2021 Engine thread

[hurril]

the established technology is relevant and used
F1's technology goes to a rpm/power capability an order of magnitude greater than anything apparently yet used or published

please feel free to find evidence otherwise

I don't understand what would make me owe you such evidence. You seem to be adamant with the Not Road Relevant bandwagon and I don't that has to necessarily be so. What do you think about what could be going on in 10 years time?

[johnny comelately]

Why not just a fuel limit (the current one seems appropriate)
and a cost limit per engine.
why put rules on anything else except safety related stuff?

[Zynerji]

Why not just a fuel limit (the current one seems appropriate)
and a cost limit per engine.
why put rules on anything else except safety related stuff?

Because $1B investment into r&d to meet the multi race lifespan is a ton if someone has a killer idea, and everyone else has to change direction.

I like the 6cyl, twin turbo, unlimited AWD KERS, 10 engines per season rule...

Straight 6, v6, vr6... pick your poison, and your stroke, and roll out.

PS: AWD KERS could let the drivers "boost" the front wheels individually, thus allowing them much more interesting options to correct for oversteer/ understeer and apexing. Triggers on the wheels could give the drivers another dimension of physics bending at their fingertips.

Let the true skill show!

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=Zynerji] .......AWD KERS could let the drivers "boost" the front wheels individually, thus allowing them much more interesting options to correct for oversteer/ understeer and apexing. Triggers on the wheels could give the drivers another dimension of physics bending at their fingertips. Let the true skill show![/quote]

front wheels individually driven ?
you'd need a whole rule book trying to prevent various driver aid effects worse than traction control

eg having motor torque controlled according to torque demand would be pro-wheelspin and so disrupt cornering etc
but adding a torque turndown term according to rate of change of rpm would amount to TC emulation
TC emulation in cornering also producing a favourable yaw moment
(of course we currently have weak TC emulation)

even fwd having a front diff as per rear diff rules would be seen as a driver aid
front diffs (undriven ie with rwd cars) having been banned because of their DA potential

[Zynerji]

Just make it linear, and only controlled by the triggers that the driver operates.

It IS traction control, but it is not automated. If the driver is actively doing it, it is skill based, and that is OK by me.

[3jawchuck]

Personally I'm very fond of the one powertrain per race idea.

As for formula, I've always fancied allowing any configuration and fuel type but limited to the amount of energy potentially extractable from the fuel. Say, a few thousand MJ or so.

I'm pretty certain everyone would converge to the same general idea eventually. But I guess costs would be stupid and we'd lose manufacturers. I have no idea what we'd end up with, some sort of diesel or turbo electric monstrosity?

[NL_Fer]

Thinking about it becoming a turbocharged V6 with KERS, how do we go further?

Lets start to put a limit on manifold pressure, so the revs has to go up, to make a screaming 18000rpm again. Next is the question if we need a fuel flow limiter. Removing it, would make the engine less sophisticated/expensive to develop and noisier. But technological would be a setback of a decade. Everything developed by the current 4 manufacturers would be wasted.

We could keep the 105kg tank limit and no refueling. This would force them to make the engine as efficient as the current hybrids, but creates certain problems.

One is drivers could turn the engine up for a few laps, pass everyone and turn engine down to cruise to the finish. Another problems is we would see alot of lift+coast.

[Muniix]

Should enforce for road relevance, enforcing more relevant lightweighting materials and processes.

1. Enforcing engine structure be made of FRP fibre reinforced poymers and see that progress rapidly, injection over-moulding a new block is faster and requires less energy.

2. Production has to be done by robots for race vehicles, hand layup by exemption only and for first prototype.

3. New materials have to be qualifed and opened up for all teams and anyone to use if they so wish. Fair and Reasonable or common open source licensing.

4. Open intake charging, electric driven compressor, mechanical driven or pressure wave dynamics using exhaust pressure to pressurise intake pressure directly.

[roon]

Should enforce for road relevance, enforcing more relevant lightweighting materials and processes.

1. Enforcing engine structure be made of FRP fibre reinforced poymers and see that progress rapidly, injection over-moulding a new block is faster and requires less energy.

2. Production has to be done by robots for race vehicles, hand layup by exemption only and for first prototype.

Would be interesting to see what could be done with plastic or composite engines parts--currently disallowed by prescribed alloys and discouraged by engine weight and CoG limits. Cylinder liners & combustion chambers may need to remain as metallic inserts--not sure where materials science is at the moment regarding combustion tolerant composites & ceramics. A CFRP block should reject less heat, reducing temperatures proximal to the block. Would reduced thermal expansion provide any benefit in this application?

