2021 Engine thread

[wuzak]

Are there any details in this proposed engine spec of engine allocations per season? Could this not be a good place to start with the whole "competition vs show" balancing act that Liberty seem willing to embrace and/or face up to?

I believe the aim is 6-8 engines per year.

But they are also aiming for 25 races.

[Edax]

Just some random thoughts/ questions:

1) How difficult would it be to build an engine around a standardised turbo? The reason I am asking is because most car manufacturers I know make their engines, but buy their turbos from for instance MHI. Putting money into turbo development for them is a distraction from their normal business and might be a hurdle to get into F1.

2) how would you gus like the I4 do as an engine platform? For one I love the old BT52/54. Probably the noise fanatics nowadays will find it to quiet. But for me the V10s were a step down from these wonderful pieces of engineering.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Dbp_SuMHE

Ferrari probably would not like it but I think id would appeal to a lot more manufactures and consumers. And you can’t really argue with 1500 horsepower.

Of course there are those who maintain that more cilinders is better. But for those people they invented tractor pulling where you can add as many cilinder banks as you desire.

[Jolle]

Just some random thoughts/ questions:

1) How difficult would it be to build an engine around a standardised turbo? The reason I am asking is because most car manufacturers I know make their engines, but buy their turbos from for instance MHI. Putting money into turbo development for them is a distraction from their normal business and might be a hurdle to get into F1.

2) how would you gus like the I4 do as an engine platform? For one I love the old BT52/54. Probably the noise fanatics nowadays will find it to quiet. But for me the V10s were a step down from these wonderful pieces of engineering.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Dbp_SuMHE

Ferrari probably would not like it but I think id would appeal to a lot more manufactures and consumers. And you can’t really argue with 1500 horsepower.

Of course there are those who maintain that more cilinders is better. But for those people they invented tractor pulling where you can add as many cilinder banks as you desire.

The BMW in the BT52 was a rather standerd BMW racing enigne, with close ties to its production counterpart. Not really a step up from the V10's that succeed it. The TAG, Renault and Ferrari V6's were more "high tech". In those days you just needed a sturdy engine block and strap a giant turbo on it. The stronger your block, the more power you could produce. BMW melted their pistons during Q. It was kinda crude

As for turbo development, why? It is one of the erea's where interest from outside partners can be made, same as with he combustion chamber now, where Mahler works together with Ferrari. The FIA/Liberty should go to the (future) partner companies like turbo manufactures, battery suppliers and electric motor developers what is necessary to interest them into F1. The base ICE is the simplest part now and still the manufacturers see this as their main branding. A small team like Cosworth could make a good ICE sans combustion chamber. So a further limitation on that would work better. To make the connection with road engines even more, they could even make valve springs mandatory (the low revs make pneumatics less needed).

like: STR A123Systems/ABB-Honda
or: Sauber NEC/ASMO-Ferrari and HAAS Exide/Emmerson-Ferrari

This would make investments and sponsoring more liable because of the innovation it brings. FE for instance doesn't bring innovation on thechnial front (yet) because it all comes from one manufacturer, it's more a marketing series then a true racing class.

[3jawchuck]

This part interests me at the moment:

High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability

Could this ever go as far as prescribing standard size, mounting points, shafts, unions and connections, etc.. For all PU elements? So that each element from each manufacturer could work with other elements from other manufacturers? Would there be any advantage in mandating this? Would it even be possible? Would anyone take advantage of it?

I could see smaller teams liking that idea. Also, specialist manufacturers could like the idea of only focusing on a couple of elements rather than the PU as a whole. This could work out well if more entrants are desired. As of now it's not like there are enough teams to need more PU suppliers.

[FrukostScones]

This part interests me at the moment:

High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability

Could this ever go as far as prescribing standard size, mounting points, shafts, unions and connections, etc.. For all PU elements? So that each element from each manufacturer could work with other elements from other manufacturers? Would there be any advantage in mandating this? Would it even be possible? Would anyone take advantage of it?

I could see smaller teams liking that idea. Also, specialist manufacturers could like the idea of only focusing on a couple of elements rather than the PU as a whole. This could work out well if more entrants are desired. As of now it's not like there are enough teams to need more PU suppliers.

wouldn't Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap require standardised cooling requirements...

and this is possible how?

