V6 Engines for 2014

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by höller

Thanx Marbot for the splendid information!

It´s a pity they shall be just a single-turbo unit, isn´t it? A biturbo configuration would be more appropriate, not only for aero reasons.
Also I´d liked to see just a limit of V6, but no restriction below, just in the case our BMW should think about their future plans...

I know what you're getting at but in the early 80s they managed to squeeze a Cosworth V8 with one turbo into IndyCars and aero has come along way since then.

[gttouring]

Why make the engine one turbo and so small? The best thing this will do is bring tiny v6s to road cars...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by gttouring

Why make the engine one turbo and so small? The best thing this will do is bring tiny v6s to road cars...

This way the FIA can make F1 greener, more road relevant and give Jean Todt loads of Brownie points so he gets re-elected.

[Razor]

So I wonder what these turbo V6's will sound like? Would they should like a chain-saw with a turbo blow off whistle every time they change gear, much like those cars from The Fast and The Furious?

Also, would teams run WRC style anti-lag turbo systems?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Razor

So I wonder what these turbo V6's will sound like? Would they should like a chain-saw with a turbo blow off whistle every time they change gear, much like those cars from The Fast and The Furious?

Also, would teams run WRC style anti-lag turbo systems?

Probably just like the '88 McLaren.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by höller

Thanx Marbot for the splendid information!

It´s a pity they shall be just a single-turbo unit, isn´t it? A biturbo configuration would be more appropriate, not only for aero reasons.
Also I´d liked to see just a limit of V6, but no restriction below, just in the case our BMW should think about their future plans...

A biturbo configuration is the efficient and mechanically correct route.
A single turbo arrangement on a V6 is just plain retarded!

[TF110]

Audi uses that current configuration in LeMans, of course it's a bigger engine though.

[höller]

Another question is if a V6 has a single turbo how the exhaust pipe guidance will be constructed? Seems quite complicated to me and would diminish responding behaviour for sure as a "V" naturally requires a biturbo. So this seems pretty senseless to me.
Will it be like the Indy Car engines were built with a single charger or above the middle of the engine like the Ferrari V6? Think the Renault initially had a single charger, but this was considered as bad solution. Anti-lag equipment should help (at least about sound so this would be good news for track people and Bernie) as a single charger will be big, but on the other hand it´s all about efficiency....but wouldn´t count out a.l.s. now.

[Marbot]

The last V6 I owned with a turbo (V6 diesel) had the turbo situated at one end of the engine with the turbo being fed by both sets of exhaust pipes from each cylinder bank routed around to that end of the engine. This kept the engine to a reasonable width along with its 66 degree V angle. Would have been an ideal configuration for use in an F1 car, but I don't think that the 185 bhp power output would have been enough.

Here's a vid of that engine (transverse, East -West mounted):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nJ3T...eature=related

Note: If the turbos aren't homologated, it may be that teams will turn up with different size turbos for each race (big one for Monza, small one for Monaco).

[Sodemo]

Better to go twin turbos and have anti-lag (just for the noise).

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Better to go twin turbos and have anti-lag (just for the noise).

With two turbos, you would just have one small turbo (to boost low end torque) and one large turbo (for high end power). Anti-lag wouldn't really be necessary. More innovation would probably come about by using just one turbo. It may be that the single turbo can be of the hybrid type (?). It can be electrically driven to a certain rpm (and therefore no lag) whilst not being required for boost by the engine.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Marbot

With two turbos, you would just have one small turbo (to boost low end torque) and one large turbo (for high end power). Anti-lag wouldn't really be necessary. More innovation would probably come about by using just one turbo. It may be that the single turbo can be of the hybrid type (?). It can be electrically driven to a certain rpm (and therefore no lag) whilst not being required for boost by the engine.

I understand the principles of having twin turbos. I don't really care for road relevance, i'm just thinking more about what its going to do on track and what it will sound like. The latest and best BMW diesel engines have twin turbos, so going the twin route isn't nessesarily anti-road relevant.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I understand the principles of having twin turbos. I don't really care for road relevance, i'm just thinking more about what its going to do on track and what it will sound like. The latest and best BMW diesel engines have twin turbos, so going the twin route isn't nessesarily anti-road relevant.

