2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[AJI]

In a “hot vee” the intake will replace the exhaust and the exhaust + turbocharger will make the engine a lot more top-heavy.

The TC on the current PU is mounted in pretty much the same position as a hot vee setup. I fail to see how it would be more 'top-heavy'.
I think the hot vee setup would lower the CoG. Once you drop the VLIM, IC, throttle bodies, etc.., the only thing left above the PU is the air intake, which would be quite a simple and lightweight piece.

[saviour stivala]

A hot-vee engine set-up centre of gravity will be considerably higher because everything relating to the exhaust system is heavier than those the set-up replaces.

[AJI]

A hot-vee engine set-up centre of gravity will be considerably higher because everything relating to the exhaust system is heavier than those the set-up replaces.

You mean the headers? What else is there that isn't mounted in the current PU TC location?

[saviour stivala]

Not only the 6 individual headers, but these headers mounting position on the heads will lead to the present turbo needing to be higher than it is now.

[Holm86]

Not only the 6 individual headers, but these headers mounting position on the heads will lead to the present turbo needing to be higher than it is now.

I really don't agree, look how long the headers are now, and the turbo is already mounted pretty high. The headers could become much shorter, and the air boxes would have much shorter routing from the intercoolers as well.
The headers are made from inconel, and they are not very heavy

[saviour stivala]

"I really don't agree". That's OK with me, not agreeing is a right of yours. So lets agree to disagree.

[AJI]

Not only the 6 individual headers, but these headers mounting position on the heads will lead to the present turbo needing to be higher than it is now.

I really don't agree, look how long the headers are now, and the turbo is already mounted pretty high. The headers could become much shorter, and the air boxes would have much shorter routing from the intercoolers as well.
The headers are made from inconel, and they are not very heavy

I agree with you Holm86.
They wouldn't have to mount the turbo any higher than it is right now and the runners could be very short. MGU off the rear, compressor out the front Mercedes style. IMO it would be a neater package than the current PU.
Would tiny headers in the vee really weigh more than all the other guff plonked on the top of the vee? Just the wet intercooler on its own would weigh more, surely?

Ps while this probably a boring subject, it beats talking about coronavirus...

[stevesingo]

If we think about the size of the plenums and the variable length intakes, would you really want that lot in the side pod space, robbing undercut volume?

Then, if we have the exhaust primaries running over the MGU-H. That might be a problem.

Is there anything in the rules which precludes "hot-vee" configurations?

If not, I would suggest the juice does not justify the squeeze.

[trinidefender]

Not only the 6 individual headers, but these headers mounting position on the heads will lead to the present turbo needing to be higher than it is now.

I really don't agree, look how long the headers are now, and the turbo is already mounted pretty high. The headers could become much shorter, and the air boxes would have much shorter routing from the intercoolers as well.
The headers are made from inconel, and they are not very heavy

I agree with you Holm86.
They wouldn't have to mount the turbo any higher than it is right now and the runners could be very short. MGU off the rear, compressor out the front Mercedes style. IMO it would be a neater package than the current PU.
Would tiny headers in the vee really weigh more than all the other guff plonked on the top of the vee? Just the wet intercooler on its own would weigh more, surely?

Ps while this probably a boring subject, it beats talking about coronavirus...

Without referencing it, I thought inconel was heavier than stainless steel. It just have the advantage of being able to withstand extreme temperatures. Also as a side point, are we sure that it's inconel being used and not titanium?

It's doubtful that the runners would get shorter as they are pulse tuned for a specific rpm. This requires certain (X) length runners for a (y) width, set by mass flow requirements, regardless of placement inside or outside of the V. It isn't only about keeping the length the same for each runner.

I'm fairly certain that intake runners and an airbox made of carbon fibre is going to be much lighter than a pair of headers stuck way high up in the V.

Additional problems with a hot V setup is heat management, there is very little airflow through that region to keep header temperatures in check to protect surrounding components and bodywork. When the headers are on the outside of the V then there is all the airflow coming off of the radiators that can be ducted as needed.

Relating to the above point, is packaging. Having a hot V will require additional space as components are moved away from the headers. this is simply to stop components being cooked. The current configuration keeps the headers far away from temperature sensitive equipment.

Lastly also related to packaging. Trying to fit the headers up there may cause problems with packaging the headers themselves leading to a compromised design. There is much more space for an optimal design with the current setup.

Lastly, is there any regulation stopping the current manufacturers from designing the ICE with a hot V? If not and none have even attempted it then there is probably a good reason for that.

[AJI]

It's doubtful that the runners would get shorter as they are pulse tuned for a specific rpm. This requires certain (X) length runners for a (y) width, set by mass flow requirements, regardless of placement inside or outside of the V. It isn't only about keeping the length the same for each runner.

Mercedes first PU had log headers.

I'm fairly certain that intake runners and an airbox made of carbon fibre is going to be much lighter than a pair of headers stuck way high up in the V.

What about a wet intercooler?
And why would the headers be 'way high up' ?

Lastly, is there any regulation stopping the current manufacturers from designing the ICE with a hot V? If not and none have even attempted it then there is probably a good reason for that.

Hot vee is not allowed in the rules.

[saviour stivala]

Regulations as are does not allow the use of a HOT-VEE configuration.

[AJI]

If we think about the size of the plenums and the variable length intakes, would you really want that lot in the side pod space, robbing undercut volume?

