2021 Engine thread

[rscsr]

Less torque exiting corners tightens the group and leads to slip streaming.

My issue with 900ftlbs compared to 200ftlbs and today's tyres is that even a mediocre corner exit puts the leading driver out of touch on the following straight.

As noted in this post:

regarding torque ....
the torque at the axle is the same for all types of 1100 hp engine driving F1 cars
only the torque at the crankshaft is different

If the power is the same, and the speed is the same, the wheel torque or thrust at the wheels will be the same.

However, for slow corners the power of the V6Ts must be superior to the old V10s. The engine's power band is wider and the ERS helps as well.

But going to less power won't make for smaller gaps exiting corners.

With the wider power band, he traction zone will most likely be longer, increasing the chances that one driver will not get as good an exit as another. Sometimes that will give the car ahead the advantage, other times it will give teh chasing car a chance.

So, can someone explain this to me?

The 2.4L V8's were quoted as only having 200ftlbs(ish) of torque, and we did see 750ftlbs(ish) published for the 1.6T.

Now, i understand power is convertable, but I am unsure how a 20,000RPM engine and a 14,000RPM engine still produce the same torque to the wheels. Is this all in the transmission? I would expect that the wheel speed would be similar, regardless of engine, so doesnt the Trans just match that up? I mean, if the 14k, 750ftlbs engine has to spin the wheels at the same rate as the 20k, 200ftlbs engine to get the same straight line speed, isnt the torque waaay different?

they didn't have the same power. What I gathered quickly on google the V8 had about 560kW(=750bhp) and 300Nm(=220ftlbs) at 16000rpm. The current engines habe about 750kW (=1000bhp) and about 750Nm (=550 ftlbs) at 10000rpm.
But engine torque doesn't matter for anything performance related (but engine design). The shape of the power curve matters, but you can't really deduct it from torque (and rpm) without knowing quite a bit about the engine itself. (at best you get 2 points of a full power curve)

[wuzak]

Less torque exiting corners tightens the group and leads to slip streaming.

My issue with 900ftlbs compared to 200ftlbs and today's tyres is that even a mediocre corner exit puts the leading driver out of touch on the following straight.

As noted in this post:

regarding torque ....
the torque at the axle is the same for all types of 1100 hp engine driving F1 cars
only the torque at the crankshaft is different

If the power is the same, and the speed is the same, the wheel torque or thrust at the wheels will be the same.

However, for slow corners the power of the V6Ts must be superior to the old V10s. The engine's power band is wider and the ERS helps as well.

But going to less power won't make for smaller gaps exiting corners.

With the wider power band, he traction zone will most likely be longer, increasing the chances that one driver will not get as good an exit as another. Sometimes that will give the car ahead the advantage, other times it will give teh chasing car a chance.

So, can someone explain this to me?

The 2.4L V8's were quoted as only having 200ftlbs(ish) of torque, and we did see 750ftlbs(ish) published for the 1.6T.

Now, i understand power is convertable, but I am unsure how a 20,000RPM engine and a 14,000RPM engine still produce the same torque to the wheels. Is this all in the transmission? I would expect that the wheel speed would be similar, regardless of engine, so doesnt the Trans just match that up? I mean, if the 14k, 750ftlbs engine has to spin the wheels at the same rate as the 20k, 200ftlbs engine to get the same straight line speed, isnt the torque waaay different?

It's in the transmission gearing.

If both engines have 750hp at the crank and the transmission efficiency is 100% they will have 750hp at the rear wheels. If both cars are travelling at the same speed, they will have the same thrust/wheel torque.

In terms of thrust, you can say that:
P = F x V, where P is power, F is thrust and V is velocity.

Therefore F = P/V

Torque is the Thrust times the wheel radius -> T = F x r -> F = T/r

We can put that into the thrust equation and get T/r = P/V -> T = P*r/V

If P, V and r are the same for 2 cars with 2 different engine types, the torque at the wheels is the same.

Lets say engine 1 is N/A and makes the power at 18,000rpm and engine 2 is the turbo and makes the same power at 10,000rpm.

At the crankshaft output the turbo will have 1.8 times the torque of the N/A engine. But to get the same speed on the road, the N/A engine's rpm will have a reduction ratio 1.8 times greater than the turbo's.

That is, if the overall reduction ratio of the turbo's transmission is 5:1, the N/A's ratio would be 9:1.

[wuzak]

But engine torque doesn't matter for anything performance related (but engine design).

And gearbox design.

[hurril]

Less torque exiting corners tightens the group and leads to slip streaming.

My issue with 900ftlbs compared to 200ftlbs and today's tyres is that even a mediocre corner exit puts the leading driver out of touch on the following straight.

As noted in this post:

regarding torque ....
the torque at the axle is the same for all types of 1100 hp engine driving F1 cars
only the torque at the crankshaft is different

If the power is the same, and the speed is the same, the wheel torque or thrust at the wheels will be the same.

However, for slow corners the power of the V6Ts must be superior to the old V10s. The engine's power band is wider and the ERS helps as well.

