2021 Engine thread

[ringo]

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

Doesn't look safe at all in the event of a crash. That drive shaft can cause a lot of damage in that position.
Maybe you can lower it. Make it almost horizontal..extend the tea tray to the front axle and run the shaft on top of it in a torque tube?

Or put the KERS inside the bulkhead and ensure it cannot fly out in an accident. The bulkhead can be increased in cross section. The KERS motor would be below the suspension, so more of a rectangular shape.

[Tommy Cookers]

4 MGs could allow clever 4wd hybridised with an ICE having mechanical transmission without any differentials
a small gas turbine would probably be less efficient than the present F1 ICEs

@stevesingo
the present K also generates momentarily on every upshift (to slow itself as fast or nearly as fast as the ICE could alone)
and generates eg if the driver wants 250 hp at the wheels this 250 hp will cost less fuel if the K generates (less throttling losses)
slow circuits giving little recovery under braking

[stevesingo]

@stevesingo
the present K also generates momentarily on every upshift (to slow itself as fast or nearly as fast as the ICE could alone)

Makes sense

and generates eg if the driver wants 250 hp at the wheels this 250 hp will cost less fuel if the K generates (less throttling losses)

Throttle losses can be minimised by cylinder cutting can they not, albeit at the expense of exhaust gas mass/flow, reducing MGU-H harvest.

It just seems counter intuitive to burn fuel at 40% efficiency, to make kinetic energy, to convert to to electricity at <100% efficiency.

slow circuits giving little recovery under braking

And also less % time at WOT.

For sure, it is a complex balancing act.

[NL_Fer]

Pat Symmonds was pretty confident yesterday about how the new engines are going to look. It has all been decided by the FIA and we will know 31st of Oktober.

So here is what i thinks going to be the future

V6 Twin Turbo + FIA Standarized ERS
Consisting of a standard ES, standard MGU-K and standard GU-H (turbine+generator to recover exhaust gas energy, independant of the turbochargers)

Keep the fuel flow limiter, introduce a boost/pressure limiter to push the revs up to 18000rpm

It will be cheaper, louder, hybrid and less complex to develop, so more manufacturers will come into F1.

[stevesingo]

Pat Symmonds was pretty confident yesterday about how the new engines are going to look. It has all been decided by the FIA and we will know 31st of Oktober.

So here is what i thinks going to be the future

V6 Twin Turbo + FIA Standarized ERS
Consisting of a standard ES, standard MGU-K and standard GU-H (turbine+generator to recover exhaust gas energy, independant of the turbochargers)

Keep the fuel flow limiter, introduce a boost/pressure limiter to push the revs up to 18000rpm

It will be cheaper, louder, hybrid and less complex to develop, so more manufacturers will come into F1.

Will they?

There is no relevance of 18000rpm ICE in road vehicles. Therefore, they would need to be incredibly cheap to develop as they could only be seen as a marketing tool and not as a real world relevant R&D project.

[roon]

isn't there really less harvesting potential from the front axle than from the rear ?
average braking recovery is with a weight+DF distribution c.50/50

and much 'recovery' is done under power

Good point. They also don't dive very much under braking, so weight distribution changes shouldn't be as drastic as I assume they would be.

"diving" has noting to do with the weight distribution but with how stiff the springs are.

Wasn't my intention to imply that. What I meant was, due to how little they dive, there would be little change in weight distribution during a braking event.

In these cars, with their low CoG & rearward weight bias (40/60?), there is, as Tommy Cookers pointed out, and as alluded to by the teams supposedly rejecting front-axle KERS, more energy to be harvested from the rear axle than from the front.

That more braking force is applied to the smaller front wheels is more about braking feel (as you point out) and providing a margin of safety by reducing the potential to lock up a rear tire. So, in the current formula, as good as the braking performance is, it has the potential to be increased since they are not braking with the rear wheels as much as the safely and reliably could. Perhaps ABS & other stability aids could permit this.

