V6 Engines for 2014

[Sodemo]

Wouldn't a straight 6 be a better option, wouldn't you get less vibration?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Wouldn't a straight 6 be a better option, wouldn't you get less vibration?

Yes you would, but the regulations state that it must be a V6. Technically, a V6 can start from a 1 degree angle and go all the way around to 180 degrees. VW have road car V6 engines at 10 and 15 degree angles. That engine configuration is used because it is very nearly as smooth as a straight 6, but is much shorter. However, it is not as short as a V6 (see diagram above), which normally have around 60 or 120 degree V angles. Honda's last turbo V6 F1 engine had an 80 degree V angle.

Engines will sound good, and that's mainly down to the use of a single turbo which creates a single exhaust outlet.

The article also confirms that the pit lane will be 'electric power only'.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92873

[TugaF1]

Many of us are wondering if the sound of the new engines will be up to challenge and will keep us all listening to the burst of power...well according to some of the experts of F1, they should keep their dazzling sound...

check the news here @autosport

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by TugaF1

Many of us are wondering if the sound of the new engines will be up to challenge and will keep us all listening to the burst of power...well according to some of the experts of F1, they should keep their dazzling sound...

check the news here @autosport

Yeah. Posted that about an hour ago.

[Crazy_Pigal]

Just read the article in Autosport, interesting what Bob White is saying about the fuel flow limit:

"The rules look like they are heading towards a rev limit of 15,000rpm, and the fuel flow limit is intended to drive the operating speed of these engines up towards the upper end of that range, rather than the lower,"

If you have a blanket fuel flow limit the lower revving high boost engine will always produce more power, lower friction higher efficiency etc.

However if they limit the fuel per cylinder per rev then the faster they rev the engine they can use more fuel & produce more power, so the engine can now use the full rev range, it still has to be tuned to maximun efficiency at that speed in order to maximise power.

If this is how the regs end up looking then I like it.... sure it'll be some time before any of us actually get to see the details, so let the speculation run.

Regarding Vee angle, absolutely sure it will be fixed, guessing at 90°, I'd prefer 120°, as lower always looks better.

[Marbot]

Unlike naturally aspirated engines, turbo engines don't rely on rpms for power gain, just turbo boost. An example is Ford Cosworths GBA 1.5 litre V6 turbo F1 engine, which delivered over 1000 bhp at just 12,000 rpm. But if you have a fuel limit, then you have to rely more heavily on your engines ability to make power at higher rpms, just like a naturally aspirated engine does.

The Cosworth GBA engine had a V angle of 120 degrees, whereas Honda's RA engine had a V angle of 80 degrees. If there is just a single turbo, then I'm guessing this is going atop of the engine (like the Audi V6 turbo in the R18). But more important aerodynamic requirements (undercut sidepods) may require something entirely different.

Ford Cosworth GBA:

http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_artic...-6-engine.aspx

It seems a shame that Cosworth are looking very unlikely to be building another one.

[gttouring]

I like the idea more and more. Still single configuration is too bad, multiple angles and any cylinder count should go with the 1.6liter turbo...

[Ultimo]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Wouldn't a straight 6 be a better option, wouldn't you get less vibration?

A straight 6 would provide more problems than a V6. The I6 would not be able to be stressed, and is long and tall, which would require more engineering compromises.

A V6 means that the engine can be stressed, and potentially have the turbo tucked in the bank. It is a more compact arrangement.

[Marbot]

Indeed. A 'straight' engine would need a space frame to mount it rigidly enough to the chassis. Something that would add weight unnecessarily. A straight 6 would probably be way too long, anyway.

[Ultimo]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed. A 'straight' engine would need a space frame to mount it rigidly enough to the chassis. Something that would add weight unnecessarily. A straight 6 would probably be way too long, anyway.

If anyone in the F1 forum reads the sportscar racing side of things over yonder, you will see what people claim are the pitfalls of a straight 6.