But going to less power won't make for smaller gaps exiting corners.

With the wider power band, he traction zone will most likely be longer, increasing the chances that one driver will not get as good an exit as another. Sometimes that will give the car ahead the advantage, other times it will give teh chasing car a chance.

So, can someone explain this to me?

The 2.4L V8's were quoted as only having 200ftlbs(ish) of torque, and we did see 750ftlbs(ish) published for the 1.6T.

Now, i understand power is convertable, but I am unsure how a 20,000RPM engine and a 14,000RPM engine still produce the same torque to the wheels. Is this all in the transmission? I would expect that the wheel speed would be similar, regardless of engine, so doesnt the Trans just match that up? I mean, if the 14k, 750ftlbs engine has to spin the wheels at the same rate as the 20k, 200ftlbs engine to get the same straight line speed, isnt the torque waaay different?

Because gearbox.

[henry]

While the gearbox is the answer the relationship of power to Tractive Effort doesn’t need it.

Divide power by road speed and you have tractive effort.

500 kW at 100 m/s gives 5 kN Tractive Effort.

So as remarked the difference will be power band, the NA will likely be peakier and the power number in the above calculation would be more variable.

They might possibly change the gearbox regs to compensate, perhaps more gears, or allowing ratios to change circuit to circuit.

[roon]

Perhaps these diagrams help illustrate the relationship between power and torque. The shape of the torque and power curves reflect each other. Notice their bends occurring at the same RPM instances. Note in one of them, there is a comparison between an NA and turbocharged engine of similar peak power output. You can make more torque at a lower engine speed, but only so much. Can't escape the power curve.





In F1, if max fuel flow was available at any engine speed, we would likely see the power & torque curves shift to the left. Lower speed engines with lower redlines. Which would typically require heavier engine components to tolerate increased cylinder pressures (same power divided between fewer combustion cycles). Which would then typically limit their running speed.

The power curve is intractable, or so it seems. A 3.0L 20k RPM V10 with high low speed torque would be difficult to achieve, relative to the ease and benefit of simply attaching a gearbox to compensate for most ICE's familiar narrow powerbands. Such engines haven't been developed, to my knowledge. If they were, you'd have an ICE that wouldn't need a gearbox. In an F1 context, you'd end up with something that sounds like a Harley in the pits, a stock car in the hairpins, and a banshee on the straights.

[roon]

With the loss of the MGUH in mind, why not also nix turbocharging? Maintain fuel flow limits but free up engine architecture. Focus would narrow to combustion, away from turbo and EM optimization. NA sound returns.

Increase compression ratio and develop either in-cylinder cooling or a pre-cooler for the intake air. As long as the cylinder at TDC can achieve the same temperature, a:f ratio and charge masses of the current engines, current performance should be attainable. The fuel, charge air, and spark plug do not know or care if there is a compressor outside of the cylinder. Unless I'm totally off base.

I don't think they can get the current air:fuel ratios with N/A engines.

Okay. I have a workaround. Increase both bore and stroke to achieve an engine of 6.4L displacement. Maintain a combustion chamber size at TDC similar to the current 1.6L engines. Achieve this via a pocket in the cylinder ceiling or piston crown, to avoid extreme ratio pancake shapes. A:F ratios and masses at TDC will be the same as the 1.6L unit 4-bar units.

As mentioned, a charge air cooler may still be required depending on other factors. Something in-cylinder or proximal, or a pre-cooler/chiller in the airbox. A vapor-compression cycle heat exchanger & pump, of sufficient size, would likely be heavier than an intercooler, but the elimination of the turbine, compressor, and associated piping would help offset this.

Goal would be an NA engine formula that has a similar if not greater emphasis upon combustion efficiency. An NA engine with turbo-level charge masses & ratios, with the benefit of much greater expansion in-cylinder. Which would be like turbo-compounding without the turbo.

[NL_Fer]

Well, the information we have now, is that it wil be a 1.6l V6 Single turbocharged ICE with KERS system. No MGU-H, driver activated MGU-K.

They are still working on the more details, but i believe the manufactures would keep their advantage for lean combustion and try to retain the 100kg/hr fuel flow limiter.

Now my question:

Without the MGU-H is it still worthwhile to keep 4 Bar turbopressure and lambda 2.xx combustion? Is current ultralean combustion still usefull without the possibiliy ro recover energy from the exhaust?

[Zynerji]

I wish they would just freeze the ICE and Turbo, and just open the development of unlimited KERS/HERS.

I mean, this formula has driven the realization of the most fuel efficient automotive power trains ever seen by man.

Why would you stop there?

I mean, even if they just had a spec block/ heads/ cams, there is so much to still develop to gain a competitive advantage that is hugely relevant to manufacturers...

[Big Tea]

I wish they would just freeze the ICE and Turbo, and just open the development of unlimited KERS/HERS.

I mean, this formula has driven the realization of the most fuel efficient automotive power trains ever seen by man.

Why would you stop there?

I mean, even if they just had a spec block/ heads/ cams, there is so much to still develop to gain a competitive advantage that is hugely relevant to manufacturers...