I admit that this is one good argument against hot vee

Then, if we have the exhaust primaries running over the MGU-H. That might be a problem

I'm thinking H not in the vee

[Holm86]

I really don't agree, look how long the headers are now, and the turbo is already mounted pretty high. The headers could become much shorter, and the air boxes would have much shorter routing from the intercoolers as well.
The headers are made from inconel, and they are not very heavy

I agree with you Holm86.
They wouldn't have to mount the turbo any higher than it is right now and the runners could be very short. MGU off the rear, compressor out the front Mercedes style. IMO it would be a neater package than the current PU.
Would tiny headers in the vee really weigh more than all the other guff plonked on the top of the vee? Just the wet intercooler on its own would weigh more, surely?

Ps while this probably a boring subject, it beats talking about coronavirus...

Without referencing it, I thought inconel was heavier than stainless steel. It just have the advantage of being able to withstand extreme temperatures. Also as a side point, are we sure that it's inconel being used and not titanium?

It's doubtful that the runners would get shorter as they are pulse tuned for a specific rpm. This requires certain (X) length runners for a (y) width, set by mass flow requirements, regardless of placement inside or outside of the V. It isn't only about keeping the length the same for each runner.

I'm fairly certain that intake runners and an airbox made of carbon fibre is going to be much lighter than a pair of headers stuck way high up in the V.

Additional problems with a hot V setup is heat management, there is very little airflow through that region to keep header temperatures in check to protect surrounding components and bodywork. When the headers are on the outside of the V then there is all the airflow coming off of the radiators that can be ducted as needed.

Relating to the above point, is packaging. Having a hot V will require additional space as components are moved away from the headers. this is simply to stop components being cooked. The current configuration keeps the headers far away from temperature sensitive equipment.

Lastly also related to packaging. Trying to fit the headers up there may cause problems with packaging the headers themselves leading to a compromised design. There is much more space for an optimal design with the current setup.

Lastly, is there any regulation stopping the current manufacturers from designing the ICE with a hot V? If not and none have even attempted it then there is probably a good reason for that.

I think inconel and steel are about the same density, but with inconel you can use much thinner wall thickness. I think titanium is too difficult to bend like these headers are.

But the problem with hot vee would probably be that it could become too wide with the air boxes on the side.
Porsches V4 LMP engine was a hot vee, and if I remember correctly, so was Audi's last LMP V6 TDI, but LMP's does not have narrow sidepods.

But it would be nice if the regulations at least allowed it, just to see if anyone would go down that route

[trinidefender]

It's doubtful that the runners would get shorter as they are pulse tuned for a specific rpm. This requires certain (X) length runners for a (y) width, set by mass flow requirements, regardless of placement inside or outside of the V. It isn't only about keeping the length the same for each runner.

Mercedes first PU had log headers.

I'm fairly certain that intake runners and an airbox made of carbon fibre is going to be much lighter than a pair of headers stuck way high up in the V.

What about a wet intercooler?
And why would the headers be 'way high up' ?

Lastly, is there any regulation stopping the current manufacturers from designing the ICE with a hot V? If not and none have even attempted it then there is probably a good reason for that.

Hot vee is not allowed in the rules.

And so did Honda's first iteration of their ICE. Both manufacturers quickly got rid of that solution as they realised equal length headers was the better solution.

A wet intercooler (I assume you mean water to air intercooler) doesn't have to be placed in the V. The engineers can place it anywhere they choose so this point is moot.

The headers being in the V would be a considerable bit higher up than where they are now currently at the very bottom of the PU. Ergo the weight is shifted upwards. This seemed fairly self explanatory.

You also haven't addressed any of the other issues such as hot headers being around the very sensitive MGU-H, which already seems to be a fickle part, and other sensitive components. The issue of airflow in that region when there is already a lot of airflow coming through the sidepods that would be wasted.

[AJI]

And so did Honda's first iteration of their ICE. Both manufacturers quickly got rid of that solution as they realised equal length headers was the better solution.

One team won the first PU era WCC with a log, the others first PU attempt was total bollocks. Perhaps Mercedes were sandbagging with the 2014 PU and changed to tuned lengths for the impending power war? I'm not sure, but there are benefits of log style, like packaging, shorter paths, etc..

A wet intercooler (I assume you mean water to air intercooler) doesn't have to be placed in the V. The engineers can place it anywhere they choose so this point is moot.

Yes, water to air. Isn't the Ferrari unit mounted above the vee? How is this moot?

The headers being in the V would be a considerable bit higher up than where they are now currently at the very bottom of the PU. Ergo the weight is shifted upwards. This seemed fairly self explanatory.

Seriously, everyone knows what you meant... And in a hot vee everything usually on top of the engine shifts down...

You also haven't addressed any of the other issues such as hot headers being around the very sensitive MGU-H, which already seems to be a fickle part, and other sensitive components. The issue of airflow in that region when there is already a lot of airflow coming through the sidepods that would be wasted.

I have, in other posts abd in my original posts, but I'll touch on them again.
The H can be fore or aft the vee, it doesn't have to be mounted in the vee, so this point is moot. What other sensitive equipment would be mounted up high that can just as easily be mounted below? Perhaps they could vent the vee from the roll hoop intake and out through a chimney, just as they do now?
I have already stated that I agree a hot vee setup could compromise the aero that currently flows under the side pods, but that was someone elses point.

The only absolute reason no PU era car has ever had a hot vee is because that is what is prescribed in the rules.
As Holm pointed out, two LMP1 cars were hot vee, both designs won championships.
Formula 2 engines are hot vee.

It's clearly not impossible...