2021 Engine thread

[CriXus]

I think "the new" formula should be 600kg and the horse power should 1200bhp (weight to power ratio should be 1:2). Let's say that 1200bhp should be qualifying power and for the race 1100bhp with additional 100bhp like a push to pass, which every driver will have for certain time. And by the way F1 should ditch that DRS nonsense!!!

[AMG.Tzan]

Why not go back to the 80s formula where you can either have a 1.6 turbo or a 3.0 normally aspirated engine? That way everyone is going to be happy! Both manufacturers like VW can build road relevant turbo engines and manufacturers like Ferrari or smaller manufacturers like Cosworth can build normally aspirated V8,V10 or V12s! Ok there would be some balance of performance needed between the engines but after some years i think they will get it right!

[Cold Fussion]

Competition is about beating your opponents by being better than them at the task of hand. Balance of performance is more akin to a cartel to allow manufactures to enter in any old rubbish into a series and have it be competitive. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Chris Froome had to ride with BOP ballast because he is naturally too gifted an athlete, or Usaine Bolt had to start on a delayed starting gun. What's more, it isn't even good for viewer engagement. Think of the story lines we have in F1 this year, after years of Mercedes dominance, Ferrari finally have a car capable of taking the fight to them, with a driver who once piloted the previous dominate car and was always characterised as not being a racer and only capable of wining with the best car.

Because F1 is a real sport it is capable of producing greatness, with all that is to be celebrated in it. Think of Bolt's dominance of track sprinting the last decade, Froome's dominance of the Tour since 2012 and how they rightfully plauded for their greatness. In a BOP series like GT racing, none of this is possible because true greatness is not possible, it's all about the BOP 'lottery' and gaming the system.

[FW17]

Competition is about beating your opponents by being better than them at the task of hand. Balance of performance is more akin to a cartel to allow manufactures to enter in any old rubbish into a series and have it be competitive. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Chris Froome had to ride with BOP ballast because he is naturally too gifted an athlete, or Usaine Bolt had to start on a delayed starting gun. What's more, it isn't even good for viewer engagement. Think of the story lines we have in F1 this year, after years of Mercedes dominance, Ferrari finally have a car capable of taking the fight to them, with a driver who once piloted the previous dominate car and was always characterised as not being a racer and only capable of wining with the best car.

Because F1 is a real sport it is capable of producing greatness, with all that is to be celebrated in it. Think of Bolt's dominance of track sprinting the last decade, Froome's dominance of the Tour since 2012 and how they rightfully plauded for their greatness. In a BOP series like GT racing, none of this is possible because true greatness is not possible, it's all about the BOP 'lottery' and gaming the system.

So it is okay to pour in millions of $$ on something that is irrelevant?

[Zynerji]

Competition is about beating your opponents by being better than them at the task of hand. Balance of performance is more akin to a cartel to allow manufactures to enter in any old rubbish into a series and have it be competitive. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Chris Froome had to ride with BOP ballast because he is naturally too gifted an athlete, or Usaine Bolt had to start on a delayed starting gun. What's more, it isn't even good for viewer engagement. Think of the story lines we have in F1 this year, after years of Mercedes dominance, Ferrari finally have a car capable of taking the fight to them, with a driver who once piloted the previous dominate car and was always characterised as not being a racer and only capable of wining with the best car.

Because F1 is a real sport it is capable of producing greatness, with all that is to be celebrated in it. Think of Bolt's dominance of track sprinting the last decade, Froome's dominance of the Tour since 2012 and how they rightfully plauded for their greatness. In a BOP series like GT racing, none of this is possible because true greatness is not possible, it's all about the BOP 'lottery' and gaming the system.

So it is okay to pour in millions of $$ on something that is irrelevant?

You just literally described exactly what F1 is about. Spending tons of $ for nothing more relevant than the chance to win the prize.

Deal with it.

[wuzak]

Why not go back to the 80s formula where you can either have a 1.6 turbo or a 3.0 normally aspirated engine? That way everyone is going to be happy! Both manufacturers like VW can build road relevant turbo engines and manufacturers like Ferrari or smaller manufacturers like Cosworth can build normally aspirated V8,V10 or V12s! Ok there would be some balance of performance needed between the engines but after some years i think they will get it right!

Yes, let's allow them to use a 3l NA engine or a 1.6l turbo.

