2021 Engine thread

[Jolle]

Ex-Ferrari staff gives Aston Martin "capability" for F1 project
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/asto ... ri-965986/

Anyone got any opinion on the viability of an Aston Martin F1 engine project? Even in cooperation with Cosworth, I'm doubtful they will be able to develop a competitive engine, and here is why:

Being competitive is not solely about absolute performance, it is also about timing. Reaching a performance milestone is only advantageous when reached at the same time or earlier than the competition.

When the 2021 engine regulations are decided on October 31, 2017, the big manufacturer teams like Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault will have a team on stand by to instantly start developing a concept suitable for that set of regulations. Actually, it's very likely that they already have researched and defined several concepts suitable for the most probable set of regulations. After the regulations are published, these manufacturers will quickly transition towards putting their entire budget of resources into the new project.

Aston Martin & Co will on the other hand have to decided first if they want to participate, and define who their partners will be and put that into contract. They will likely start the project with a skeleton team compared to their emidiate rivals and wont be at full strenght, engineering-wise until probably late 2018. Aston Martin & Co will not only be at an overall resource deficit, they will also lose crucial time in the early stages of the project.

Mercedes will know all too well that starting early and having a mature engine package from day one is crucial. Given the highly advanced state of their unit, they will be able to re-direct massive amounts of resources into the new project early.

The time between regulation publication to first race is relativly long, but Aston will need to be quick in making a decision to invest. Wait, and it will be too late.

Unlimited budget, experience and one of the biggest teams of engineers and computing power vs a boutique racing engine developer and sports car builder with external sources engines.

Not a chance.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Aston Martin only have 'Powertrain Project Managers/ Project Engineers'. Not a single mechanical/performance engineer that can design engines.

Secondly they have only just managed to turn a profit in the last year or so. Its Italian owner, Investindustrial is an investment group smart enough to know there is no money to be made supplying F1 engines.

It is pointless to discuss whether or not the engine will be competitive since I am absolutely sure it will not happen.

[roon]

Any Germans here on forum? What are they saying?
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 20072.html

# 4WD is cancelled => weight&costs are too high
# electric energy from front-axle-KERS is too low and can't compensate weight penalty

I wonder if heat energy recovery rather than kinetic-mechanical recovery was considered. Pipe a working fluid through the brakes at high pressure and flow. Phase change through the brakes. Convey to a turbine/expander residing in a lower, more central location within the car (compared to what would be needed for front axle KERS). Unsprung weight exchanges driveshafts for fluid lines. MGU moved from nose to, as said, near the center of the car.

[Holm86]

Any Germans here on forum? What are they saying?
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 20072.html

# 4WD is cancelled => weight&costs are too high
# electric energy from front-axle-KERS is too low and can't compensate weight penalty

I wonder if heat energy recovery rather than kinetic-mechanical recovery was considered. Pipe a working fluid through the brakes at high pressure and flow. Phase change through the brakes. Convey to a turbine/expander residing in a lower, more central location within the car (compared to what would be needed for front axle KERS). Unsprung weight exchanges driveshafts for fluid lines. MGU moved from nose to, as said, near the center of the car.

https://i.imgur.com/rTLcmc3.jpg

I LOVE your drawings, they are pure art But this system seems very complicatet, and prone to leaks/failures.
And how much energy potential is there really??

[toraabe]

Another thing that people want is louder engine. I would suggest put a bullhorn on the exhaust pipe https://guideimg.alibaba.com/images/sho ... 66864.jpeg

[Holm86]

Another thing that people want is louder engine. I would suggest put a bullhorn on the exhaust pipe https://guideimg.alibaba.com/images/sho ... 66864.jpeg

They already tried that

[stevesingo]

THe issue with the engine regs are;

1, Need to please the fans:- Noise, speed (900hp min) and affordable for all as this gives a chance of closer racing.

2, Need to please the teams:- Affordable and equality (relative) across manufactures.

3, Need to please the manufacturers:- Road relevant technology and cost of development.

4, Need to please the FiA:- Cost and "Green" credentials.

Taking these factors, none are absolutely mutually exclusive, aside from cost.


Leaving cost aside for a moment, what we want is a list of road relevant technologies that could be included and a list of non-road relevant tech which should be excluded.

Included

Combustion tech which increases thermal efficiency HCCI, Turbulent Jet ignition etc...
Variable valve timing and lift
KERS
Electric supercharging

Excluded

High engine speeds-Too much friction.
Pneumatic valve control- road cars don't carry compressed N2 tanks.