I don't think that it will do much to the sound by having two turbos instead of one. In fact it may take away from that aspect, since turbos tend to muffle the sound of the exhaust somewhat.

Maybe it's more of a challenge to make one turbo do the job, rather than two? Which is cheating a bit IMO. It may also be that two turbos just aren't necessary.

[Marbot]

FIA Power unit regulations Q&A press release.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...-power-qa.aspx

[luke g28]

Why would twin turbos even be needed? F1 cars dont exactly operate in low rev ranges so im struggling to see why they will struggle to spool up a turbo? If theyre always at 12k + then it doesnt matter that the turbo doesnt spool till 11.5k

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Why would twin turbos even be needed? F1 cars dont exactly operate in low rev ranges so im struggling to see why they will struggle to spool up a turbo? If theyre always at 12k + then it doesnt matter that the turbo doesnt spool till 11.5k

With a single turbo you would still get a lot of lag unless you had anti lag systems. The problem is that to generate the amount of power they are suggesting, you would need a big turbo. A single big turbo would take a comparative long time to spool up (unless you had anti-lag). They have gotten less laggy over the years, but it is far from the instant response of the NA units we have today.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

With a single turbo you would still get a lot of lag unless you had anti lag systems. The problem is that to generate the amount of power they are suggesting, you would need a big turbo. A single big turbo would take a comparative long time to spool up (unless you had anti-lag). They have gotten less laggy over the years, but it is far from the instant response of the NA units we have today.

Which is good, makes the drivers have to be careful going through the corners.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Why would twin turbos even be needed? F1 cars dont exactly operate in low rev ranges so im struggling to see why they will struggle to spool up a turbo? If theyre always at 12k + then it doesnt matter that the turbo doesnt spool till 11.5k

That's a good point and there's no more lag.

[wnut]

The argument for twin turbos is to run one turbo on each cylinder bank.
On a three cylinder bank the exhaust pulses are 240 degrees apart and there is more efficient utilisation of the exhaust pressure and better cylinder scavaging. If a single turbo arrangement is forced on F1 you will see big bang engines with more than one cylinder firing at one time
Subaru 4s do this, initially as the flat 4 configuration achieves the best balance this way with opposing cylinders firing at the same time, but it has a happy outcome of providing better and more efficient discreet (separated) exhaust pulses for the turbo.

[Marbot]

Modern turbo technology should only require one turbo to do what two used to do twenty odd years ago.

The Honda RA168E twin turbo was the cream of the crop back in 88. 685bhp @ 12,500 rpm in qualifying trim, running 2.5 bar boost pressure. Nice sound too.

But as we know, the earlier ones were even more powerful. But very thirsty with it.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92743

How could they not?

[Sodemo]

I'd prefer 1000BHP+, with say half the downforce and make the rear tyres have a wider slip angle.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I'd prefer 1000BHP+, with say half the downforce and make the rear tyres have a wider slip angle.

You want lower lap times?

[höller]

The argument for twin turbos is to run one turbo on each cylinder bank.
On a three cylinder bank the exhaust pulses are 240 degrees apart and there is more efficient utilisation of the exhaust pressure and better cylinder scavaging. If a single turbo arrangement is forced on F1 you will see big bang engines with more than one cylinder firing at one time

Thats quite the point of my post. I remember Frank Dernie once at MG refusing a V6 mono at Le Mans in favour of a I4 because of exhaust utilisation. So in terms of better fuel efficiency as the FIA main goal is the twin turbo concept would be more satisfying.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

You want lower lap times?

Lower or slower? F1 cars used to qualify with 1500 bhp, but actually lapped slower than current cars do. Aero is king.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by JamesH

You want lower lap times?

Lower lap times dont really bother me. In any case, if you wanted to keep lap times high, you could do this;

- 1000BHP
- Half current downforce
- Widen the cars to 2200mm
- Wider slicks
- Widen rear tyre slip angles

The benefits gained from having wider tyres and a wider wheeltrack would be negated by the loss of downforce. The lap times would be about the same in all likelyhood.