Balance of performance is the fuel flow rate, which would be fixed and remain the same for both.

See how many NA engine makers there are then.

[FW17]

Deal with it.

??????

[Singabule]

These engines cannot withstand more than 15k due to piston speed

Higher bore to stroke ratio solve that problem easily

[Zynerji]

Deal with it.

??????

After reading my post again, it was meant to mean that the FIA stance is "deal with it".

[J.A.W.]

Why not go back to the 80s formula where you can either have a 1.6 turbo or a 3.0 normally aspirated engine? That way everyone is going to be happy! Both manufacturers like VW can build road relevant turbo engines and manufacturers like Ferrari or smaller manufacturers like Cosworth can build normally aspirated V8,V10 or V12s! Ok there would be some balance of performance needed between the engines but after some years i think they will get it right!

Yes, let's allow them to use a 3l NA engine or a 1.6l turbo.

Balance of performance is the fuel flow rate, which would be fixed and remain the same for both.

See how many NA engine makers there are then.

Indeed, the 'official' FIA swept-volume fractional-compensation formula would need urgent revision..
with any capacity ratio of N/A to F/A value-adjusted to reflect the inherent difficulty/cost of overcoming
4T engine 'lazy' torque out-put at atmo pressure,accounting for technical progess..

Since as was indicated by the previous F1 N/A mills, spinning up those prodigious rpm needed to compensate.. is clearly a 'diminishing-marginal-return' game.. in mechanical reality..

[gruntguru]

Why not go back to the 80s formula where you can either have a 1.6 turbo or a 3.0 normally aspirated engine? That way everyone is going to be happy! Both manufacturers like VW can build road relevant turbo engines and manufacturers like Ferrari or smaller manufacturers like Cosworth can build normally aspirated V8,V10 or V12s! Ok there would be some balance of performance needed between the engines but after some years i think they will get it right!

Yes, let's allow them to use a 3l NA engine or a 1.6l turbo.

Balance of performance is the fuel flow rate, which would be fixed and remain the same for both.

See how many NA engine makers there are then.

Zero!

[wuzak]

Yes, let's allow them to use a 3l NA engine or a 1.6l turbo.

Balance of performance is the fuel flow rate, which would be fixed and remain the same for both.

See how many NA engine makers there are then.

Indeed, the 'official' FIA swept-volume fractional-compensation formula would need urgent revision..
with any capacity ratio of N/A to F/A value-adjusted to reflect the inherent difficulty/cost of overcoming
4T engine 'lazy' torque out-put at atmo pressure,accounting for technical progess..

Since as was indicated by the previous F1 N/A mills, spinning up those prodigious rpm needed to compensate.. is clearly a 'diminishing-marginal-return' game.. in mechanical reality..

Make the N/A engines 4.8l (3:1, as was the case for supercharged to N/A engines in 1950) or 6.4l (4:1), or even 8l (5:1). I doubt it would make much difference to how many manufacturers chose a N/A engine under a fuel flow formula.

[Cold Fussion]

Competition is about beating your opponents by being better than them at the task of hand. Balance of performance is more akin to a cartel to allow manufactures to enter in any old rubbish into a series and have it be competitive. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Chris Froome had to ride with BOP ballast because he is naturally too gifted an athlete, or Usaine Bolt had to start on a delayed starting gun. What's more, it isn't even good for viewer engagement. Think of the story lines we have in F1 this year, after years of Mercedes dominance, Ferrari finally have a car capable of taking the fight to them, with a driver who once piloted the previous dominate car and was always characterised as not being a racer and only capable of wining with the best car.

Because F1 is a real sport it is capable of producing greatness, with all that is to be celebrated in it. Think of Bolt's dominance of track sprinting the last decade, Froome's dominance of the Tour since 2012 and how they rightfully plauded for their greatness. In a BOP series like GT racing, none of this is possible because true greatness is not possible, it's all about the BOP 'lottery' and gaming the system.

So it is okay to pour in millions of $$ on something that is irrelevant?

Nothing I said precludes F1 from using road relevant technology.

[J.A.W.]

Yes, let's allow them to use a 3l NA engine or a 1.6l turbo.

Balance of performance is the fuel flow rate, which would be fixed and remain the same for both.

See how many NA engine makers there are then.