In fact, the conclusion that was reached was that I6 engines were rarely used in racing - they have certainly not been a popular choice recently.

[Crazy_Pigal]

I happened across a really interesting engine when I worked in the engine test cells at Lotus, practically hidden in what was called a museum (but was really just a corridor leading to a store room!).
It was a 1500cc V6, I'd guess at 60° Vee angle, the bit that made it unusual was the supercharger in the Vee, basically it looked just like a mini jet engine, with a multi-stage axial compressor almost as long as the engine, looked fantastic.
Unfortunately I can't remember if there were any turbos too.
I seem to remember this was built & tested for Toyota, when Lotus was heavily involved with then in the mid '80s, but became a victim to the banning of turbos. A real shame, looked like it had great potential.

This is the sort of innovation that the new regulations could encourage if they're written inventively. Why not have an axial compressor on a turbo? particularly if it's electrically assisted then the inertia of such a device could be overcome & any lag eliminated.

Regarding the torque curves of the future turbo engines, basically using the fuel flow limit the FIA can shape the curve to fit anything they want, by specifying different fuel flow limits at different speeds, it took me a while to get my head round this but it will completely change how the engines are tuned, they'll get the best performance by running the engine lean at full load, should make thermal management a challenge!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Crazy_Pigal

I happened across a really interesting engine when I worked in the engine test cells at Lotus, practically hidden in what was called a museum (but was really just a corridor leading to a store room!).
It was a 1500cc V6, I'd guess at 60° Vee angle, the bit that made it unusual was the supercharger in the Vee, basically it looked just like a mini jet engine, with a multi-stage axial compressor almost as long as the engine, looked fantastic.
Unfortunately I can't remember if there were any turbos too.
I seem to remember this was built & tested for Toyota, when Lotus was heavily involved with then in the mid '80s, but became a victim to the banning of turbos. A real shame, looked like it had great potential.

This is the sort of innovation that the new regulations could encourage if they're written inventively. Why not have an axial compressor on a turbo? particularly if it's electrically assisted then the inertia of such a device could be overcome & any lag eliminated.

Regarding the torque curves of the future turbo engines, basically using the fuel flow limit the FIA can shape the curve to fit anything they want, by specifying different fuel flow limits at different speeds, it took me a while to get my head round this but it will completely change how the engines are tuned, they'll get the best performance by running the engine lean at full load, should make thermal management a challenge!

Does sounds very interesting.

// Off topic a bit

It's a constant source of disappointment to me that the engine regs are so tight. The fuel flow thing is good, but I'd say - that's the fuel flow; Make what you want. It's quite possible that this would produce some really radical motive power devices. Might be expensive, but may have real ramifications for road car propulsion, which the current system kills.

I can't decide whether I'd want a conventional constant velocity engine driving a generator, driving electric motors to the wheels (with an ultra capacitor for Kers type functionality), or a rotary engine do the same, or go for a radical new engine design full stop, or a gas turbine etc.

Wouldn't sound the same, but then, I'm in the camp of as long as the racing is good, the engine noise is fairly irrelevant.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

It's a constant source of disappointment to me that the engine regs are so tight. The fuel flow thing is good, but I'd say - that's the fuel flow; Make what you want. It's quite possible that this would produce some really radical motive power devices. Might be expensive, but may have real ramifications for road car propulsion, which the current system kills.

Unfortunately it's the expense that keeps manufacturers away. Most just want to get their name on TV to the widest audience for the least amount of outlay possible. VW didn't want to bother, even when the rules were changed to suit them.

Also, the chances are that after a first year of 'variety', it will become obvious and necessary to the teams building their chassis for the following season, to know which engine they should choose to fit it. Chances are that 'variety' will turn to 'blandness' in a very short time.

