2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[stevesingo]

front wheel harvesting difficulties .....

it's inefficient to work over such a wide rpm range - and over such a wide torque range
(the MGU-K system benefits from using the 8 gears)

Is that not the same challenge which manufacturers face in designing hybrid/EVs? That makes it road relevant in my book.

FWH mechanisms can be suspected for hidden driver/car aid effects
(no front wheel interconnection effects are allowed eg front axle differentials were banned a few years ago)

There are lots of systems on the cars which "could" be used as driver aids. Rules and means of policing adherence are developed all the time.

Front wheel interconnection technical regs could be developed. Or have two MGUs in the nose cone.

[Holm86]

How many manufacturers have dry sumped stressed engines in production?
Plus high displacement engines will be at a clear disadvantage with a fuel flow limited formula..

Are you sure about the displacement?? I think that a larger displacement would mean that the turbo should use less energy in creating boost, as the boost pressure would be lower with larger displacement. That means the turbo could use more of its energy for harvesting in the mgu-h, and also would mean that the turbo would need less mgu-h deployment for spooling up. The compressor of the turbo could be smaller, yet the turbine side could stay roughly the same as now??

The turbo is still relevant in making sure the airflow is controlled just as precisely as the fuel flow, but the more the engine can pump air by itself, the better I would think. But I guess there would be an optimal cross over point.
I know a larger displacement would have more internal friction, but don't know how big a factor it would be??

[63l8qrrfy6]

How many manufacturers have dry sumped stressed engines in production?
Plus high displacement engines will be at a clear disadvantage with a fuel flow limited formula..

Are you sure about the displacement?? I think that a larger displacement would mean that the turbo should use less energy in creating boost, as the boost pressure would be lower with larger displacement. That means the turbo could use more of its energy for harvesting in the mgu-h, and also would mean that the turbo would need less mgu-h deployment for spooling up. The compressor of the turbo could be smaller, yet the turbine side could stay roughly the same as now??

The turbo is still relevant in making sure the airflow is controlled just as precisely as the fuel flow, but the more the engine can pump air by itself, the better I would think. But I guess there would be an optimal cross over point.
I know a larger displacement would have more internal friction, but don't know how big a factor it would be??

There's a very good reason there is a minimum displacement limit with current engines!

Any pumping work the engine is doing is at the expense of crank power. Compressor energy is much cheaper.
A larger engine has higher friction losses and higher thermal losses, far from optimal for thermal efficiency.
Also, it's bigger!

[Xwang]

There's a very good reason there is a minimum displacement limit with current engines!

Are you speaking about current F1 engines? Because in such a case art. 5.1.2 fixes the displacement to be 1600cc (+0/-10cc).

[63l8qrrfy6]

There's a very good reason there is a minimum displacement limit with current engines!

Are you speaking about current F1 engines? Because in such a case art. 5.1.2 fixes the displacement to be 1600cc (+0/-10cc).

Yes, so the minimum limit I am talking about is 1590cc.

[Xwang]

There's a very good reason there is a minimum displacement limit with current engines!

Are you speaking about current F1 engines? Because in such a case art. 5.1.2 fixes the displacement to be 1600cc (+0/-10cc).

Yes, so the minimum limit I am talking about is 1590cc.

I think that the 10cc is only the tolerance.
It's clear that FIA/manufacturers wanted all the engines to have the same displacement (no less, no more).

[63l8qrrfy6]

I agree and that's because they believed manufacturers would have tried to push the minimum limit.
If that wasn't the case a maximum limit of 1600cc would have been sufficient.

[Xwang]

I agree and that's because they believed manufacturers would have tried to push the minimum limit.
If that wasn't the case a maximum limit of 1600cc would have been sufficient.

Maybe. I don't want now to start crunching numbers to see if an optimal configuration with less displacement is possible.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I agree and that's because they believed manufacturers would have tried to push the minimum limit.
If that wasn't the case a maximum limit of 1600cc would have been sufficient.

Maybe. I don't want now to start crunching numbers to see if an optimal configuration with less displacement is possible.

The configuration (6cyl, 90deg vee) and bore size are regulated. The stroke is constrained by the displacement. Had there not been a minimum displacement the stroke would have been open for development and manufacturers would race to reduce it. Right away the combustion surface (thermal losses) would decrease and so would friction losses and crank inertia. This would have to be balanced against the increase in cylinder pressure which is likely to be the limiting factor of how small the displacement can be.

[Xwang]

I agree and that's because they believed manufacturers would have tried to push the minimum limit.
If that wasn't the case a maximum limit of 1600cc would have been sufficient.

Maybe. I don't want now to start crunching numbers to see if an optimal configuration with less displacement is possible.

The configuration (6cyl, 90deg vee) and bore size are regulated. The stroke is constrained by the displacement. Had there not been a minimum displacement the stroke would have been open for development and manufacturers would race to reduce it. Right away the combustion surface (thermal losses) would decrease and so would friction losses and crank inertia. This would have to be balanced against the increase in cylinder pressure which is likely to be the limiting factor of how small the displacement can be.

As far as I know it is generally told that the optimum displacement for each cylinder is around 500cc.
Indeed it is the value that manufacturers (BMW/Mercedes/Jaguar/Volvo) are using in their latest road car engines*.
So further going towards a lower displacement per cylinder seems to be in contrast with the will to be "road relevant" and with the results of the road optimization process**.
On hindsight they could have decided to use 3000cc engines so that studies made on combustion chambers could have been partially reused for road cars.
Anyway the power output would have been pretty the same because it is limited by the fuel flow available.

* https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1535 ... ne-design/

** An optimization made for a racing engine can lead to a different result with respect the same optimization made for a road car engine.

[63l8qrrfy6]

As far as I know it is generally told that the optimum displacement for each cylinder is around 500cc.
Indeed it is the value that manufacturers (BMW/Mercedes/Jaguar/Volvo) are using in their latest road car engines*.
So further going towards a lower displacement per cylinder seems to be in contrast with the will to be "road relevant" and with the results of the road optimization process**.
On hindsight they could have decided to use 3000cc engines so that studies made on combustion chambers could have been partially reused for road cars.
Anyway the power output would have been pretty the same because it is limited by the fuel flow available.

* https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1535 ... ne-design/

** An optimization made for a racing engine can lead to a different result with respect the same optimization made for a road car engine.

Well as you are probably aware what is optimum for a road car is not even close for an F1 car.
The 500cc optimum cylinder volume doesn't produce close to 400 kw/l and it also doesn't get scrapped after 5000 km or so.

I disagree with the bolded statement. Yes, the fuel flow rate is the same but the smaller engine will have smaller losses, higher TE and higher output.

[Xwang]

...
I disagree with the bolded statement. Yes, the fuel flow rate is the same but the smaller engine will have smaller losses, higher TE and higher output.

Would it be the case even if the engine speed at which the maximum fuel flow rate starts to be constant (10500 RPM) would have been reduced by a factor (1,6/3,0) to balance the higher displacement?

In such a case the road relevance would have been greater and probably friction losses would have been smaller. Am I wrong?

[gruntguru]

If there were no limits on displacement or cylinder count but all other rules remained the same, my guess is the current formula would converge to something like a 1 litre, 3 cylinder.

[NL_Fer]

For the short future, would another current sensor and energy recovery limit for the MGU-H put a big brake on development?

At the moment MGU-H is unrestricted. A limit could equalise the difference in performance between the manufacturers.

Any thoughts?

[NL_Fer]

Or a boost pressure limit?