

There could be a real connection between the engine in the F1 car and what is sitting in your driveway.

If it was me the restrictions would be very few. Don't limit revs, don't limit fuel flow, cap boost, limit overall amount of fuel. Limit oil consumption so it's enviro friendly. Allow Hybrid boost, no restrictions on Turbo's or Super's (Maybe limit to 2 elements, allow electric Turbo/Super's). Possibly you have to use Stock Engine Blocks based on the manufacturers road engine.

Everybody uses the same fuel which is the same Premium that comes out of a pump at a gas station.

Limit the materials used in the construction of the engine unless it's homologated in road cars with high minimum quantities (100,000+), however once one manufacturer does it - it's fair game for everyone else.

1,500 + HP in Qualifying here we come!

Finally scrap the limit on Engines except for maybe 1 per weekend. You break something in practise/qualifying 10 place penalty.

There sure would be a lot more passing with my formula.

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

I would just like to see a cost comparison of it was 1 power unit per weekend.

Seems like a ton of money can be saved by mass production instead of dumping it into reliability engineering and maintenance.

morrisond
morrisond
2
Joined: 10 Sep 2017, 14:01

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
10 Sep 2017, 15:08
I would just like to see a cost comparison of it was 1 power unit per weekend.

Seems like a ton of money can be saved by mass production instead of dumping it into reliability engineering and maintenance.
I can't see it not saving money in terms of production of engines, however i doubt the overall engine budget would change much - Manufacturers/Teams will spend what they will spend.

However if you keep it as stock blocks and road relevant (road fuel, 2.0 Liter 4 Cyclinder) a lot of the R&D can be used for the road engines, enticing more manufacturers into the sport.

The 2.0 Liter AMG Road motor is already at 400 Hp - I doubt it would be that hard to make that motor last with 800-900 HP for a GP weekend - over 1,000 HP with Hybrid boost and qualifying settings.

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

They can scale hybrid and combustion tech to road cars, like they scale 50% wind tunnel models.

Let the race engines be razors edge and the grocery getters worry about economy and lifetime...

Jolle
Jolle
133
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
10 Sep 2017, 15:08
I would just like to see a cost comparison of it was 1 power unit per weekend.

Seems like a ton of money can be saved by mass production instead of dumping it into reliability engineering and maintenance.
The difference is huge. At the moment engines can be engineered so they last the exact lifespan, with every part on the limit. An engine (or PU) is/would be binned completely after it's regulated life. For one team that is now 8 PU's and that would change into 40 PU's.

for comparison, Porsche build just 28 TAG units for the whole 4 ½ years with McLaren, both cars combined. There was more then enough tolerances to service the engines over and over again, keeping the cost down.

Designing costs of making a PU that lasts 1 or 5 or even a whole season makes no difference, only the numbers differ. But the change in making 40 instead 8 race units is enormous (or even over a 100 when you supply 3 teams).

design: the same
manufacturing (important for the client teams): times 5

AJI
AJI
27
Joined: 22 Dec 2015, 09:08

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Secret Formula wrote:
08 Sep 2017, 12:02
1. Bring back the V10 engine. But, make the V10 engine 3.6 l instead of 3.0 l or 3.5 l. With the angle of the engine remains at 90°.

2. Add Quad (4) Turbo Chargers, Quad (4) Super Chargers, Formula-e Electric Engine, Formula-e Electric Motor, Formula-e Electric Battery, ERS (Energy Recovery System) with stronger MGU-K and stronger MGU-H, Blown Diffuser, NOS (Nitrous Oxide), Methanol, and radiator.

3. Last but not least, don't put rev limiter on the engine, don't limit the exhaust flow rate, and don't limit the oil burn. This kind of regulation is not only makes the car slower, but also killing innovation!
Nice! My spec is the almost exactly the same, just 3.7 litre, toluene and quad MGUK & H

gruntguru
gruntguru
566
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 07:43

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Secret Formula wrote:
08 Sep 2017, 12:02
1. Bring back the V10 engine. But, make the V10 engine 3.6 l instead of 3.0 l or 3.5 l. With the angle of the engine remains at 90°.

