2021 Engine thread

[Maritimer]

Always liked Porsche, particularly the sound. If the engine in F1 was not mandated to be a v, would a flat 6 not be an advantage? Especially with the recovery equipment of today. A low C.O.G and more freedom in the rear shape etc?

There is a 1.5 flat 12 Ferrari here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXsCbBxkr90

Flat engines fell by the wayside because of how much floor space they occupy. Mercedes went to huge lengths to try and resolve this with the C291 3.5L flat 12, exhaust came out to top of the heads while the intakes fed through where the plugs are typically located. The entire installation was angled at something like 15 degrees to free up even more volume.






Porsche more recently made a mid-engined "911" to compete in GTE/GT2 because they needed a larger diffuser to stay competitive. Aero trumps everything in modern racing.

[Big Tea]

Always liked Porsche, particularly the sound. If the engine in F1 was not mandated to be a v, would a flat 6 not be an advantage? Especially with the recovery equipment of today. A low C.O.G and more freedom in the rear shape etc?

There is a 1.5 flat 12 Ferrari here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXsCbBxkr90

Flat engines fell by the wayside because of how much floor space they occupy. Mercedes went to huge lengths to try and resolve this with the C291 3.5L flat 12, exhaust came out to top of the heads while the intakes fed through where the plugs are typically located. The entire installation was angled at something like 15 degrees to free up even more volume.
http://adsves.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/8 ... _orig.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/63/35/ ... 7d14c.jpg

Porsche more recently made a mid-engined "911" to compete in GTE/GT2 because they needed a larger diffuser to stay competitive. Aero trumps everything in modern racing.

https://porschenewsroom.s3.amazonaws.c ... 0x1_5.jpg

So it would not help aero? I was thinking height rather than width now that the cars are wide anyway. Would it not even help the rear wing to be away from the bodywork?

I like the exhaust out the top idea, straight onto the rear wing
Did the Ferrari periscope exhausts help BTw?

Never seen that Merc engine before thats interesting.

[NL_Fer]

For the 919 they opted for a V4 because a V can be used as a part of the chassis. Gearbox and rear suspension are mounted to the engineblock. If any other engine like a flat of line would be used, a separate spaceframe would be needed to mount the rear chassis.

[Maritimer]

Always liked Porsche, particularly the sound. If the engine in F1 was not mandated to be a v, would a flat 6 not be an advantage? Especially with the recovery equipment of today. A low C.O.G and more freedom in the rear shape etc?

There is a 1.5 flat 12 Ferrari here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXsCbBxkr90

Flat engines fell by the wayside because of how much floor space they occupy. Mercedes went to huge lengths to try and resolve this with the C291 3.5L flat 12, exhaust came out to top of the heads while the intakes fed through where the plugs are typically located. The entire installation was angled at something like 15 degrees to free up even more volume.
http://adsves.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/8 ... _orig.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/63/35/ ... 7d14c.jpg

Porsche more recently made a mid-engined "911" to compete in GTE/GT2 because they needed a larger diffuser to stay competitive. Aero trumps everything in modern racing.

https://porschenewsroom.s3.amazonaws.c ... 0x1_5.jpg

So it would not help aero? I was thinking height rather than width now that the cars are wide anyway. Would it not even help the rear wing to be away from the bodywork?

I like the exhaust out the top idea, straight onto the rear wing
Did the Ferrari periscope exhausts help BTw?

Never seen that Merc engine before thats interesting.

The cars themselves are wider now but the body itself is as narrow as possible. Sticking in an engine that's twice as wide as the current one would be very detrimental to flow around the sidepod leading to the diffuser. The cokebottle shape is a direct result of using V engines and drove all of them to use narrow V10s for example, I don't recall any of them being over 80° by the time 05 came around much less 180°. CoG is easy to control without utilizing the engine as a form of ballast.

[Big Tea]

Flat engines fell by the wayside because of how much floor space they occupy. Mercedes went to huge lengths to try and resolve this with the C291 3.5L flat 12, exhaust came out to top of the heads while the intakes fed through where the plugs are typically located. The entire installation was angled at something like 15 degrees to free up even more volume.
http://adsves.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/8 ... _orig.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/63/35/ ... 7d14c.jpg

Porsche more recently made a mid-engined "911" to compete in GTE/GT2 because they needed a larger diffuser to stay competitive. Aero trumps everything in modern racing.

https://porschenewsroom.s3.amazonaws.c ... 0x1_5.jpg

So it would not help aero? I was thinking height rather than width now that the cars are wide anyway. Would it not even help the rear wing to be away from the bodywork?

I like the exhaust out the top idea, straight onto the rear wing
Did the Ferrari periscope exhausts help BTw?

Never seen that Merc engine before thats interesting.

