What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

Thanks 747heavy. This was the engine for the still born Lancia ECV Group S Rally car, I believe.

Fiat have patented a brand new cylinder head. As a twin turbocharged engine was being used, Fiat had to revise the layout of the cylinder head to improve the suitability for the set up. Normally, the inlet valves are on one side of the layout, exhaust valves on the other, but this makes a twin turbo engine difficult to produce. On the new unit, the four valves of each cylinder are laid out in a cross pattern with the inlet and exhaust valves alternated on each side of the cylinder head. An exhaust manifold can therefore be placed on each side of the engine with the inlet manifolds entering from the center, either independently or combined into one. The system is known as the double reverse flow and, as the intakes combine into one near the valve, leaving just three gas flows for each cylinder, the head has been christened the Triflux.

The system produces improved heat distribution in the cylinder head to even out the expansions that take place on a turbo unit, also helping to improve engine cooling. It is now possible to link a single central wastegate valve to the two exhaust manifolds and, if the latest variable geometry turbochargers are utilised, the wastegate can be eliminated altogether. The air that leaves the turbochargers is injected into the radiators or intercoolers before being passed on to the induction manifold and thence back into the cycle, while the compactness of the engine allowed the engineers much more freedom to plan the exhaust system to eliminate resonance problems encountered in more crowded systems. The twin KKK turbochargers can be linked in a modular turbocharging unit, with a single turbo being used at low revs to build up power and then, when the revolutions are right, the second turbo comes into play to take the power even higher. With such a unit, high torque is produced at low revs with no loss of maximum power and greatly reduced turbo lag. It is the logical step forward from the present system of twin power provisions employed by the S4 engine, where the supercharger deals with low revs, the turbo producing the top end performance.

LANCIA GROUPS RALLY CAR
Technical specification
EngineCentrally mounted, longitudinal with 4 cyl inline. 1795CC. Bore x stroke, 88.5mm x 71.5mm Triflux' double reverse flow cylinder head with 4 valves/cylinder and twin overhead camshafts. Compression ratio, 7.5:1. 600bhp @ 8000rpm.. 55mKg@5000rpm. Twin KKK (K26 type) turbochargers with individual intercoolers. Weber/Magnetti Marelli injection/ignition with electronically controlled turbocharging level. Dry sump lubrication with pressure and extraction pumps and air/oil radiators.

The engine shown in the pic did not have a compressor and with modern variable geometry turbos would not need it. I wonder what kind of power such a triflux biturbo would do with modern technology and direct injection. 8,000 rpm does not sound that high. A pity that we do not have boost figures for that engine.

One other issue that has never been covered by FOTA/FiA is the question of inter cooling. It is currently forbidden in F1 but I think that for the sake of efficiency they will allow it for the new turbo engines. It would cercainly allow higher compression ratios than non inter cooled turbo charging.

[xpensive]

I stand in awe looking at that Ferrari I4, I had no idea, this is the most beautiful F1 engine I've seen since the stillborn Alfa Romeo 3.5 V10. Where can that Ferrari thing be seen?

Didn't that Lancia triflux compressor/twinturbo come at a time when WRC cars had just as much power F1 racers and Henri Toivonen was killed, while the FIA sensibly enough put down the foot?

The purpose of the intercooler is of course to shrink the air to have more O2 molecules into the combustion-chamber, all in order to be able to burn more fuel. This is perhaps not as important for mildly boosted engines, as it becomes for wild 3-4 Bar applications, but should obviously be allowed if F1 goes down that avenue.

[747heavy]

@ WB

yes it was an experimental engine built by Abarth, and you are right about the compressor.
It´s only a twin turbo. It was wrong quoted on the other website. The Lancia Delta S4 Gr.B
used a compressor+ single turbo. But this engine was designed to use only two turbos.
in some articles boost pessure is said to be 1.8-2.2 bar, but I don´t know if this is correct or not. Seeing the boost gauge in the test car, it sounds sensible (gauge max is 3 bar)


Some more infos here:
>>>>>>
Triflux Engine
The 1800 power unit of the ECV1 & 2 was known as the triflux. This was due to the design which had one exhaust and one inlet valve on each side of the cylinder head, with the resulting twin exhaust manifolds each feeding one turbocharger. At low engine speeds one turbocharger exhaust was shut-off, forcing all the exhaust gases through one unit and thus providing good low speed performance. As the engine speed rose, the second turbocharger was gradually introduced, until at high engine speeds both turbochargers ran in parallel.
<<<<<<<<





the "normal" S4 engine with compressor + turbo



WB maybe you like this as well
Enjoy:
http://a.imageshack.us/img249/8598/1936 ... typecb.jpg

[WhiteBlue]

The obvious disadvantage of the triflux technology is the bad packaging aspect. Perhaps one has to generally think about splitting the turbo charger into a separate electrically driven compressor and a variable vane turbo compounder. A huge amount of piping would go away, you can always run the electric compressor at optimum boost and the design the turbo compounder would be optimized for best energy and not to fit the turbo compressor.