2. Add Quad (4) Turbo Chargers, Quad (4) Super Chargers, Formula-e Electric Engine, Formula-e Electric Motor, Formula-e Electric Battery, ERS (Energy Recovery System) with stronger MGU-K and stronger MGU-H, Blown Diffuser, NOS (Nitrous Oxide), Methanol, and radiator.

3. Last but not least, don't put rev limiter on the engine, don't limit the exhaust flow rate, and don't limit the oil burn. This kind of regulation is not only makes the car slower, but also killing innovation!
Methanol? Why not nitro?
je suis charlie

AJI
AJI
27
Joined: 22 Dec 2015, 09:08

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

gruntguru wrote:
11 Sep 2017, 00:21
Secret Formula wrote:
08 Sep 2017, 12:02
1. Bring back the V10 engine. But, make the V10 engine 3.6 l instead of 3.0 l or 3.5 l. With the angle of the engine... ...Quad (4) Turbo Chargers, Quad (4) Super Chargers, Formula-e Electric Engine, Formula-e Electric Motor, Formula-e Electric Battery....
Methanol? Why not nitro?
I hope you're watching this thread Mr Brawn!

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Jolle wrote:
10 Sep 2017, 23:31
Zynerji wrote:
10 Sep 2017, 15:08
I would just like to see a cost comparison of it was 1 power unit per weekend.

Seems like a ton of money can be saved by mass production instead of dumping it into reliability engineering and maintenance.
The difference is huge. At the moment engines can be engineered so they last the exact lifespan, with every part on the limit. An engine (or PU) is/would be binned completely after it's regulated life. For one team that is now 8 PU's and that would change into 40 PU's.

for comparison, Porsche build just 28 TAG units for the whole 4 ½ years with McLaren, both cars combined. There was more then enough tolerances to service the engines over and over again, keeping the cost down.

Designing costs of making a PU that lasts 1 or 5 or even a whole season makes no difference, only the numbers differ. But the change in making 40 instead 8 race units is enormous (or even over a 100 when you supply 3 teams).

design: the same
manufacturing (important for the client teams): times 5
Does production not scale?

I honestly didn't even think about simple rebuilds between races... maybe the 3 weekend with unlimited rebuilds could be a midpoint of compromise.

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

AJI wrote:
11 Sep 2017, 00:26
gruntguru wrote:
11 Sep 2017, 00:21
Secret Formula wrote:
08 Sep 2017, 12:02
1. Bring back the V10 engine. But, make the V10 engine 3.6 l instead of 3.0 l or 3.5 l. With the angle of the engine... ...Quad (4) Turbo Chargers, Quad (4) Super Chargers, Formula-e Electric Engine, Formula-e Electric Motor, Formula-e Electric Battery....
Methanol? Why not nitro?
I hope you're watching this thread Mr Brawn!
A) Mr Brawn does not write the rules
B) pretty sure he was being sarcastic

Jolle
Jolle
133
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2021 Engine thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
11 Sep 2017, 01:08
Jolle wrote:
10 Sep 2017, 23:31
Zynerji wrote:
10 Sep 2017, 15:08
I would just like to see a cost comparison of it was 1 power unit per weekend.

Seems like a ton of money can be saved by mass production instead of dumping it into reliability engineering and maintenance.
The difference is huge. At the moment engines can be engineered so they last the exact lifespan, with every part on the limit. An engine (or PU) is/would be binned completely after it's regulated life. For one team that is now 8 PU's and that would change into 40 PU's.

for comparison, Porsche build just 28 TAG units for the whole 4 ½ years with McLaren, both cars combined. There was more then enough tolerances to service the engines over and over again, keeping the cost down.

Designing costs of making a PU that lasts 1 or 5 or even a whole season makes no difference, only the numbers differ. But the change in making 40 instead 8 race units is enormous (or even over a 100 when you supply 3 teams).

design: the same
manufacturing (important for the client teams): times 5
Does production not scale?

I honestly didn't even think about simple rebuilds between races... maybe the 3 weekend with unlimited rebuilds could be a midpoint of compromise.
Production itself for these kinds of PU’s does not scale. Pistons for instance still have to come from the same materials, same type of hardening. Overhead per unit goes down and R&D per unit goes down, but that’s only because you devide it by 5x more PU’s.