Indeed, the 'official' FIA swept-volume fractional-compensation formula would need urgent revision..
with any capacity ratio of N/A to F/A value-adjusted to reflect the inherent difficulty/cost of overcoming
4T engine 'lazy' torque out-put at atmo pressure,accounting for technical progess..

Since as was indicated by the previous F1 N/A mills, spinning up those prodigious rpm needed to compensate.. is clearly a 'diminishing-marginal-return' game.. in mechanical reality..

Make the N/A engines 4.8l (3:1, as was the case for supercharged to N/A engines in 1950) or 6.4l (4:1), or even 8l (5:1). I doubt it would make much difference to how many manufacturers chose a N/A engine under a fuel flow formula.

Is that an "educated best-guess" Wayne?

Or have you seen the predictive thermodynamic physics/maths - that deem it a 'lay down misere/dead-cert'..
for the turbo-compound machine..

Maybe if weight minimums were relaxed for N/A racecars too, then they'd get to compete on race-speed..

There ought to be a power-to-weight trade-off continuum there.. somewhere, surely?

[wuzak]

Indeed, the 'official' FIA swept-volume fractional-compensation formula would need urgent revision..
with any capacity ratio of N/A to F/A value-adjusted to reflect the inherent difficulty/cost of overcoming
4T engine 'lazy' torque out-put at atmo pressure,accounting for technical progess..

Since as was indicated by the previous F1 N/A mills, spinning up those prodigious rpm needed to compensate.. is clearly a 'diminishing-marginal-return' game.. in mechanical reality..

Make the N/A engines 4.8l (3:1, as was the case for supercharged to N/A engines in 1950) or 6.4l (4:1), or even 8l (5:1). I doubt it would make much difference to how many manufacturers chose a N/A engine under a fuel flow formula.

Is that an "educated best-guess" Wayne?

Or have you seen the predictive thermodynamic physics/maths - that deem it a 'lay down misere/dead-cert'..
for the turbo-compound machine..

Maybe if weight minimums were relaxed for N/A racecars too, then they'd get to compete on race-speed..

There ought to be a power-to-weight trade-off continuum there.. somewhere, surely?

I am not talking of turbo-compound engines, but the (likely) 2021 twin turbo V6s.

Given that the MGUH will be removed, the ERS would be common to both engines so would not make much difference in weight.

The current V6s would lose weight through losing the MGUH and giant turbo and, if it goes ahead, the lowering of the mileage requirement. The mileage requirement (number of units per year) applied to N/A engines would make them heavier too.

In terms of power, the V6s with twin turbos will continue to run excess air at high pressure. I think it would be difficult for the N/A to match the turbos for mass air flow and cylinder pressures.

To match the air flow requirements in the fuel flow era the N/A would need to rev 3.5 times faster or be 3.5 times larger in capacity, or have a combination of more rpm and capacity.

Adding capacity is easy enough. Three ways - bore, stroke and cylinder count.

The need to rev higher will need a smaller stroke, but this has to be balanced against the corresponding need to increase the bore or number of cylinders to maintain, or increase, capacity.

A V12 of twice the turbo's capacity would need to rev to ~21,000rpm. It can't be done with the same stroke. Shorter stroke = bigger bore, which may be bad for combustion.

If the same bore is kept and the turbo's capacity doubled, the stroke can be reduced to a similar level as the V8s and V10s, which would probably enable 21k rpm, but would require 16 cylinders, adding complexity and weight.

A larger capacity engine is also unlikely to be more compact than the 1.6l V6. The mounting faces for the V6T are 480mm apart. This includes space for the great big turbo.

You could make your 16 cylinder 21,000rpm engine in 4 banks, of course, which would reduce its length compared to a V16. But it will still be longer than the V6 with the same bore and it will more complicated.

In the past the N/A engines have been able to be light because they could run has high an rpm as they want, and stuff in as much fuel as they want. Under the fuel flow rules the mass air flow has to be high and the compression ratio has to be high - the current turbos are operating with turbo pressure ratios of around 3.5-5:1 and quite high compression ratios in the engine. A N/A engine would have to match the overall compression ratio, surely, to be in the game.

With the higher compression ratios the engine will gain weight - in the block and heads, in the pistons, con-rods and cranks, and so on and so forth. So the weight advantage may not be as great, if at all, in favour of the N/A engine. Plus it will have more cylinders and structure.

This is just my reasoning, which has no actual thermodynamic calculations. I'm sure there are errors of assumption.