[autogyro]

I think it is to complicated and compromises the gas flow in the combustion chambers both for ignition and scavenging.

I do like the auto union though WB. I still have no idea how they drove them.
The drivers were awesome.

[mx_tifoso]

Do you guys think the next engine will be just as standardized, if not more, than the current one? I wonder how far the standardization will go before it can be considered a spec engine.

And considering it will be turbocharged, how would the intercooler(s) be dealt with? As part of the engine or kind of free-for-all like the radiators?

[xpensive]

I still believe there's a strong possibility that the current format will be retained, even if an I4-turbo would be technically intriguing, the investment would be a serious one, for Cosworth in particular.

This could possibly be negated by even stricter standardization than today, spec turbos and intercoolers for xample.

[madtown77]

This could possibly be negated by even stricter standardization than today, spec turbos and intercoolers for xample.

Makes me cringe...

The more spec parts the more Formula 1 looses what makes it great.

[autogyro]

This could possibly be negated by even stricter standardization than today, spec turbos and intercoolers for xample.

Makes me cringe...

The more spec parts the more Formula 1 looses what makes it great.

If such a route is taken then F1 has little justification for the future.

[madtown77]

I'm still a fan of just saying "take your 50 million a year for engines and do whatever you want". 12 cylinders, sure. Turbo V6, no problem.

Give them X amount to spend and give them Y amount of fuel and watch the chaos. That's when you get real racing and innovation

[WhiteBlue]

I don't see how they will screw up the new turbo formula because just about everybody is already singing from the same sheet of paper. Cosworth would have been a risk but they have already embraced the idea of downsized turbos. There is no way back from there IMO.

There have been clear indications that the next formula will start a fuel efficiency contest which will last several years. This will not be possible with fully standardized engines. In particular you have to allow much freedom in fields such as injection technology, ignition, exhausts, valves, cylinder heads, turbos chargers, turbo compounders, inter cooling , HERS, KERS, drive train design and aero efficiency.

So I expect the standardization to focus on other aspects. There may be a standard four stroke petrol engine configuration with a minimum weight, a minimum CoG for the naked engine, restrictions on fuel composition, a capacity and a turbo pressure limit, multi race weekend requirement and on top of all a variable total fuel cap for the race which would not apply to qualifying.

[flynfrog]

I don't see how they will screw up the new turbo formula because just about everybody is already singing from the same sheet of paper. Cosworth would have been a risk but they have already embraced the idea of downsized turbos. There is no way back from there IMO.

There have been clear indications that the next formula will start a fuel efficiency contest which will last several years. This will not be possible with fully standardized engines. In particular you have to allow much freedom in fields such as injection technology, ignition, exhausts, valves, cylinder heads, turbos chargers, turbo compounders, inter cooling , HERS, KERS, drive train design and aero efficiency.

So I expect the standardization to focus on other aspects. There may be a standard four stroke petrol engine configuration with a minimum weight, a minimum CoG for the naked engine, restrictions on fuel composition, a capacity and a turbo pressure limit, multi race weekend requirement and on top of all a variable total fuel cap for the race which would not apply to qualifying.

Why not give the cars a max weight and have a banned matl. list for the engine. Make the KERS HERS crowd play on a level playing field as just adding more fuel to the tank. I still don't see it becoming an economy contest if you limit fuel. It will still be a speed contest to get track position then back the revs down and hold position for the rest of the race. Pretty much like we have now.

[madtown77]

I still don't see it becoming an economy contest if you limit fuel. It will still be a speed contest to get track position then back the revs down and hold position for the rest of the race. Pretty much like we have now.

Difference would be that the team able to be the most efficient with their fuel wouldn't have to "back down" as much, making them faster as the race goes on.

I think limiting fuel is a good idea, if its combined with a more open engine formula. The likes of Ferrari will be keen to prevent this because if they make the wrong choice early on, they will pay for it for a couple of years while they catch up.

[WhiteBlue]

I still don't see it becoming an economy contest if you limit fuel. It will still be a speed contest to get track position then back the revs down and hold position for the rest of the race. Pretty much like we have now.

The contest will be about reaching the finish line first like it has always been. There is not much point in having track position half way through the race if you have gained it by over spending on your fuel budget. There will always be someone who takes that position from you by virtue of a more efficient car. He can run higher engine settings in the end when you have no fuel left. So I think that an efficiency contest will be just as entertaining as an rpm or turbo pressure contest.

[autogyro]

How about opening up the powertrain regulations so that teams can choose almost anything but make it compulsory for them to give the general details of what they are doing to the other teams.