2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ENGINE TUNER]

The rules are what the manufacturers asked for when the FIA consulted them.

They havde listned to some points from the manufactures, but the rest is dictated by FIA.
Only thing I've heard a team had influence on, was that Ferrari complained about the original idea of a straight 4 engine

Ferrari, Merc and Renault very much shaped the PU regs along with Gilles Simon and his team at the FIA. Cosworth were involved as well and I believe both Honda and Porsche had people in the meetings as well.

The FIA don't make most of the rules, they leave that to the teams or the working groups which are comprised of team members. The FIA and WMSG merely rubberstamp whatever is put in front of them.

And yes, Ferrari vetoed the straight 4 in favor of a v6 which Newey and a couple other non engine engineers came out in favor of.

[saviour stivala]

The rules are what the manufacturers asked for when the FIA consulted them.

They havde listned to some points from the manufactures, but the rest is dictated by FIA.
Only thing I've heard a team had influence on, was that Ferrari complained about the original idea of a straight 4 engine

Ferrari, Merc and Renault very much shaped the PU regs along with Gilles Simon and his team at the FIA. Cosworth were involved as well and I believe both Honda and Porsche had people in the meetings as well.

The FIA don't make most of the rules, they leave that to the teams or the working groups which are comprised of team members. The FIA and WMSG merely rubberstamp whatever is put in front of them.

And yes, Ferrari vetoed the straight 4 in favor of a v6 which Newey and a couple other non engine engineers came out in favor of.

I might be voted down again, that doesn’t matter, it doesn’t change the fact that all you said is correct and to the point. If permitted I will add that even the 90 degree vee angle of the V6 was strongly requested to be retained by the manufacturers, in fact it was the prime complain by Newey in his opposition to the proposed in-line four.

[saviour stivala]

The rules are what the manufacturers asked for when the FIA consulted them.

They havde listned to some points from the manufactures, but the rest is dictated by FIA.
Only thing I've heard a team had influence on, was that Ferrari complained about the original idea of a straight 4 engine

Ferrari, Merc and Renault very much shaped the PU regs along with Gilles Simon and his team at the FIA. Cosworth were involved as well and I believe both Honda and Porsche had people in the meetings as well.

The FIA don't make most of the rules, they leave that to the teams or the working groups which are comprised of team members. The FIA and WMSG merely rubberstamp whatever is put in front of them.

And yes, Ferrari vetoed the straight 4 in favor of a v6 which Newey and a couple other non engine engineers came out in favor of.

Newey coming out in favour of the V6 configuration was for a different reason than that of FERRARI. His reasoning was all to do with structural integrity when it comes to bolting to the bulkhead and serving as a structure part of the chassis, he argued that an inline four will need a substantial additional sub-frame for it to form part of the chassis structure.

[stevesingo]

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.

My understanding is that pulse tuning in terms of resonance is not a factor in turbo applications. Equal length important.

Is the length they are because of the rule;

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a
sole single stage exhaust turbine by a shaft assembly parallel to the engine crankshaft and
within 25mm of the car centre plane. The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft
assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same
angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU‐H) may be directly coupled to it. The
shaft may not be mechanically linked to any other device.

That kind of limits where you can place the turbo and therefore the distance from cylinders 1&4.

Hot Vee and keeping equal lengths would be a packaging challenge.

[Zynerji]

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.

My understanding is that pulse tuning in terms of resonance is not a factor in turbo applications. Equal length important.

Is the length they are because of the rule;

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a
sole single stage exhaust turbine by a shaft assembly parallel to the engine crankshaft and
within 25mm of the car centre plane. The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft
assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same
angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU‐H) may be directly coupled to it. The
shaft may not be mechanically linked to any other device.

That kind of limits where you can place the turbo and therefore the distance from cylinders 1&4.

Hot Vee and keeping equal lengths would be a packaging challenge.

I'd imagine it would be a cast part. I believe that you can cast thin wall inconel. A cast part could have all kinds of RPM tuning with an ultra complex internal geometry.

