2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

One thing, which is worth to consider is, does we have a bi/twin -turbo layout or a mono turbo. Looking at the R18 (Audi) and compare to the R15+/R10 the coupe (R18) uses a top/roof single air-intake (similar to F1) compared with the two periscope snorchels of the older cars. Most F1 turbos from the "old area" where bi-turbos with an V-engine (except for the BMW)

If you want to look at all the efficiency components you want to incorporate in the future, like waste energy recovery systems from the exhaust or the cooling system, then you need a little bit of space on the left and right side of the engine. A four-cylinder gives you that space but a vee engine is the wrong thing to have because you are so limited in space. You have an exhaust system on both the left and rightside and you also have to double all the energy recovery systems which makes it very heavy, very complicated and very inefficient. So it's better to have the hot side on one side of the engine and the cool side on the other side so you can arrange all these things accordingly. That's the opportunity with the four-cylinder.

Here you have it from the horses mouth. No bi turbos!

Lights on the car could also indicate when KERS and wing are activated. I agree, it would be great for fans at the track to have some indication of when these push-to-pass gimmicks are being used. Executed properly, yes, the sound generator could be cool, but runs the risk of being very cheesy/gimmicky. Maybe a simple alarm klaxon or car horn type sound would be less foreign/alienating. Either way, it could sound epic with the Doppler effect during flyby, combined with the engine noise.

The more awkward shape of the I4 for a stressed member, along with the Audi R18 release has me wondering if anyone will attempt to go for a full carbon frame, with tubs joined top/bottom, leaving the engine/transmission unstressed or semi-stressed. The engine weight could be reduced, and you'd be replacing that material with CF in the chassis. Not sure if there would be any weight savings in the end, but you might benefit in terms of engine reliability if it is more isolated from stresses acting on the chassis. FIA ultimately wants to get down to 4 engines/year, with 5/year spec'd for 2013, IIRC.

This is for sure a problem and has always been a problem with a four-cylinder. But there are methods to overcome that. Three years ago we contributed a lot to making a Formula Three engine for Volkswagen and in the beginning it had a structure around it. I said, why? If you do it the right way with the right materials, and I don't want to go into too much details because Mercedes-Benz always doubted how we made it and how the engine was so much better than theirs. So I don't want to tell them how to do it. But we thought very logically about some things and we determined we didn't need a separate structure. And the engine is running very succesfully today and has been running very successfully for some time. Now, I don't say it's the same with a 600 horsepower turbocharged engine. But even if you do make a subframe, where is the problem?

So even the pope of GRE thinks you use horses for courses. It probably depends of the project details how it pans out.

[Tim.Wright]

A large perforated surface through which the turbo ingests air could reduce the thickness of the boundary layer on many different components. For example, over a portion of the engine cover. Ferrari did this on their 599 race car, except on the diffuser (which is probably not a good idea for an engine intake, operating in a low pressure zone):

That intake for the 599XX is not for the engine. The two pipes in the boot are hooked up to two electric fans which suck air from the diffuser and out though the place where the tail lights are on the normal production 599. So its a sucker car.

Anyway, I think there are restrictions on the cross sectional area of the intake (maybe not though) so a perforated intake might not be in compliance with the rules.

Tim

[747heavy]

@WB
makes you wonder why their R18 engine is a V6 then.

Ever heard about register turbo charging?
Having two turbos does not mean you need to put them on both sides of an I4 - does it?

[Giblet]

So the bore and stroke are set, the number and inline configuration of the cylinders, also set.

I hope this question is not as dumb as it sounds, but can an i4 be laid down on it's side to get the weight as low possible?

I also have to wonder if supercharging will be allowed.

[Formula None]

That intake for the 599XX is not for the engine.

I didn't say it was. Being a front engined car, its implied that the intake would not be via the trunk. I only mentioned it as an intake option as it pertained to the discussion at hand. Sorry for any confusion.

[Formula None]

@WB
makes you wonder why their R18 engine is a V6 then.

Ever heard about register turbo charging?
Having two turbos does not mean you need to put them on both sides of an I4 - does it?

That's just another term for sequential turbocharging, right?