[3jawchuck]

This part interests me at the moment:

High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability

Could this ever go as far as prescribing standard size, mounting points, shafts, unions and connections, etc.. For all PU elements? So that each element from each manufacturer could work with other elements from other manufacturers? Would there be any advantage in mandating this? Would it even be possible? Would anyone take advantage of it?

I could see smaller teams liking that idea. Also, specialist manufacturers could like the idea of only focusing on a couple of elements rather than the PU as a whole. This could work out well if more entrants are desired. As of now it's not like there are enough teams to need more PU suppliers.

wouldn't Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap require standardised cooling requirements...

and this is possible how?

Ask the FIA?

[Edax]

The BMW in the BT52 was a rather standerd BMW racing enigne, with close ties to its production counterpart. Not really a step up from the V10's that succeed it. The TAG, Renault and Ferrari V6's were more "high tech". In those days you just needed a sturdy engine block and strap a giant turbo on it. The stronger your block, the more power you could produce. BMW melted their pistons during Q. It was kinda crude

You have to excuse me here. I grew up in the era where it was cool to write turbo in all capitals on your Porsche. I still find it exciting technology. I can imagine in a time where turbo is mostly found in underpowered hatchbacks with a green or blue lables that excitement may be a bit less

And you are right that a lot of technology went in these v10’s. As a young engineer I did worked in a place where we did fighter jets and F1 engines. The sky was the limit in terms of materials and processes.

However if anyone can produce the same result by taking a commercial engine block, which has already ran 100.000 miles by pissing over it and putting it back together backwards, I will immediately bow down in respect, that is what engineering is about.

As for turbo development, why? It is one of the erea's where interest from outside partners can be made, same as with he combustion chamber now, where Mahler works together with Ferrari. The FIA/Liberty should go to the (future) partner companies like turbo manufactures, battery suppliers and electric motor developers what is necessary to interest them into F1. The base ICE is the simplest part now and still the manufacturers see this as their main branding. A small team like Cosworth could make a good ICE sans combustion chamber. So a further limitation on that would work better. To make the connection with road engines even more, they could even make valve springs mandatory (the low revs make pneumatics less needed).

like: STR A123Systems/ABB-Honda
or: Sauber NEC/ASMO-Ferrari and HAAS Exide/Emmerson-Ferrari

This would make investments and sponsoring more liable because of the innovation it brings. FE for instance doesn't bring innovation on thechnial front (yet) because it all comes from one manufacturer, it's more a marketing series then a true racing class.

I think the idea is nice but in practice it will be difficult. The problem is that the car industry is a pretty messed up place. All suppliers hate the OEM’s and visa versa.

Automotive is a penny business and it is one of the most ruthless places I know. Everything has to be cheap. So the OEM’s put a lot of pressure on the suppliers.

Particularly they hate working with single suppliers. They like to have two or more suppliers of the same product so that they can play them against each other. To have some kind of meaningful cooperation in that kind of environment with the major suppliers will IMO be difficult.

[ringo]

This part interests me at the moment:

High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability

Could this ever go as far as prescribing standard size, mounting points, shafts, unions and connections, etc.. For all PU elements? So that each element from each manufacturer could work with other elements from other manufacturers? Would there be any advantage in mandating this? Would it even be possible? Would anyone take advantage of it?

I could see smaller teams liking that idea. Also, specialist manufacturers could like the idea of only focusing on a couple of elements rather than the PU as a whole. This could work out well if more entrants are desired. As of now it's not like there are enough teams to need more PU suppliers.

wouldn't Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap require standardised cooling requirements...

and this is possible how?

I think the aim is to have standardized interfaces. All tubs able to mate with all engines. All engines able to mate with all gearbox bellhousings. I think this makes a lot of sense, and will reduce development time between switching engine makers. Also gives a good oportunity for small teams to use tubs from other teams from previous years etc.

I honestly like the new rules. I know the FIA went extreme because they know the manufactures will bring the rules back somewhere in the middle. So i understand why they gave this barebones proposal.

To clarify the fuel restrictions. They did not mean fuel flow rate. It is more to do with developments with fuel chemistry and fuel systems in the car.