Debateable tech

HERS-Do road cars spend sufficient time at power levels to make HERS worthwhile. Discuss.
Electro/Hydraulic valve actuation. Is the viable yet? Discuss.

With the issue of cost, the difference is likely between the different manufacturers as well as the teams. Merc and Ferrari (perhaps Honda) will not mind a high development cost as big budget outfits will spend what the have. Renault and the prospective newcomers want to keep costs down. The drive to keep costs down, can be offset against the road relevance. More road relevant, the more can be offset against the manufacturer R&D budget. Therefore, more road relevant could make higher costs more palatable.

So, we need a PU which doesn't rev too high, uses some kind of HCCI/TJI, has VVT, KERS, Electric Supercharging.

My proposal remains,


3lt V8 (375cc/cyl) limited to 10000rpm (at 16bar BMEP should give 535bhp NA)-this might seem at odds with the low rpm, but we need to balance size (and cylinder size) vs rpm. Could go to 3.5lt at 8500rpm (430cc/cyl) or 4lt (500cc/cyl) at 7500rpm.

100kg/hr fuel limit, but no race limit so no fuel saving.

Electric Supercharger (low pressure turbo could lift the above to 700bhp) and without an exhaust turbine, no attenuation of exhaust sound.

KERS-200hp max with battery dictated by volume to drive manufacturers to develop more energy dense batteries.

6speed gearbox. This will drive manufacturers to have a wide powerband, allowing them to take advantage of VVT and develop combustion technology that will also work on road cars.

The FiA would need to cost cap the supply to customer teams and put regulations in place over specs and modes.

[Ozan]

I would like to see 2.0L v8 twin turbo engine, 150kg maximum fuel allowed but no fuel flow restrictions.

[hurril]

I would like to see 2.0L v8 twin turbo engine, 150kg maximum fuel allowed but no fuel flow restrictions.

Which means: 2000-2500Hp

[toraabe]

Another thing that people want is louder engine. I would suggest put a bullhorn on the exhaust pipe https://guideimg.alibaba.com/images/sho ... 66864.jpeg

They already tried that
http://motorsportm8.com/wp-content/uplo ... mage37.png
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/ ... 34x421.jpg

That is not a bullhorn. The central reflector is lacking. With the reflector the sound will be much louder

[rscsr]

I would like to see 2.0L v8 twin turbo engine, 150kg maximum fuel allowed but no fuel flow restrictions.

Which means: 2000-2500Hp

And extreme fuel saving.

[roon]

# 4WD is cancelled => weight&costs are too high
# electric energy from front-axle-KERS is too low and can't compensate weight penalty

I wonder if heat energy recovery rather than kinetic-mechanical recovery was considered. Pipe a working fluid through the brakes at high pressure and flow. Phase change through the brakes. Convey to a turbine/expander residing in a lower, more central location within the car (compared to what would be needed for front axle KERS). Unsprung weight exchanges driveshafts for fluid lines. MGU moved from nose to, as said, near the center of the car.

https://i.imgur.com/rTLcmc3.jpg

I LOVE your drawings, they are pure art But this system seems very complicatet, and prone to leaks/failures.
And how much energy potential is there really??

Thank you, Holm. I don't think it would be as efficient as direct kinetic-electrical conversion with a motor-generator. Although it may trump thermoelectrics.

Sealing the rotating coupling at the wheel I don't think would be insurmountable. I believe they rotate approx 3000RPM max. Depending on how the brakes and housings are designed you could recover heat from the non-rotating components only.

My other thought was to optimize the locating of a front-axle KERS. The high-bulkhead chassis presents problems for locating the mass of the componentry, and driveshafts add unsprung weight (unless offset by wheel, tire, and suspension design, for which regulatory changes might be required). A compromise may be to locate the front-axle MGU-K above the T-tray and in front of the driver's legs (but still outside the monocoque, not inside the cockpit), with a shaft connection to a differential within the front bulkhead. This would impinge somewhat upon the free volume below the nose at possible cost to aerodynamics.

[wuzak]

Nice pic, but I think the MGUK would be smaller than the diff. It would sit in there ahead of the bulkhead.

The other alternative is to have two smaller hub mounted motors, integral with the brakes.

[Zynerji]

I think it would just be a 6inch motor bolted directly to the diff with an integral clutch.

Hub motors win here I believe, however.

[Zynerji]

Nice pic, but I think the MGUK would be smaller than the diff. It would sit in there ahead of the bulkhead.

The other alternative is to have two smaller hub mounted motors, integral with the brakes.

They could probably introduce new donut brake shrouds with electrodes, and make the rim drive electrically.