[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.

My understanding is that pulse tuning in terms of resonance is not a factor in turbo applications. Equal length important.

Is the length they are because of the rule;

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a
sole single stage exhaust turbine by a shaft assembly parallel to the engine crankshaft and
within 25mm of the car centre plane. The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft
assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same
angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU‐H) may be directly coupled to it. The
shaft may not be mechanically linked to any other device.

That kind of limits where you can place the turbo and therefore the distance from cylinders 1&4.

Hot Vee and keeping equal lengths would be a packaging challenge.

Why would pulse tuning not be a factor. It will still provide "free" turbocharging at the correct rpm regardless of if there is a turbocharger there or not.

Usually what I see is that in the aftermarket road car tuning world, pulse tuning with turbochargers generally is far lower on the priority list. The aftermarket guys tend to run large (and often mismatched) turbochargers chasing big power numbers and then have to compensate with short compact runners to minimise lag (spool time). After that extra boost and dumping fuel at a rich mixture to stop detonation is done. Long story short, in that world, chasing power is generally done the sledge hammer way (stronger block, bigger turbo, more fuel), they aren't so concerned with chasing the few extra hp with high expense that pulse tuning might bring.

F1 is a completely different game with lag being almost non-existent due to the MGU-H. In F1, fuel flow is an issue where the engineers are trying to pull every little bit of power out the fuel as possible. Hence why every PU manufacturer went with variable length trumpets as soon as they became legal. They also have the budgets and facilities to chase these slim margins.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Newey coming out in favour of the V6 configuration was for a different reason than that of FERRARI. His reasoning was all to do with structural integrity when it comes to bolting to the bulkhead and serving as a structure part of the chassis, he argued that an inline four will need a substantial additional sub-frame for it to form part of the chassis structure.

Yes, that was his primary argument even if possibly flawed.

Ferrari's argument was based primarily on marketing, in that they do not nor will never sell a I4 ice, although they clearly don't sell a v6 either.

I personally still think the I4 would have been an equally good solution and possibly better. Hopefully the manufacturers aren't so stuck on tradition with the next PU rules, I see much promise in the opposed 2 stroke proposal.

[saviour stivala]

“Yes, that was his (Newey) primary argument (structural integrity – re bolting pattern) even if possibly ‘flowed’”. It will never cross my mind that Newey argument/s re-structural integrity or lack of it are ever possibly ‘flowed’.
I too am of the opinion that the originally proposed 1.5l-4 direct injected (max 500 bar) turbocharged (no boost limit) but with lower mandated max RPM, and fuel flow limited to a max of 100kg/h flow (the “@10500rpm” was added later by the FIA to the V6 configuration) would have been not only much more efficient but without any doubt more powerful (output) at much lower RPM.

[Holm86]

structural rigidity could still be kept with a 60° V6 I would argue. And its still a more balanced configuration for a V6 than 90°.
I agree that the inline 4 would probably be more efficient, and it would also sound better imo, as my personal oppinion is that a 90° V6 with 120° crank throws has the least pleasent frequency of all engines ...

But wasn't the inline 4 Jean Todt's idea of a "world engine" ?? A platform that could be used in both rally, lmp, dtc and F1?? Just with different fuel flows, and levels of hybridization?

[saviour stivala]

The in-line 4 was originally Mosely’s idea as pushed forward by Volkswagen.
It is hard to beat the structural integrity (including bolting pattern wise) of a 90 degree vee configuration.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... a 60° V6 I would argue. And its still a more balanced configuration for a V6 than 90°.

doesn't 6 equal-interval firings give a longer,heavier, thicker-cranked engine with more bearing loads, area, and friction ?
at current or any feasible bore:stroke ratio and cylinder spacing
(though maybe not at the frozen NA V8 dimensions)

[stevesingo]

Why would pulse tuning not be a factor. It will still provide "free" turbocharging at the correct rpm regardless of if there is a turbocharger there or not.