[Jolle]

Good point. They also don't dive very much under braking, so weight distribution changes shouldn't be as drastic as I assume they would be.

"diving" has noting to do with the weight distribution but with how stiff the springs are.

Wasn't my intention to imply that. What I meant was, due to how little they dive, there would be little change in weight distribution during a braking event.

Again, got nothing to do with it. The dive is a result of good or bad working anti dive mechanisms or how the suspension is set up (Porsche 911 are a good example for instance). The shift in brake balance is a very simple calculation. It’s basic physics.

If a car is decelerating at 4G and the COG is 40 cm up from the contact plane, the cog on that plane will shift 160 cm forward. Resulting in a dramatic shift in balance.

That’s why a low COG is so important.

[roon]

4 MGs could allow clever 4wd hybridised with an ICE having mechanical transmission without any differentials
a small gas turbine would probably be less efficient than the present F1 ICEs

How would this be arranged?

@stevesingo
the present K also generates momentarily on every upshift (to slow itself as fast or nearly as fast as the ICE could alone)
and generates eg if the driver wants 250 hp at the wheels this 250 hp will cost less fuel if the K generates (less throttling losses)
slow circuits giving little recovery under braking

Aren't they using fuel injection and ignition control instead of throttles?

[roon]

"diving" has noting to do with the weight distribution but with how stiff the springs are.

Wasn't my intention to imply that. What I meant was, due to how little they dive, there would be little change in weight distribution during a braking event.

Again, got nothing to do with it. The dive is a result of good or bad working anti dive mechanisms or how the suspension is set up (Porsche 911 are a good example for instance). The shift in brake balance is a very simple calculation. It’s basic physics.

If a car is decelerating at 4G and the COG is 40 cm up from the contact plane, the cog on that plane will shift 160 cm forward. Resulting in a dramatic shift in balance.

That’s why a low COG is so important.

Perhaps something is getting lost in translation. Not making a point about the cause of dive, rather how diving alters weight distribution during a braking event.

[NL_Fer]

Pat Symmonds was pretty confident yesterday about how the new engines are going to look. It has all been decided by the FIA and we will know 31st of Oktober.

So here is what i thinks going to be the future

V6 Twin Turbo + FIA Standarized ERS
Consisting of a standard ES, standard MGU-K and standard GU-H (turbine+generator to recover exhaust gas energy, independant of the turbochargers)

Keep the fuel flow limiter, introduce a boost/pressure limiter to push the revs up to 18000rpm

It will be cheaper, louder, hybrid and less complex to develop, so more manufacturers will come into F1.

Will they?

There is no relevance of 18000rpm ICE in road vehicles. Therefore, they would need to be incredibly cheap to develop as they could only be seen as a marketing tool and not as a real world relevant R&D project.

Maybe not for Opel or Ford, but Porsche, Aston Martin or Corsworth would not mind. Also, non of current hybrid tech will ever trickle down to any daily commuter.

[henry]

Wasn't my intention to imply that. What I meant was, due to how little they dive, there would be little change in weight distribution during a braking event.

Again, got nothing to do with it. The dive is a result of good or bad working anti dive mechanisms or how the suspension is set up (Porsche 911 are a good example for instance). The shift in brake balance is a very simple calculation. It’s basic physics.

If a car is decelerating at 4G and the COG is 40 cm up from the contact plane, the cog on that plane will shift 160 cm forward. Resulting in a dramatic shift in balance.

That’s why a low COG is so important.

Perhaps something is getting lost in translation. Not making a point about the cause of dive, rather how diving alters weight distribution during a braking event.

The "dive" does not cause the change in weight distribution. The weight distribution changes because of the relation between the height of the COG and wheelbase.

Let's assume the height of the COG is 30cm and the wheelbase is 300cm, not far from true on current F1cars.