These days it is also much easier to come up with the best solution by just spending a few hours on a laptop with the appropriate software. So the chances of having a wide variety of engines in F1 will be slimmed down to probably just one, just a few hours after the regulations have been drawn up. For example: The choice of allowing up to six cylinders in whatever configuration you like, would probably have resulted in all of the engine manufacturers choosing the V6 route anyway. Bearing in mind that what the chassis designer wants from an aerodynamic point of view, will be far more important than what the engine manufacturer may consider to be the best design from their point of view. Aero is King.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Unlike naturally aspirated engines, turbo engines don't rely on rpms for power gain, just turbo boost.

BHP is a function of torque multiplied by RPM, so the above is not strictly true as any engine - turbo or NA - will make more power at a higher engine speed for a given torque.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by phoenix

BHP is a function of torque multiplied by RPM, so the above is not strictly true as any engine - turbo or NA - will make more power at a higher engine speed for a given torque.

Indeed. Should have put: "don't rely entirely on rpm".

[TF110]

Wonder if this will entice manufacturers to enter F1 again? Toyota BMW Honda VW perhaps? Will these new engines come with new chassis/aero rules, or is this yet to be determined?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by phoenix

BHP is a function of torque multiplied by RPM, so the above is not strictly true as any engine - turbo or NA - will make more power at a higher engine speed for a given torque.

Higher pressure, more torque, more horsepower at same revs!

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by wnut

Higher pressure, more torque, more horsepower at same revs!

That is simply the corollary of what I previously said.

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by TF110

Wonder if this will entice manufacturers to enter F1 again? Toyota BMW Honda VW perhaps? Will these new engines come with new chassis/aero rules, or is this yet to be determined?

BMW-extremely unlikely
VW-quite possible
Toyota-only left recently so I doubt it
Honda-They've been an integral engine supplier for years and they belong in F1, so possibly, but don't expect anything.

and there is PURE ofcourse, goodness knows what they're going to do...

That's how I see things.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

BMW-extremely unlikely
VW-quite possible
Toyota-only left recently so I doubt it
Honda-They've been an integral engine supplier for years and they belong in F1, so possibly, but don't expect anything.

and there is PURE ofcourse, goodness knows what they're going to do...

That's how I see things.

VW pulled out, even though the regulations had been taylor made for them.

The Japanese companies, unfortunately have more pressing matters to attend to right now. So their participation in F1 could be some way off, if at all.

BMW are doing lots of other things at the moment, like entering DTM. Which is the sort of thing they'll be good at.

PURE may be the only other engine maker to come in, and even then, that may be only to take the place of Cosworth.

[duke_toaster]

What about the old Hyundai to F1 rumours?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

What about the old Hyundai to F1 rumours?

They are exactly that. Old rumours.

[chunterer]

It would seem that Cosworth won't be around for the new engine, as Williams, their prime customer, is now with Renault and the Virgin deal with McLaren could lead to either Mercedes lumps, or maybe even McLaren's own unit by then?

That would leave just HRT, and god only knows what they'll be doing by 2014.

Surely Cosworth won't get enough 'benefit' from supplying one team, unless Force India pr STR needs to change?

[stripedcat]

I assume that he teams are going to allow the drivers to control the boost levels? Back to the old days of the turbo era? When drivers could pass one another using the turbo turned up, but have to pay a penalty in fuel consumption. Had to be used wisely.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chunterer

It would seem that Cosworth won't be around for the new engine,

No. Williams tried to get a car manufacturer to badge the new engine, but that didn't happen soon enough.

Williams chairman, Adam Parr:

"This deal will make a number of fundamental differences. First of all it is a world championship winning engine, and we are in a world where a tenth matters. Secondly, it is a partnership between us and an independent engine maker as well as a car maker, and that is very important.

"We did explore that with Cosworth – could we bring a car maker into the partnership? Unfortunately we were not able to do that. From that minute onwards, it is Cosworth who said that we cannot develop an engine for 2013, and I can understand that because it is a huge investment."