2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[NL_Fer]

3 MGU-K units per season is better for assembly of the PU’s. MGU-K can now be mated to the ICE in the factory.

[Zynerji]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/116 ... 37250?s=19

This is silly until we get the actual, codified language. It should talk more about what happens if they go through there allotment early, is the 4th unit available early and under what circumstance?

The way it's worded, if it's damaged in the penultimate race, the final race must still run it. It sounds kind of stupid to be honest. Almost like Activision Blizzard is making the rules for F-1 now.

[saviour stivala]

3 MGU-K units per season is better for assembly of the PU’s. MGU-K can now be mated to the ICE in the factory.

What difference does it make replacing an MGU-K on a engine in use and bolting one on an engine being assembled at the factory, such replacements are designed with no fitting or mating needed be done.

[NL_Fer]

3 MGU-K units per season is better for assembly of the PU’s. MGU-K can now be mated to the ICE in the factory.

What difference does it make replacing an MGU-K on a engine in use and bolting one on an engine being assembled at the factory, such replacements are designed with no fitting or mating needed be done.

Last year onsite Renault engineers had a very hard time mounting the K to the ICE. It has to be done very secure.

[Jolle]

3 MGU-K units per season is better for assembly of the PU’s. MGU-K can now be mated to the ICE in the factory.

What difference does it make replacing an MGU-K on a engine in use and bolting one on an engine being assembled at the factory, such replacements are designed with no fitting or mating needed be done.

Last year onsite Renault engineers had a very hard time mounting the K to the ICE. It has to be done very secure.

If all goes a bit according to plan, both the Friday, race and spare units are assembled in the factory and only changed as a unit. No real need to change out K units.

[Ringleheim]

Wish they'd eliminate these ridiculous engine limit rules.

The cost is in the design and development of the engine concept. Once that is done, there isn't much difference in the cost of 1, 5, or 10 units.

Can you imagine how much power they'd be making if these engines were allowed to run on the edge because they only had to last 1 race!?

And we'd also see dramatic engine blow-ups again, which would be great. Adds spice to the racing too.

[djos]

Wish they'd eliminate these ridiculous engine limit rules.

The cost is in the design and development of the engine concept. Once that is done, there isn't much difference in the cost of 1, 5, or 10 units.

Can you imagine how much power they'd be making if these engines were allowed to run on the edge because they only had to last 1 race!?

And we'd also see dramatic engine blow-ups again, which would be great. Adds spice to the racing too.

I agree, as much as I hated it at the time, I now miss the 1 Engine & 1 gearbox per weekend rule. Let's get back to going flat-out from the start of the weekend to the end of the weekend again!

[NL_Fer]

For the customer teams is it 12M. I doubt they can built 2x22 units for that money.

But yes, burning a double amount of units on the dyno has to end next year.

[Cold Fussion]

The way it's worded, if it's damaged in the penultimate race, the final race must still run it. It sounds kind of stupid to be honest. Almost like Activision Blizzard is making the rules for F-1 now.

If Activision Blizzard was running F1 there would be no published rule book.

[Zynerji]

The way it's worded, if it's damaged in the penultimate race, the final race must still run it. It sounds kind of stupid to be honest. Almost like Activision Blizzard is making the rules for F-1 now.

If Activision Blizzard was running F1 there would be no published rule book.

100%

[NL_Fer]

The FIA imposed a limit for compression ratio of 1:18 a while back.

Can anyone confirm they are using a Miller cycle, because 1:18 is very high for an Otto cycle, even without turbo.

Miller would be a logical choice, to reduce the amount of exhaust gas, these ultra-lean burn engines produce. Sure the MGU-H can harvest it, but direct to the crank would be the best.

[Tommy Cookers]

....Miller would be a logical choice, to reduce the amount of exhaust gas, these ultra-lean burn engines produce. Sure the MGU-H can harvest it, but direct to the crank would be the best.

isn't this a contradiction ?
ultra-lean by reducing the amount of air for the given fuel rate ?
and a contradiction of what you have just been posting in the Ferrari thread

EDIT
but if we think that 18:1 is possible (because ultra-lean the combustion heat is much reduced by dilution) without Miller
so the 18:1 limit is intended to deter or prevent Millerisation

[henry]

The FIA imposed a limit for compression ratio of 1:18 a while back.

Can anyone confirm they are using a Miller cycle, because 1:18 is very high for an Otto cycle, even without turbo.

Miller would be a logical choice, to reduce the amount of exhaust gas, these ultra-lean burn engines produce. Sure the MGU-H can harvest it, but direct to the crank would be the best.

I doubt anyone outside the engine makers is likely to know. In 5 years very little has been confirmed about the actual operation of these power units.

A potential for Miller cycle would be to inject in such a way that some of the fuel/air is returned to the intake manifold where it could be mixing in preparation for the next cycle. This would help stratify the charge and emulate two injector jet combustion.

[gruntguru]

Interesting thought on 18:1 compression - this would be difficult to achieve in a short stroke pent-roof chamber. At the very least the chamber shape would be compromised with significant valve reliefs in the piston and limitations on valve events (limited overlap).

[Zynerji]

The FIA imposed a limit for compression ratio of 1:18 a while back.

Can anyone confirm they are using a Miller cycle, because 1:18 is very high for an Otto cycle, even without turbo.

Miller would be a logical choice, to reduce the amount of exhaust gas, these ultra-lean burn engines produce. Sure the MGU-H can harvest it, but direct to the crank would be the best.

I doubt anyone outside the engine makers is likely to know. In 5 years very little has been confirmed about the actual operation of these power units.

A potential for Miller cycle would be to inject in such a way that some of the fuel/air is returned to the intake manifold where it could be mixing in preparation for the next cycle. This would help stratify the charge and emulate two injector jet combustion.

Honda released the info about the intake runner butterflies. I speculated at the time that they were pressurizing the intake runner during the compression stroke, or backfilling fuel into the plenum.

IIRC, lots of posters dismissed the concept out of hand. It's nice to read that it may have actually been done.