The cars themselves are wider now but the body itself is as narrow as possible. Sticking in an engine that's twice as wide as the current one would be very detrimental to flow around the sidepod leading to the diffuser. The cokebottle shape is a direct result of using V engines and drove all of them to use narrow V10s for example, I don't recall any of them being over 80° by the time 05 came around much less 180°. CoG is easy to control without utilizing the engine as a form of ballast.

Thanks.

[wuzak]

Flat engines fell by the wayside because of how much floor space they occupy. Mercedes went to huge lengths to try and resolve this with the C291 3.5L flat 12, exhaust came out to top of the heads while the intakes fed through where the plugs are typically located. The entire installation was angled at something like 15 degrees to free up even more volume.
http://adsves.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/8 ... _orig.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/63/35/ ... 7d14c.jpg

Porsche more recently made a mid-engined "911" to compete in GTE/GT2 because they needed a larger diffuser to stay competitive. Aero trumps everything in modern racing.

https://porschenewsroom.s3.amazonaws.c ... 0x1_5.jpg

So it would not help aero? I was thinking height rather than width now that the cars are wide anyway. Would it not even help the rear wing to be away from the bodywork?

I like the exhaust out the top idea, straight onto the rear wing
Did the Ferrari periscope exhausts help BTw?

Never seen that Merc engine before thats interesting.

The cars themselves are wider now but the body itself is as narrow as possible. Sticking in an engine that's twice as wide as the current one would be very detrimental to flow around the sidepod leading to the diffuser. The cokebottle shape is a direct result of using V engines and drove all of them to use narrow V10s for example, I don't recall any of them being over 80° by the time 05 came around much less 180°. CoG is easy to control without utilizing the engine as a form of ballast.

Surely most V10s in 2005 were about 90°?

[Tommy Cookers]

the Ferrari-style flat 12 (often called a 180 deg V) has 6 crank throws and 4 main bearings
(and Tecno at least made a similar flat 8 having 3 main bearings)

the flat 6 has 6 crank throws and 4 or 7 main bearings
3 throws has never been done - it would be a vibration monster

[Jolle]

So it would not help aero? I was thinking height rather than width now that the cars are wide anyway. Would it not even help the rear wing to be away from the bodywork?

I like the exhaust out the top idea, straight onto the rear wing
Did the Ferrari periscope exhausts help BTw?

Never seen that Merc engine before thats interesting.

The cars themselves are wider now but the body itself is as narrow as possible. Sticking in an engine that's twice as wide as the current one would be very detrimental to flow around the sidepod leading to the diffuser. The cokebottle shape is a direct result of using V engines and drove all of them to use narrow V10s for example, I don't recall any of them being over 80° by the time 05 came around much less 180°. CoG is easy to control without utilizing the engine as a form of ballast.

Surely most V10s in 2005 were about 90°?

In the pre-V8 2.4 there was no rule how big the V should be. I believe Renault had a 72degree V for a while and even made a 115degree to lower the cog. But most teams were between 75 and 60 degrees.

[wuzak]

The cars themselves are wider now but the body itself is as narrow as possible. Sticking in an engine that's twice as wide as the current one would be very detrimental to flow around the sidepod leading to the diffuser. The cokebottle shape is a direct result of using V engines and drove all of them to use narrow V10s for example, I don't recall any of them being over 80° by the time 05 came around much less 180°. CoG is easy to control without utilizing the engine as a form of ballast.

Surely most V10s in 2005 were about 90°?

In the pre-V8 2.4 there was no rule how big the V should be. I believe Renault had a 72degree V for a while and even made a 115degree to lower the cog. But most teams were between 75 and 60 degrees.

The Ferrari, for one, was 90°
http://www.allf1.info/engines/ferrari.php

This one says 92°
https://formula1techandart.wordpress.co ... i-engines/

[Holm86]

Surely most V10s in 2005 were about 90°?

In the pre-V8 2.4 there was no rule how big the V should be. I believe Renault had a 72degree V for a while and even made a 115degree to lower the cog. But most teams were between 75 and 60 degrees.

The Ferrari, for one, was 90°
http://www.allf1.info/engines/ferrari.php

This one says 92°
https://formula1techandart.wordpress.co ... i-engines/

BMW also had several 90° V10's

[godlameroso]

Ok seeing as the new rules plan to phase out the MGU-H, why not make the new formula a 2 liter V12, naturally aspirated, 14,000rpm rev limit, 140kg fuel flow limit and 120kg fuel tank. Standardized block, standardized rods, standardized cam phasing system, standardized pneumatic valve control. Use round poppet valves, 4 valves per cylinder, dual overhead cam, variable lift profiles allowed. Mandate minimum weights for the crank, pistons, and engine assembly, say 97kg for the assembled engine. Engines will be BOP'ed to within .3 seconds around a lap of Barcelona with a standard dummy car. The engine will be good for ~780hp. 3 engine blocks per season 6 heads per season or something to that effect.

Hybrid system:
This is the big question mark for me, transmission mounted? Front mounted? Do we have electric FWD? Should the driver control it on top of the engine? Should it be seamless like now? Either way it looks like we end up with traction control.