Diagram from Charging the internal combustion engine
By Hermann Hiereth, Peter Prenninger:

[timbo]

Will i4 config would engine remain stressed member of a chassis?
Maybe putting it on subframe would be beneficial?

[autogyro]

Could you have a turbine generator on the hot side of the inline 4 and a motor comressor on the cold side, sucking from low pressure DF area in corners and from wing slot on straits. Much simpler pipeing and a replacement for the f-duct and ebdf all in one.
While your at it, build the engine block and gearbox casing as part of the tub in CF, that should save a bit of weight and produce a more rigid structure.

[Dragonfly]

Guys, I am confused.
This is from the FIA press release.

The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry. Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

There's no word about turbos.

[simplefan]

Guys, I am confused.
This is from the FIA press release.

The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry. Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

There's no word about turbos.

Why do you leave out the rest of the press release?
"The engines will deliver a 35% reduction in fuel consumption and will feature extensive energy management and energy recovery systems, while maintaining current levels of performance. In 2013, five engines will be permitted per driver, but each year after that the limit will be four."

[WhiteBlue]

@WBmakes you wonder why their R18 engine is a V6 then. Ever heard about register turbo charging?
Having two turbos does not mean you need to put them on both sides of an I4 - does it?

Apparently Baretzky was prepared to to do a GRE petrol but they decided to go for TDI for marketing reasons. Within the framework of the regulations (air restricted, not fuel restricted) they probably found that to be more competitive. I find it amazing that they dropped cylinder count from V10 to V6 and capacity from 5.5L to 3.6L.

I reckon in reality electrically turbo compounded systems still need a great deal of development until they work at a reliability level you need for a Le Mans engine. But once they have come to grips with the hybrid systems I'm pretty sure GRE will be a hit in LMP1 as well.

[747heavy]

I find it amazing that they dropped cylinder count from V10 to V6 and capacity from 5.5L to 3.6L.

I don´t think, that this was entirely voluntary.
This has probably a lot to do with it:

The new ACO rules state that the current LMP1 cars (2007-2010) will be rendered obsolete so new prototypes would have to be created. Engines in the LMP1 are similar to the engines in the LMP2 prior to 2010 (maximum engine sizes are: 3.4 L (3400 cc) for naturally-aspirated engines with eight cylinders maximum; 2.0 L (2000 cc) for turbocharged petrol engines with six cylinders maximum; 3.7 L (3700 cc) for turbocharged diesel engines with eight cylinders maximum).

Baretzky and his guys will make any engine, they ask him (and give him budget) to make.

[Formula None]

You get me thinking though, Dragonfly. I wonder if anyone will get creative and try to make ~650hp sans turbo. I'd love to hear proposals for achieving that.

[WhiteBlue]

You get me thinking though, Dragonfly. I wonder if anyone will get creative and try to make ~650hp sans turbo. I'd love to hear proposals for achieving that.

There is no way you can get a 1.6 NA engine with 12,000 rpm to the power output required. Turbo is implicit in the package. Everybody knows it who had a cursory look at the air flow and did the AFR figures. Alternatively you can down figure the V8 technology. You multiply 750 hp two times by 0.666 (for 1.6/2.4 and 12,000/18,000) and you get 333 hp.

[WhiteBlue]

Will i4 config would engine remain stressed member of a chassis?
Maybe putting it on subframe would be beneficial?

This is for sure a problem and has always been a problem with a four-cylinder. But there are methods to overcome that. Three years ago we contributed a lot to making a Formula Three engine for Volkswagen and in the beginning it had a structure around it. I said, why? If you do it the right way with the right materials, and I don't want to go into too much details because Mercedes-Benz always doubted how we made it and how the engine was so much better than theirs. So I don't want to tell them how to do it. But we thought very logically about some things and we determined we didn't need a separate structure. And the engine is running very succesfully today and has been running very successfully for some time. Now, I don't say it's the same with a 600 horsepower turbocharged engine. But even if you do make a subframe, where is the problem?

This is the F3 engine Baretzky refers to. You can see that the front side of the engine simply got a casted outrigged frame to increase rigidity at the gearbox interface.



On the tub side you see the same principle only they have divided it up into separate elements attached to the top and bottom end of the engine.