2021 Engine thread

[mzso]

I wonder why FIA released that report about the bio-fuel they developed when they completely neglected too specify anything. Not how its produced, not what is even produced. Much less how and from what otherwise unused waste material.
It's more annoying than anything. "We did something, but we won't tell what"

[Scorpaguy]

I wonder why FIA released that report about the bio-fuel they developed when they completely neglected too specify anything. Not how its produced, not what is even produced. Much less how and from what otherwise unused waste material.
It's more annoying than anything. "We did something, but we won't tell what"

...ah yes, the old "devil in the details" conundrum. Unfortunately we live in an age in which perception is far more important than reality. Using env-friendly bio-fuels (more importantly, reporting on social media that you are doing such) is for more important than the copious quantities of "methyl-ethyl death" produced or what the net energy gain/loss is re the production process.

I assume that F1 intends to keep an ICE component for some time and needs the good buzz on social media. F1 is big and quite the traveling circus...so a direct comparison to FE on total energy used by car/lap would be a VERY long equation. Bottom line is that motor racing will always be a consumer of energy for entertainment purposes...I suppose I am good with that and can reconcile the woes with the tech advances.

[mzso]

methyl-ethyl death" produced

What on earth do you mean by that? I'm getting chemtrail vibes.

what the net energy gain/loss is re the production process.

That's somewhat interesting, but all-together not important. If they can produce fuel from waste that's otherwise unused as they claim, than the percentage of solar power that the bio material used to grow is irrelevant.
Far more important is the specific cost of fuel.

[Scorpaguy]

methyl-ethyl death

A simple colloquialism used in chemistry circles for rather nasty by-products...nerd slang, my apologies.

That's somewhat interesting, but all-together not important. If they can produce fuel from waste that's otherwise unused as they claim, than the percentage of solar power that the bio material used to grow is irrelevant.
Far more important is the specific cost of fuel.

I would have to respectfully disagree, any process that requires more calories/energy input than it produces is by definition unsustainable. Granted, current technology renders all such processes unsustainable due to the realities of energy entropy/thermodynamics. Some processes are just more efficient than others.

Certain components of such processes are oft overlooked...eg the prep and a clean-up steps of these processes. All energy production processes have huge energy/resource inputs in the prep phase. A simple campfire requires the forging of an ax/growing a tree. Petro chemicals require magnanimous extraction and refining inputs....as does nuclear. PV solar still requires huge mining/milling/manufacturing inputs (not to mention the grid for transport).

At the end of these energy production processes...the ash has to be removed from the fire pit / sludges and tars must be cleaned from the fractional distillation equipment...this too requires energy. As for nuclear, you have those nasty radionuclides that retain toxicity for eons ("methyl-ethyl death"). PV panels do not last forever...there will be calorie/energy inputs required to dispose/repurpose such.

In short, there are no free lunches (or free energy). However, if in fact concentrated energy can be created from ubiquitous/innocuous waste products, and the net energy loss is minimal (when accounting for all of the sub processes)...I would say halleluiah! My gut (and the realities of thermodynamics) tells me that all forms of energy production can be improved and optimized...none will ever be totally sustainable....which is why we shall continue to use them all due to our ever increasing population and its appetite for energy.

The fact that we are having these discussions...now that is a good thing.

[mzso]

A simple colloquialism used in chemistry circles for rather nasty by-products...nerd slang, my apologies.

What byproducts? From the production process? Combustion process? Something else?
I highly doubt it would be more toxic than toluene.

[mzso]

I would have to respectfully disagree, any process that requires more calories/energy input than it produces is by definition unsustainable

I have yet to see a statement here that is more spectacularly wrong.

[Scorpaguy]

I would have to respectfully disagree, any process that requires more calories/energy input than it produces is by definition unsustainable

I have yet to see a statement here that is more spectacularly wrong.

...then I guess we shall have to disagree, myself respectfully, with the definition of "sustainability". As for the particular toxicity of certain bioprocesses, since 1994 our industry (in the States) has been required to perform routine sampling for 13 metals and 63 volatiles/semi-volatiles...upon any detections, subsequent analyses for hundreds of "hazardous and inorganic and organic constituents" is required (one of which is toluene). Does this mean that all such processes produce toxic by-products...NO, but they sometimes can and sometimes do.

[gruntguru]

I would have to respectfully disagree, any process that requires more calories/energy input than it produces is by definition unsustainable

I have yet to see a statement here that is more spectacularly wrong.