I agree with removing the MGUH. Ironically looking at it now, it's not road relevant because most road cars run on part load, not on full boost all the time to make whatever little energy harvested worth the costs in development, weight, space, reliability, maintenance on a street car. Nice tech of course, but taking it off the F1 car doesn't hurt the sports image or negatively affect trickle down tech to cars. The MGUH tech however, will benefit mercedes and renault on their trucks and other workhorse type engine applications that see almost constant loading.

The rules are pretty much fine, the big teams will spice them up for us before the deadline arrives to freeze the concept.

Fuel flow rate will increase no doubt if they are going to increase engine operating speeds to 15k range. The power increase from that speed and flow increase will keep us or put us above the 1000hp mark.

What i hope they don't do however is limit the combustion technology too much. The TJI is great, and i think this is the core of the engine makers uniqueness.

[markovski19]

Could the MGU-K not only be used to assist with power to the crankshaft, but also to help spool the turbo and remove turbo lag. That is what the MGU-H functionally does. This could mean both the removal of the MGU-H (for costs) and the sound benefits that come with it.

With the proposal in increasing the power of the MGU-K, I don't see why this couldn't be a reality, powering both crank and turbo. Perhaps x amount of power from the K can be used to remove turbo lag through automation and stop drivers from just using KERS every corner exit, thus leaving the drivers to decide when and where to use the KERS to power the engine.

[MrPotatoHead]

Could the MGU-K not only be used to assist with power to the crankshaft, but also to help spool the turbo and remove turbo lag. That is what the MGU-H functionally does. This could mean both the removal of the MGU-H (for costs) and the sound benefits that come with it.

With the proposal in increasing the power of the MGU-K, I don't see why this couldn't be a reality, powering both crank and turbo. Perhaps x amount of power from the K can be used to remove turbo lag through automation and stop drivers from just using KERS every corner exit, thus leaving the drivers to decide when and where to use the KERS to power the engine.

Yes. This is what is called "Torque Fill" and is used already on road cars like the McLaren P1. The MGUK is used to fill in the gap in the torque band before the turbo(s) spool and then tapers off as the turbos come up to speed for a wider power band.

[godlameroso]

With more fuel flow, higher revs, and a more powerful ERS, one could also get away with lower pressure ratio on the turbo for roughly the same power. This would lessen turbo lag, as would VCT and variable geometry turbines. Also a benefit of having high compression is that it increases exhaust gas velocity and you can get away with using a larger turbine housing/wheel combo for a given amount of turbo lag.

Getting the ICE to about 780hp and 250hp max power from the ERS seems about right. The driver should be allowed to manage his ERS, lower power settings can allow use of ERS for consecutive laps, or he can drain the batteries at max power to attack or defend, or turn down the ICE and rely more on hybrid power to save fuel, etc.

[NL_Fer]

I was thinking about the lag too. These insane high boost pressures are offcourse needed for the high lambda value. These current engines run so extremely lean, probably with only half the air (boost) they can achieve already an considerable amount of power.

Also the high compression ratio helps, so that the engine are not totally dull when off boost.

[gruntguru]

Both good points.

[NL_Fer]

Does somebody know back in the 80s (with the 1.5 Turbo’s and H-shifters) did they have to take off their throttle and operate the clutch for every gearshift? Thst would have caused so much lag, nowadays only lag one time every corner exit since they shift with full throttle and can use the MGU-K if torque reduction is needed.

[Jolle]

Does somebody know back in the 80s (with the 1.5 Turbo’s and H-shifters) did they have to take off their throttle and operate the clutch for every gearshift? Thst would have caused so much lag, nowadays only lag one time every corner exit since they shift with full throttle and can use the MGU-K if torque reduction is needed.

At least I know they never used the clutch, same as on a motorbike, you just have to close the throttle for a brief moment. I also assume this was the time when quick shift systems were introduced, where you can keep the throttle open and the moment you start shifting, the ignition gets cut for a brief moment. Don't remember who it was, but I've heart a story about a driver who used the rev-limiter for this, if you time it well, you shift at the moment the limiter activates, disconnecting the power from the gearbox for just enough to shift, not loosing any flow through the engine.