When the car brakes the tyres generate a force at the road surface to slow the car. An equal and opposite force acts through the COG. These pair of forces are resisted by a pair of forces acting on the front axle and the rear axle. Because these resisting forces are further apart than the braking forces they are reduced by the ratio of the two numbers, 1 to 10.

So a braking force of 4g on 800kg, 3200kgf, would result in an increase of force on the front axle of 320kgf and a reduction of the same at the rear axle.

There is no need for the suspension movement to be included in these calculations. Dive is merely a result of the change of forces.

Apologies if you knew this and your point is more one of linguistics and not physics.

[ME4ME]

I hope road car relevance goes out the window, and to be frank even the hybrid systems.

Hoping for -100 kg, and most of all closer competition.

I've had enough of the penalties, complexity and performance disparity of the current units. They've been interesting, but no good has come from introducing them. Let's get a proper racing engine in and be done with it.

[Zynerji]

Pat Symmonds was pretty confident yesterday about how the new engines are going to look. It has all been decided by the FIA and we will know 31st of Oktober.

So here is what i thinks going to be the future

V6 Twin Turbo + FIA Standarized ERS
Consisting of a standard ES, standard MGU-K and standard GU-H (turbine+generator to recover exhaust gas energy, independant of the turbochargers)

Keep the fuel flow limiter, introduce a boost/pressure limiter to push the revs up to 18000rpm

It will be cheaper, louder, hybrid and less complex to develop, so more manufacturers will come into F1.

Will they?

There is no relevance of 18000rpm ICE in road vehicles. Therefore, they would need to be incredibly cheap to develop as they could only be seen as a marketing tool and not as a real world relevant R&D project.

I think the hybrid control scheme algorithms are the real road relevant part.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=roon]
[quote="Tommy Cookers"]
the present K also generates momentarily on every upshift (to slow itself as fast or nearly as fast as the ICE could alone)
and generates eg if the driver wants 250 hp at the wheels this 250 hp will cost less fuel if the K generates (less throttling losses)
slow circuits giving little recovery under braking
[/quote]

Aren't they using fuel injection and ignition control instead of throttles?
[/quote]

what I should have said is that fuel burning for K generation is beneficial even with cylinder cutting at 'partial power' (torque)
presumably circuit dependent but surely used when eg Merc drivers over-ride the race-sustainable automatic K generation for temporary benefit ?

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=roon]
[quote="Tommy Cookers"]4 MGs could allow clever 4wd hybridised with an ICE having mechanical transmission without any differentials[/quote]
How would this be arranged?[/quote]

possibly ......
a shaft common to front left and right side half axles and to rear left and right right half side axles
ie notionally fixed split of mechanical torque front:rear (including a small front:rear tyre diametral difference) and 50/50 or nearly 50/50 split left:right
4 axle MGs typically adding or subtracting (openly or stealthily) torques in combination with the 4 mechanical torques ....
matching to each of the 4 wheel contact loads each of the 4 axle combined torques output to road
ideally speaking we combine the mechanical shafts with the MGs as a Prius does today (and widely used eg tanks decades before Toyota IPR farming)
ie mechanical shaft and MG shaft each driving a sun wheel within a common planetary system which carries the combined output
giving each wheel independent variability of combined torque and combined rpm to the extent required (with 4 quadrant scope)
ok this is differential gearing, but not a differential 'as we know it'

alternatively if each MG shaft was in series with the mechanical shaft each wheel torque is variable but wheel rpm is common - too much like a solid diff ?

or of course we could have some combined mechanical 2wd and electrical 4wd

with either we could be eg .....
driving through corners generating on the inner axles and adding MG torque to the outer axles
(using the drives inherent onboard capacitive 'float' so not involving the battery ES loss etc)
also front:rear torque/rpm distribution or torque only redistribution is possible
and all the present stuff

and accessing some interesting effects under braking
and working the tyres to control their temperature
http://eahart.com/prius/psd/