...then I guess we shall have to disagree, myself respectfully, with the definition of "sustainability".

It is generally accepted that certain sources of energy are "unlimited" and therefore sustainable - eg solar power. A PV panel requires 5x the energy input for each unit of electricity output.

[Scorpaguy]

Quite true...solar energy is basically unlimited, however the heavy metals necessary for manufacture of PV panels is not. Is solar PV more energy efficient than other forms of energy generation...by several orders of magnitude compared to some other sources (although I believe that concentrated solar thermal is even more so).

However, my point was to the cradle to grave costs, while it is accepted that a PV panel produces 4-5 times more electricity than it uses in production, does such account for the "energy" (not electricity) required for the mining/refining/transportation/grid construction/etc. In re to the "grave" costs...in 2016 there were 250,000 metric tons of PV panel wastes requiring disposal. In 2050, that figure is estimated to be 78 million metric tonnes (IRENA stats, not mine). Landfilling and recycling all require energy...and produce by-products (sometimes toxic) that have to be dealt with.

[Scorpaguy]

...and my apologies to the Moderator for drifting woefully off topic.

[mzso]

It is generally accepted that certain sources of energy are "unlimited" and therefore sustainable - eg solar power. A PV panel requires 5x the energy input for each unit of electricity output.

Indeed. The sun will be there for geological timescales. The fact that it'll burn out billions of years from now is silly to be used as an excuse to consider it non-sustainable. Humanity will be long gone by then, one way or another.
And actually all renewables are direct or indirect solar power. With bio-fuel being not too remote. With much of it done by organisms rather than machines and labor.

[RaceFan1]

So... How about those 2021 engines...

[godlameroso]

So... How about those 2021 engines...

They're 2020 engines but more betterer.

Recently, in the last few years, circa 2018, technologies which use exotic cylinder and piston platings have been advanced. Computers have advanced and engineering keeps trundling along. Naturally everyone is already on board, and now before costs start going haywire, they're hoping everyone catches up, and gets to a roughly similar level.

Naturally for Renault got their toys to develop the engines late, Honda was a year and a half ahead, but Renault still had 2 years of a development head start. Renault and Honda have been relatively even in their time together, Honda ICE and packaging advantage, Renault has more MGU-K power at the expense of packaging.

Mercedes was probably 2 years ahead of everyone, and was willing to make the investment, Renault tried to cut corners and Honda needed to in order to make progress. I think what Honda and Renault have produced is worth the investment in the long run, and the timing is interesting. Ferrari is an interesting case, the engine has evolved so much, and the version that was used this year, it reminded me of when Honda started in F1, there just wasn't enough MGU-K deployment.

Engine power was there, but it just fell flat. The engine was probably designed with the exploitation of 2019 in mind, but then was forced to run with the grey zone blocked. End result too much clipping. What are the chances that Ferrari has gone to the 2015 Honda layout, and the small turbo within the V had trouble harvesting from the MGU-H. That the 'grey area' exploitation would have allowed them to make it work.

It would explain why they're banking on the intercooler, they're going to make it work some other way because the aero advantage is impossible to ignore, especially since LeClec has the concentration to get the performance from the aero.

Everyone seems to be confident of decent gains for next year. Mercedes is rumored to be bringing 25-30hp, Honda says 35-40hp?!?!*, Ferrari says it believes 30hp for the start of the season is within reach. Renault is closed lipped, nothing coming from them save they're developing a split turbo setup. Are they having trouble with the new concept? This year seems to be a limbo year for Renault because if they go split turbo it will undoubtedly be a step backwards until at least mid season. Or maybe they're just keeping their cards close to their chest, usually Renault is pretty boastful when they have a serious development. However Renault supplies no other teams, they don't have to advertise their product to anyone.

In 2025 they should release a documentary series about these engines. The development, and work that went into them really deserves to be told.

[63l8qrrfy6]

The only numbers going around in the press are +40 hp Honda and +30 hp Ferrari. Not sure where the Merc numbers are coming from but I don't think their engine development is going very well.
Unfortunately as of this year I no longer have any contacts in Brixworth - all of the folks I know are either contractors who were laid off in spring or permies who burnt out and left.

[Holm86]

Maybe Mercedes engine development finally stagnated?
Maybe Andy Cowell left, because he thought there was not much more to extract from the power train??