2021 Engine thread

[gruntguru]

What I had in mind was eg same flows as currently from 0 to 10,500 then increasing linearly to perhaps 5% or 10% higher at 15,000.

(perhaps 100 kg/hr @10k, 101@11k, 103@12k, 105@13k, 107@14k, 109@15K)

So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?

I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.

Would there be incentive to go beyond the current 11k? I mean they would have to face more engine friction for only a small increase in fuel flow which they still have to save in the end to be in the 105kg race limit. Unless they get rid of that rule which I think they should. Flow limit should be the only fuel limit. The rest already has its own penalty in the weight. Efficiency is still the name of the game in those conditions.

I would envisage a (shallow) ramp from 11k upwards and select the angle of that ramp such that higher rpm would offer a moderate power benefit along with a small consumption penalty. This would present another variable in the power/fuel allocation decision process. For overtaking and defending, the simplest route to extra power would be more rpm (accompanied by crowd-pleasing acoustics).

[Big Mangalhit]

So like 2 ramps - a steep one to 10,000rpm and then a shallow one to 15,000rpm?

I wonder, though, if it would be necessary to have a ramp at all with the MGUH gone. Since the instant boost will not be there at low rpm.

Would there be incentive to go beyond the current 11k? I mean they would have to face more engine friction for only a small increase in fuel flow which they still have to save in the end to be in the 105kg race limit. Unless they get rid of that rule which I think they should. Flow limit should be the only fuel limit. The rest already has its own penalty in the weight. Efficiency is still the name of the game in those conditions.

I would envisage a (shallow) ramp from 11k upwards and select the angle of that ramp such that higher rpm would offer a moderate power benefit along with a small consumption penalty. This would present another variable in the power/fuel allocation decision process. For overtaking and defending, the simplest route to extra power would be more rpm (accompanied by crowd-pleasing acoustics).

I like that idea. It maybe wouldn't be sustainable in race depending on your total fuel but could be used for peak power. But I still wonder if the best way of setting the fastest race wouldn't be to go full power (full range of revs) on the beginning of the straights and then coasting in the end.

[godlameroso]

I feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.

If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.

Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.

Yep, they pushed it to far. Ofcourse the oldest situations, were teams used 2 quali engines and a racing engine each weekend, it was manufacturing.

But now teams blow the same amount of units on the test benches, to make the 4 engines that go in to the car as perfect as possible. It makes no sense.

I wonder why then, the rulemakers decided to allow even fewer power units next year.

[Zynerji]

I feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.

If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.

Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.

Yep, they pushed it to far. Ofcourse the oldest situations, were teams used 2 quali engines and a racing engine each weekend, it was manufacturing.

But now teams blow the same amount of units on the test benches, to make the 4 engines that go in to the car as perfect as possible. It makes no sense.

I wonder why then, the rulemakers decided to allow even fewer power units next year.

Sunk R&D cost?

[godlameroso]

Meaning the money has already been spent?

[SR71]

I feel the largest expense of the current engines is durability R&D.

If they were to double the engine allocation, they wouldn't need to be as bullet proof, and they would be cheaper per unit.

Unless someone can explain that the manufacturing costs for 4 extra units exceeds the R&D of making 4 total units survive the season, I would definitely look into it.

Yep, they pushed it to far. Ofcourse the oldest situations, were teams used 2 quali engines and a racing engine each weekend, it was manufacturing.

But now teams blow the same amount of units on the test benches, to make the 4 engines that go in to the car as perfect as possible. It makes no sense.

I wonder why then, the rulemakers decided to allow even fewer power units next year.

The rule makers are the teams correct? Or are we still pretending the corporations bend to the will of politics?

[godlameroso]

Right, so then the teams want to make their championship even more expensive/exclusive/don't want other manufacturers to have a chance/want to join the sport? Maybe they want to keep customer teams and have a two tiered formula?

[Zynerji]

Meaning the money has already been spent?

Yes. They now have the knowledge. Going forward, they will always incorporate these durability understandings as bulletproof is the only way to ensure finishing a race.

I would like to see the V6TT with refueling and a KERS, and just do a cost speculation of delivering 40 to a customer team. I believe with a single weekend life expectancy, they can lower the extreme processing steps for the current engines, and just incorporate the reliability engineering best practices into a much more disposable product, significantly reducing costs.

