2021 Engine thread

[mzso]

Hi!

Well, as it turned out the 2021+ PU remains identical. Is there a thread yet for the motors after this? (well, speculation thread I guess)
Though thoroughly unspecified some of the manufacturers want to bring its deployment forward by a year.

The realist in me says it will be a rather similar hybrids with some synthetic fuel gimmick*. Though not sure how. They keep whining how expensive it is, but at this point with know-how built up and the designs rather mature, I see no point in throwing out neither K or H. So what would change? More storage and electric power? Rather boring. synthetic or bio-fuels wont add anything technology wise, it's just fuel, they'll keep tuning it and the engine to work best together as always.

I'd prefer F1 to be forward thinking, innovative and cutting edge. I'd go with Ross Brawn's suggestion and go electric. Add some bleeding edge fuel cell system (probably don't allow teams developing their own and leave it big/relevant industrial firms ) a power limiter on the battery/fuel-cell output to promote efficiency and development: better efficency would mean more power and less weight.

*gimmick because I can't see them being used in the real world.

[63l8qrrfy6]

My guess is they will keep the same bore and stroke to save costs for current manufacturers but reduce the displacement and number of cylinders and increase the electric power output. MGUH will most likely go.

If this is the case potential new manufacturers will still be at a disadvantage since they will have to develop the engine from scratch compared to existing constructors. To make it fair they will probably be allowed additional dyno hours and potentially more updates per season.

[rileykirn]

I still think there may be consideration for more of a "hybrid" drivetrain also. ICE engine will continue at some level, but mainly as a generation system while transmission & differential will be replaced with an electric drive motors. Space & weight gains from removal of the transmission will allow for a larger battery. This will allow for continued use of an existing ICE motor concept & some type of bio-fuel, but will also allow for continued efficiency/friction improvements with the removal of the mechanical drive aspects. This is relevant as the next generation of real world vehicle technology.

[gruntguru]

My guess is they will keep the same bore and stroke to save costs for current manufacturers but reduce the displacement and number of cylinders and increase the electric power output. MGUH will most likely go.

If this is the case potential new manufacturers will still be at a disadvantage since they will have to develop the engine from scratch compared to existing constructors. To make it fair they will probably be allowed additional dyno hours and potentially more updates per season.

If you are right that would mean a V4 or I3. Combined with loss of MGUH I think that would result in a reduction in output. MGUH contributes what - 10-15% of self sustaining power output? That's a big whack.

Fewer cylinders also means some loss of aural appeal.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Or inline 4, after all that was the original 2014 configuration.

[godlameroso]

Naturally aspirated 2.0L V12, 16k rpm limit, and a 300hp KERS. Combined output 1,000hp. Spec bottom end, only custom crank, rods, pistons, and heads. Development of spec parts has to be done via pooled resources, and unanimous agreement. 110kg of fuel of 10% bio fuel.

Increased hybridization, cheaper engines, and nothing sounds better than a V12.

[gruntguru]

Or inline 4, after all that was the original 2014 configuration.

I would love to see what they can do with a 800cc triple and 100 kg/hr fuel.

[Tommy Cookers]

propane/butane etc content is strongly limited by restriction on fuel composition by carbon atom count and vapour pressure
ok within those limits using bio propane/butane could make sense - minimising loss from biofuel overall

and isobutanol ie bioisobutanol matches gasoline in mass-specific energy

btw butanol could have been useful in 'old' F1
having much higher heat per mass of air than gasoline or the lower alcohols eg ethanol or methanol

bumped for CORRECTION ....

isobutanol has (like butanol) about 80% of the mass-specific heat energy of a 'good' (in energy terms) gasoline

the butanols are like methanol (10%) and ethanol (4%) in having somewhat higher heat per mass of air than gasoline's

butanols DON'T have a much higher heat per mass of air
(the only interweb claim is 3.6 but its quoted source material doesn't support this so 3.6 seems to be a typo)

yes this (via the stoichiometric mass) needs checking for the propanols, butanols, pentanols etc etc

[Big Tea]

Or inline 4, after all that was the original 2014 configuration.

I would love to see what they can do with a 800cc triple and 100 kg/hr fuel.

I wonder what the gain/loss would be if they were able to reduce the car weight by that saved on the engine and use something like a twin cylinder, possibly flat, possibly air cooled, to drop the c.o.g. and give it unlimited use to power or charge the electric part of the machine?