The question then is who would join in the development fight? It would be exclusively limited to the 4 already here.

A new entrant would have to have an ICE as good as the 4, plus be in a position to develop the tec.

If it was possible to split the ICE part and allow the 4 to provide just basic engines maybe? but still daunting for a new entrant.

[Zynerji]

I wish they would just freeze the ICE and Turbo, and just open the development of unlimited KERS/HERS.

I mean, this formula has driven the realization of the most fuel efficient automotive power trains ever seen by man.

Why would you stop there?

I mean, even if they just had a spec block/ heads/ cams, there is so much to still develop to gain a competitive advantage that is hugely relevant to manufacturers...

The question then is who would join in the development fight? It would be exclusively limited to the 4 already here.

A new entrant would have to have an ICE as good as the 4, plus be in a position to develop the tec.

If it was possible to split the ICE part and allow the 4 to provide just basic engines maybe? but still daunting for a new entrant.

Daunting is what F1 is supposed to be.

If they did a spec block/ heads, it would only be ERS development. And I believe most manufacturers are already toe-dipped in that area.

Having easy engines that are cheap puts us right in F2, as it's a stepping stone to the big leagues.

I'm happy with F1 only being the biggest dogs fighting. No one gives any --- about the guppies that whine and cry because they can't compete.

[wuzak]

Okay. I have a workaround. Increase both bore and stroke to achieve an engine of 6.4L displacement. Maintain a combustion chamber size at TDC similar to the current 1.6L engines. Achieve this via a pocket in the cylinder ceiling or piston crown, to avoid extreme ratio pancake shapes. A:F ratios and masses at TDC will be the same as the 1.6L unit 4-bar units.

As mentioned, a charge air cooler may still be required depending on other factors. Something in-cylinder or proximal, or a pre-cooler/chiller in the airbox. A vapor-compression cycle heat exchanger & pump, of sufficient size, would likely be heavier than an intercooler, but the elimination of the turbine, compressor, and associated piping would help offset this.

Goal would be an NA engine formula that has a similar if not greater emphasis upon combustion efficiency. An NA engine with turbo-level charge masses & ratios, with the benefit of much greater expansion in-cylinder. Which would be like turbo-compounding without the turbo.

While a 6.4l engine will give you the same air flow as the 1.6L turbo at 4 bar, I doubt that would allow the same air:fuel ratio and power.

Plus there is the whole compression situation. The turbo has a nominal compression ratio somewhere between 10:1 and 18:1 (limit by rules). At 4 bar MAP that equates to an overall compression ratio of between 40:1 and 72:1.

The advantage of doing it with the compressor is that the air can be cooled between compression stages.

[NL_Fer]

I wish they would just freeze the ICE and Turbo, and just open the development of unlimited KERS/HERS.

I mean, this formula has driven the realization of the most fuel efficient automotive power trains ever seen by man.

Why would you stop there?

I mean, even if they just had a spec block/ heads/ cams, there is so much to still develop to gain a competitive advantage that is hugely relevant to manufacturers...

The initial plan for the ‘14 turbo hybrids was to gradually slow down development with the token system, but the lag of Renault/Honda made it impossible.

I believe the should try it again with ‘21 powerunit. More restrictions on development, to go to an freeze within 5 years. Only continue development of the (K)ERS systems.

Another idea is to limit boost pressure + fuel flow. Any gains can again only be made by increasing rpm, bit this wil counter efficiency.

[roon]

Okay. I have a workaround. Increase both bore and stroke to achieve an engine of 6.4L displacement. Maintain a combustion chamber size at TDC similar to the current 1.6L engines. Achieve this via a pocket in the cylinder ceiling or piston crown, to avoid extreme ratio pancake shapes. A:F ratios and masses at TDC will be the same as the 1.6L unit 4-bar units.

As mentioned, a charge air cooler may still be required depending on other factors. Something in-cylinder or proximal, or a pre-cooler/chiller in the airbox. A vapor-compression cycle heat exchanger & pump, of sufficient size, would likely be heavier than an intercooler, but the elimination of the turbine, compressor, and associated piping would help offset this.

Goal would be an NA engine formula that has a similar if not greater emphasis upon combustion efficiency. An NA engine with turbo-level charge masses & ratios, with the benefit of much greater expansion in-cylinder. Which would be like turbo-compounding without the turbo.

While a 6.4l engine will give you the same air flow as the 1.6L turbo at 4 bar, I doubt that would allow the same air:fuel ratio and power.

Plus there is the whole compression situation. The turbo has a nominal compression ratio somewhere between 10:1 and 18:1 (limit by rules). At 4 bar MAP that equates to an overall compression ratio of between 40:1 and 72:1.

The advantage of doing it with the compressor is that the air can be cooled between compression stages.

I don't believe the compressor geometry is regulated. The cylinders are limited to an 18:1 maximum geometric compression ratio.

[Holm86]

Didn't they say there would be a clarification on the 2021 regulations by end of June?
So maybe next week we will see some news