If a manufacturer had to build 160 engines (self, 3 customers) with 85% of the current manufacturing steps, I believe the cost would come WAAAAAY down.

If they really wanted to lower the cost, they would have a third party (contacted manufacturer like Toyota) to design/ test a reference engine. Then the teams would be given that base to make unlimited modifications, as long as they submit all changes to FIA before scrutineering, and then those changes are shared with the media (other teams).

This would limit total investment, but would entice single race performance investments. You would theoretically only get a single race advantage, but you would also gain from the 9 other teams updates. This would generate an upward funnel of performance at a fraction of the cost to the teams, amd would bring near- parity while preserving individual manufacturer identity.

[roon]

It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?

Well in LMP1 the fuel flow limit isn't linked to engine speed and the 919 still revs quite a bit higher than the diesel LMP cars did. Though they do not have a MGU to spool up the turbo like they do in F1.

Good point. Makes me think about the limits of low RPM running. There would be a trade-off between the weight & robustness of the engine internals, and how much power each power-stroke is expected to make. Making the same power with fewer combustion moments would surely require a heavier engine and driveline, as familiar with diesels. Unless the engine construction regulations were openes up.

[wuzak]

It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?

Well in LMP1 the fuel flow limit isn't linked to engine speed and the 919 still revs quite a bit higher than the diesel LMP cars did. Though they do not have a MGU to spool up the turbo like they do in F1.

Isn't that because of the inherent characteristics of Diesels?

I can't find a definite number, but I believe the 919's engine doesn't go over about 8,000rpm.

[Cold Fussion]

It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?

Well in LMP1 the fuel flow limit isn't linked to engine speed and the 919 still revs quite a bit higher than the diesel LMP cars did. Though they do not have a MGU to spool up the turbo like they do in F1.

Isn't that because of the inherent characteristics of Diesels?

I can't find a definite number, but I believe the 919's engine doesn't go over about 8,000rpm.

From what I remember from the onboards 8000 rpm is around the upper limit for the 919, the Audi diesels didn't go much over 5 IIRC; the Peugeots may have gone a bit higher but I can't remember.

[godlameroso]

It would have been interesting to hear what they would have sounded like, these engines, at full fuel flow and very low revs. Maybe similar to a racing diesel. I know of no 90° three-throw V6 diesels, though. What might the internals & drive train have been able to sustain?

Well in LMP1 the fuel flow limit isn't linked to engine speed and the 919 still revs quite a bit higher than the diesel LMP cars did. Though they do not have a MGU to spool up the turbo like they do in F1.

Isn't that because of the inherent characteristics of Diesels?

I can't find a definite number, but I believe the 919's engine doesn't go over about 8,000rpm.

9,000rpm fuel cut, just like my the old engine in my car.

[J.A.W.]

...Makes me think about the limits of low RPM running. There would be a trade-off between the weight & robustness of the engine internals, and how much power each power-stroke is expected to make. Making the same power with fewer combustion moments would surely require a heavier engine and driveline, as familiar with diesels. Unless the engine construction regulations were opened up.

Likely roon, a forum maths aficionado could give you the numbers that show how/why ' the law of physics' cruels such..
..seemingly apparently 'common sense'/'intuitive' assumptions.. but indeed, 'stratospheric' rpm - imposes much higher forces..
& dual 'costs' in weight/material strength penalties - along with financial costs including manufacture & TBO..

[Zynerji]

The Swiss also believes that the ongoing rules restricting the number of engines and components allowed is actually driving up costs.

"That has to be addressed," he says. "Next year, having three engines is more expensive than producing four engines. All the new parts you are developing have to go through testing on the dyno, to make sure you have achieved the mileage for three engines a year. And that is expensive. I think even four is not enough. We're half way through this season, and half the field has got a problem." -Mario Illen

[Scotracer]

Well in LMP1 the fuel flow limit isn't linked to engine speed and the 919 still revs quite a bit higher than the diesel LMP cars did. Though they do not have a MGU to spool up the turbo like they do in F1.

Isn't that because of the inherent characteristics of Diesels?

I can't find a definite number, but I believe the 919's engine doesn't go over about 8,000rpm.

9,000rpm fuel cut, just like my the old engine in my car.

The only reason we have a rev based flow limit was because of concerns that the engines would sound even worse than they do, no revving beyond 10,000rpm.

They probably would have given the 1980s turbos still went to 11,000rpm...