Necessitating a robotics aspect that is not driver-related is also interesting. For pit stops, maybe. Robot arms & optics replacing the pit crew. Good advert for automation companies. Driver remains human. Errant drones wander aimlessly around pit lane. Maybe give one a microphone and have it do a pit walk pre-race.

[dren]

Here is my proposal. 100kg of fuel for the race and the manufacturer can choose any engine configuration they desire. Inline, V or boxer 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines of whatever size they choose. Multi valve or pushrod.

My counter-proposal is 100kg/h fuel flow rate, no race fuel limits, any engine configuration desired - Inline, V, W, radial or boxer 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 cylinder, multi-rotor Wankel rotary, gas turbine, steam engine, swing piston, 4 stroke, 2 stroke, 5 stroke, of any capacity they like. Can be supercharged or turbocharged, or both, or non-supercharged.

Hybrid allowed? I love this idea but I have a feeling it'd get shot down quick as they wouldn't want a manufacturer to get it horribly wrong and be way off the pace (although I find that hard to believe it'd happen).

Also, it'd increase the advantage that works teams have compared to customers. I don't think that's bad, but others would.

[NL_Fer]

Any Germans here on forum? What are they saying?

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 20072.html

Viele Standardteile sollen den Aggregaten ihre Komplexität rauben und die Entwicklungskosten einbremsen. Die Kombination aus MGU-K und MGU-H soll helfen, die 1.000 PS-Grenze zu knacken. Zusammen mit einer aerodynamischen Abrüstung soll das am Ende wieder Autos geben, die schwierig zu fahren sind. Der Allradantrieb ist aus Gewichts- und Kostengründen gestorben. Ein KERS an der Vorderachse generiert zu wenig Strom, um das Gewichtshandikap zu kompensieren.

[lio007]

Any Germans here on forum? What are they saying?

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 20072.html

Viele Standardteile sollen den Aggregaten ihre Komplexität rauben und die Entwicklungskosten einbremsen. Die Kombination aus MGU-K und MGU-H soll helfen, die 1.000 PS-Grenze zu knacken. Zusammen mit einer aerodynamischen Abrüstung soll das am Ende wieder Autos geben, die schwierig zu fahren sind. Der Allradantrieb ist aus Gewichts- und Kostengründen gestorben. Ein KERS an der Vorderachse generiert zu wenig Strom, um das Gewichtshandikap zu kompensieren.

Here we go:
# a lot of spec-parts should reduce complexity and costs
# a combination of MGUK+MGUH will help to exceed 1000hp
# combined with reduced aero, cars should be harder to drive
# 4WD is cancelled => weight&costs are too high
# electric energy from front-axle-KERS is too low and can't compensate weight penalty

[NL_Fer]

So what this means the manufacturer builts the V6 engine en uses a standard ERS. But what does this mean for the Turbocharger, also standard?

Does not sound really noisy yet.

[krisfx]

Any Germans here on forum? What are they saying?

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 20072.html

Viele Standardteile sollen den Aggregaten ihre Komplexität rauben und die Entwicklungskosten einbremsen. Die Kombination aus MGU-K und MGU-H soll helfen, die 1.000 PS-Grenze zu knacken. Zusammen mit einer aerodynamischen Abrüstung soll das am Ende wieder Autos geben, die schwierig zu fahren sind. Der Allradantrieb ist aus Gewichts- und Kostengründen gestorben. Ein KERS an der Vorderachse generiert zu wenig Strom, um das Gewichtshandikap zu kompensieren.

Here we go:
# a lot of spec-parts should reduce complexity and costs
# a combination of MGUK+MGUH will help to exceed 1000hp
# combined with reduced aero, cars should be harder to drive
# 4WD is cancelled => weight&costs are too high
# electric energy from front-axle-KERS is too low and can't compensate weight penalty

Let's increase it to reduce it again... that'll do the trick!

[gruntguru]

Here is my proposal. 100kg of fuel for the race and the manufacturer can choose any engine configuration they desire. Inline, V or boxer 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines of whatever size they choose. Multi valve or pushrod.

My counter-proposal is 100kg/h fuel flow rate, no race fuel limits, any engine configuration desired - Inline, V, W, radial or boxer 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 cylinder, multi-rotor Wankel rotary, gas turbine, steam engine, swing piston, 4 stroke, 2 stroke, 5 stroke, of any capacity they like. Can be supercharged or turbocharged, or both, or non-supercharged.

Great post Wuzak.