I don't mean slipping it in past the regs, but a whole new set of allowances for weight saved and electric as the main drive? The motor could run at a constant output and drive transferred between transmission and charging as required but be mostly electric without infringing on FE.


Oops, sorry, just realised this is the 2021 thread not the future engine

[63l8qrrfy6]

Or inline 4, after all that was the original 2014 configuration.

I would love to see what they can do with a 800cc triple and 100 kg/hr fuel.

Me too but I think it would be really pushing the mechanical limits if the engine durability targets remain similar to what we have today.

FIA would probably reduce the fuel massflow rate in line with the reduction in displacement.

I think a triple would make sense financially because there are so many components that can be re-used if the bore and stroke stay the same.

The reduction in ICE output can always be compensated by an increase in electric motor output and increased battery capacity and energy flow limits.

[djos]

I’ve got a 1 lite 3 banger Turbo in my Rio GT and it’s a great fun little engine with a rorty little exhaust note. I recently bought a RaceChip S for it to bump it up to 102kW and 202Nm and it’s just a hoot to drive. It’s only 1,100kgs and has a nicely matched 7 speed DCT.

Seeing F1 cars with a 3 banger sure would be interesting, however I’d rather a 2 litre V10 plus KERS running on biofuel.

[gruntguru]

Or inline 4, after all that was the original 2014 configuration.

I would love to see what they can do with a 800cc triple and 100 kg/hr fuel.

Me too but I think it would be really pushing the mechanical limits if the engine durability targets remain similar to what we have today.

FIA would probably reduce the fuel massflow rate in line with the reduction in displacement.

I think a triple would make sense financially because there are so many components that can be re-used if the bore and stroke stay the same.

The reduction in ICE output can always be compensated by an increase in electric motor output and increased battery capacity and energy flow limits.

Agree 100% on shifting power balance toward electric however there are some rules that could be massaged to reduce the impact of a large reduction in displacement. For example the fuel flow curve could be moved up several thousand rpm, say max fuel not available until 12,000 and rpm limit at 16,000. Combined with increases in cycle pressures (and CR reduction?), a 50% displacement reduction might see only say 20% power reduction without loss of durability.

So - 800cc triple, 80 kg/hr fuel flow from 12 - 16k rpm, 250 kW MGUK with doubled energy limits, keep the MGUH, double the ES capacity. Result - lighter, slimmer, greener, less cooling required, similar power - faster.

[NL_Fer]

1.6 V6 with a conventional turbocharger on 1 exhaust bank, feeding the whole engine. Fia standard exhaust heat generator on the other bank. Restrictions on size weight and pressure of the turbo, so that the units have to run at 18000 rpm again.

200kw mgu-k with manual deployment
Fuel flow limit per lap

It should be more comprehensive for smaller manufacturers like Aston Martin, Cosworth, etc...
It should sound better

[63l8qrrfy6]

Can anyone access the IMechE high performance powertrains conference presentations from November this year?
https://events.imeche.org/ViewEvent?e=7066

I am told Pat Symonds discussed at large their vision for 2026 engines.

[mzso]

propane/butane etc content is strongly limited by restriction on fuel composition by carbon atom count and vapour pressure
ok within those limits using bio propane/butane could make sense - minimising loss from biofuel overall

and isobutanol ie bioisobutanol matches gasoline in mass-specific energy

btw butanol could have been useful in 'old' F1
having much higher heat per mass of air than gasoline or the lower alcohols eg ethanol or methanol

bumped for CORRECTION ....

isobutanol has (like butanol) about 80% of the mass-specific heat energy of a 'good' (in energy terms) gasoline

the butanols are like methanol (10%) and ethanol (4%) in having somewhat higher heat per mass of air than gasoline's

butanols DON'T have a much higher heat per mass of air
(the only interweb claim is 3.6 but its quoted source material doesn't support this so 3.6 seems to be a typo)

yes this (via the stoichiometric mass) needs checking for the propanols, butanols, pentanols etc etc

I fail to see a need to obsess over alcohols. They write the regulations to serve whatever the want to accomplish.
Besides as you also said, Butanol has significantly worse energy density then petrol. 36.6MJ/kg versus 46.4. Meanwhile butane actually has a decent advantage with 49.1 MJ.