[Holm86]

Ok seeing as the new rules plan to phase out the MGU-H, why not make the new formula a 2 liter V12, naturally aspirated, 14,000rpm rev limit, 140kg fuel flow limit and 120kg fuel tank. Standardized block, standardized rods, standardized cam phasing system, standardized pneumatic valve control. Use round poppet valves, 4 valves per cylinder, dual overhead cam, variable lift profiles allowed. Mandate minimum weights for the crank, pistons, and engine assembly, say 97kg for the assembled engine. Engines will be BOP'ed to within .3 seconds around a lap of Barcelona with a standard dummy car. The engine will be good for ~780hp. 3 engine blocks per season 6 heads per season or something to that effect.

Hybrid system:
This is the big question mark for me, transmission mounted? Front mounted? Do we have electric FWD? Should the driver control it on top of the engine? Should it be seamless like now? Either way it looks like we end up with traction control.

It doesn't just work like that, you can't just set a rpm limit and a fuel flow limit on a naturally aspirated engine.
First of all the current formula works because you can both control airflow and fuel flow very precisely. You can't control airflow very precisely on a naturally aspirated engine.

The formula you created there would be way too rich in AFR.
A 2 liter engine at 14.000 rpm consumes 14.000 liters of air per minute, at volumetric efficiency of 100%.
14.000 liters of air weighs about 18.1 kilogrammes at atmospheric pressure.
140kg/h of fuel = 140/60 = 2.33kg/min

So the air fuel ratio would be 18.1kg of air divided by 2.33kg of fuel which equals 7.8 and that's too rich.
And remember that the volumetric efficiency and air density are variables, variables you can offset by using a turbo, but not in a NA engine.

[godlameroso]

It doesn't just work like that, you can't just set a rpm limit and a fuel flow limit on a naturally aspirated engine.
First of all the current formula works because you can both control airflow and fuel flow very precisely. You can't control airflow very precisely on a naturally aspirated engine.

Didn't they do precisely that from 2008-2013?

The formula you created there would be way too rich in AFR.
A 2 liter engine at 14.000 rpm consumes 14.000 liters of air per minute, at volumetric efficiency of 100%.
14.000 liters of air weighs about 18.1 kilogrammes at atmospheric pressure.
140kg/h of fuel = 140/60 = 2.33kg/min

It's harder to run excessively lean without forced induction.

So the air fuel ratio would be 18.1kg of air divided by 2.33kg of fuel which equals 7.8 and that's too rich.
And remember that the volumetric efficiency and air density are variables, variables you can offset by using a turbo, but not in a NA engine.

You're still limited by the fuel supply, so you can turn up the power but you won't make it to the end, unless of course the teams develop the heads and increase efficiency.

[johnny comelately]

Ok seeing as the new rules plan to phase out the MGU-H, why not make the new formula a 2 liter V12, naturally aspirated, 14,000rpm rev limit, 140kg fuel flow limit and 120kg fuel tank. Standardized block, standardized rods, standardized cam phasing system, standardized pneumatic valve control. Use round poppet valves, 4 valves per cylinder, dual overhead cam, variable lift profiles allowed. Mandate minimum weights for the crank, pistons, and engine assembly, say 97kg for the assembled engine. Engines will be BOP'ed to within .3 seconds around a lap of Barcelona with a standard dummy car. The engine will be good for ~780hp. 3 engine blocks per season 6 heads per season or something to that effect.

Hybrid system:
This is the big question mark for me, transmission mounted? Front mounted? Do we have electric FWD? Should the driver control it on top of the engine? Should it be seamless like now? Either way it looks like we end up with traction control.

It doesn't just work like that, you can't just set a rpm limit and a fuel flow limit on a naturally aspirated engine.
First of all the current formula works because you can both control airflow and fuel flow very precisely. You can't control airflow very precisely on a naturally aspirated engine.

The formula you created there would be way too rich in AFR.
A 2 liter engine at 14.000 rpm consumes 14.000 liters of air per minute, at volumetric efficiency of 100%.
14.000 liters of air weighs about 18.1 kilogrammes at atmospheric pressure.
140kg/h of fuel = 140/60 = 2.33kg/min

So the air fuel ratio would be 18.1kg of air divided by 2.33kg of fuel which equals 7.8 and that's too rich.
And remember that the volumetric efficiency and air density are variables, variables you can offset by using a turbo, but not in a NA engine.

The 140kg would be a limit, you dont have to run that as a mixture

[johnny comelately]

At the moment there are three factors that primarily affect fuel: 1. how much; 2. how long and how hard the race is; 3. and energy content.

Based on if there is a NEED (not tactical) for fuel conserving, which is to be avoided, new fuel (free engine design) rules:
A fuel limit, whatever that may be and a cost limit are all that is needed. And minimum noise limits (that will fix those e engines)

Why inhibit creativity?