Usually what I see is that in the aftermarket road car tuning world, pulse tuning with turbochargers generally is far lower on the priority list. The aftermarket guys tend to run large (and often mismatched) turbochargers chasing big power numbers and then have to compensate with short compact runners to minimise lag (spool time). After that extra boost and dumping fuel at a rich mixture to stop detonation is done. Long story short, in that world, chasing power is generally done the sledge hammer way (stronger block, bigger turbo, more fuel), they aren't so concerned with chasing the few extra hp with high expense that pulse tuning might bring.

F1 is a completely different game with lag being almost non-existent due to the MGU-H. In F1, fuel flow is an issue where the engineers are trying to pull every little bit of power out the fuel as possible. Hence why every PU manufacturer went with variable length trumpets as soon as they became legal. They also have the budgets and facilities to chase these slim margins.

My understanding of tuning of header length is based on two principals;

1. Helmholtz- the energy imparted on the column of gas be the exhaust valve closing reflects of the open* pipe end back off the closed valve prior toit's next opening event. *open also being a change in volume.

2. Scavenging- the exhaust pulse from one cylinder creates a depression at the merge collector creating a depression in the adjacent cylinder header pipe.

With a turbo application, there is no open end therefore the reflection is limited if not non existent.

Scavening may also be limited as the pressure in the header is always positive (unlike an NA engine) so that depression of say 10KPa is less significant when looked at against exhaust pressures of 300KPa.

This is all based around a fixed length is optimised for a fixed rpm. The desired rpm will dictate the length. If the operating rpm is 9-12krpm then the length is fixed. If that length cannot be package in Hot Vee without impacting packaging then it can't be implemented.

Additionally, blowdown effect of the positive pressure of the exhaust leaving the valve is reduced over length as the gas cools and is not specific to a particular rpm. This loss may be bigger that the gains from a length of exhaust header which works only at one rpm.

Another point is that these engines are not air limited. They run with excess air. More air may not equal more power.

The more I think about it the more I feel that Hot Vee may be most beneficial from a blowdown point of view that a tuned length.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... With a turbo application, there is no open end therefore the reflection is limited if not non existent.
.... Scavening may also be limited as the pressure in the header is always positive (unlike an NA engine) so that depression of say 10KPa is less significant when looked at against exhaust pressures of 300KPa.
.... Additionally, blowdown effect of the positive pressure of the exhaust leaving the valve is reduced over length as the gas cools and is not specific to a particular rpm.

fwiw I disagree with the above

[stevesingo]

.... With a turbo application, there is no open end therefore the reflection is limited if not non existent.
.... Scavening may also be limited as the pressure in the header is always positive (unlike an NA engine) so that depression of say 10KPa is less significant when looked at against exhaust pressures of 300KPa.
.... Additionally, blowdown effect of the positive pressure of the exhaust leaving the valve is reduced over length as the gas cools and is not specific to a particular rpm.

fwiw I disagree with the above

Thanks for your constructive input.

[63l8qrrfy6]

My understanding of tuning of header length is based on two principals;

1. Helmholtz- the energy imparted on the column of gas be the exhaust valve closing reflects of the open* pipe end back off the closed valve prior toit's next opening event. *open also being a change in volume.

2. Scavenging- the exhaust pulse from one cylinder creates a depression at the merge collector creating a depression in the adjacent cylinder header pipe.

With a turbo application, there is no open end therefore the reflection is limited if not non existent.

Scavening may also be limited as the pressure in the header is always positive (unlike an NA engine) so that depression of say 10KPa is less significant when looked at against exhaust pressures of 300KPa.

The change in volume bit is actually key!
The pressure pulses are created by a sudden increase in exhaust pipe diameters. Back in the N/A days when pipes were not thermally insulated the change in diameters was clearly visible.

The junction between pipes and collectors is another point that can create pressure pulses too.

As for scavenging - no negative pressure is needed, all that is required is to increase the pressure difference across the exhaust valve. Yes, exhaust pressure is much higher on a turbo engine but then so is the cylinder pressure.

Exhaust tuning works just as well on turbocharged engines and is definitely used on current F1 cars.