2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Abarth]

Ferrari had a 120° V6 and a hot V in their early turbos 1982.
http://jalopnik.com/the-coolest-hot-vee ... 1632591852

[Facts Only]

Point 1 (poor CoG) kills it stone dead on its own though. And I'm stuggling to think of any advantages .

I'm not understanding something here. If it was naturally disadvantageous due to C.G. then why was there any need to ban it in the rules?

Because as I said previously some things were done to try and keep the engines generally interchangeable.

[Facts Only]

That engine shows exactly the CoG issue, loads of ironwork mounted up high above the engine and then nice lightweight Alumium plenums down low under the heads.

http://jalopnik.com/the-coolest-hot-vee ... 1632591852

[wuzak]

I should think that a split turbo system, like Mercedes', would work with the exhausts in the vee without too much increase in the CoG and may improve the packaging.



The turbo itself would not need to be moved from where it is.

[Facts Only]

As mentioned Wuzak there are a massive list of flaws with a hot V and no real benefit, it was looked into breifly but was a complete non-starter. Everything gets looked at, considered and often schemed in CAD, the engineers arent just sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone on the internet to come up with ideas.

[hurril]

As mentioned Wuzak there are a massive list of flaws with a hot V and no real benefit, it was looked into breifly but was a complete non-starter. Everything gets looked at, considered and often schemed in CAD, the engineers arent just sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone on the internet to come up with ideas.

The list of drawbacks cannot be this large since it's used by cars. Sure, the set of requirements for an F1 car is not the same but surely there's an overlap.

[godlameroso]

Those cars don't have hybrid compounded turbos to essentially eliminate lag, plus there's less restraints on weight given an automobile weighs 3-4 times as much as an F1 car.

[Facts Only]

As mentioned Wuzak there are a massive list of flaws with a hot V and no real benefit, it was looked into breifly but was a complete non-starter. Everything gets looked at, considered and often schemed in CAD, the engineers arent just sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone on the internet to come up with ideas.

The list of drawbacks cannot be this large since it's used by cars. Sure, the set of requirements for an F1 car is not the same but surely there's an overlap.

You're not thinking like an engineer though. There only has to be 1 more drawback than there is benefit and the idea is a no go. Or more realistically in F1 terms a 0.001 of second lap time increase and its not worth doing. If it doesn't improve laptimes then its a complete waste of resource.

I listed a basic list of drawbacks (that I could think of on the fly) earlier in the thread, so far nobody has come up with one tangable benefit. So why would anyone bother?

[hurril]

Those cars don't have hybrid compounded turbos to essentially eliminate lag, plus there's less restraints on weight given an automobile weighs 3-4 times as much as an F1 car.

Thinking that the MGU-h will eliminate the lag is not entirely right though, is it? It doesn't come for free. Having shorter exhaust runners could probably make the exhaust energy recovery larger; the added benefit would be that the amount of lag to eliminate would be smaller. The entire exhaust system ought to be lighter as a whole too; if COG is all that mattered - then surely you could just add ballast at the bottom and Bob's your uncle. Clearly that is not the case

[bill shoe]

Audi WEC V6 turbo-diesel, multi-LeMans winner.

[Facts Only]

Well there you go, that proves its a better idea! Or perhaps it just shows that if you're designing a completely different engine for a completely different car in a completely different series you may end up with something... well.. different.

Its such a different animal that 5 seconds looking at that picture gives you plenty of info on why many of the Hot V disadvantage aren't present on that engine.

Firstly it has a very wide V angle, meaning that the engine mass is natuarally lower and that even with the exahusts on top the CoG penalty is massively reduced. Also it is/was being put into a car with a much higher min' weight limit so there will no doubt be plenty of ballast on the floor to offset any CoG penalty.

Secondly being a Diesel means that (I believe) there are no throttle bodies on the cylinder heads so you eliminate to prblem of balancing the throttles accross the outside of the two heads.

Thirdly that engine doesnt have turbo compounding so there is less weight and heat sensitive components to be placed in the V and also reducing "lag" or response times by minimising exhaust runs is a tangible benefit.

I've still not heard one benefit to having a Hot V on the current F1 engines, aside for some grumbling about "lag", which because we arent in 1984 isn't exactly a problem anyway.

[djos]

Thankfully tractor engines aren't allowed in F1!

[Abarth]

[...]I've still not heard one benefit to having a Hot V on the current F1 engines, aside for some grumbling about "lag", [...].

Packaging might be one, but since the V angle and whatnot is mandatet anyway, with these very engines, there is not much to gain.
IF the regulations were less strict, the paper to start with would be much mor empty, and a hot V could be a viable thing anyway.
Wider V angle...shorter exhaust manifold lines...maybe less torsional rigidity....MGU-H transversally/oblique rather than longitudinally...maybe located behind the engine / above gearbox...two smaller intercoolers left / right....MGU-K in the V....whatever. All things which have to be evaluated and cleverly thought out, BEFORE assessing whether its beneficial overall or not. As any technical solution, it must be seen as a complete package and not as only the engine.

But again, it is mandated how it has to bee, and any discussion is moot, as we have to base this on some givens. The givens are many and leave few space for different solutions, so be it.

[trinidefender]

Secondly being a Diesel means that (I believe) there are no throttle bodies on the cylinder heads so you eliminate to prblem of balancing the throttles accross the outside of the two heads.

You are correct in that most diesels don't have throttle blades and if they do they aren't for traditional throttle control as used in gasoline engines. However the basic design when it comes to balancing airflow across cylinder banks is just as crucial in a diesel. Having a hot V and no throttle blades that can be adjusted individually by the ECU to correct any inequalities means that the intake piping and plenums will have to be very carefully designed to ensure equal airflow to each cylinder bank.

[ringo]

Well there you go, that proves its a better idea! Or perhaps it just shows that if you're designing a completely different engine for a completely different car in a completely different series you may end up with something... well.. different.

Its such a different animal that 5 seconds looking at that picture gives you plenty of info on why many of the Hot V disadvantage aren't present on that engine.

Firstly it has a very wide V angle, meaning that the engine mass is natuarally lower and that even with the exahusts on top the CoG penalty is massively reduced. Also it is/was being put into a car with a much higher min' weight limit so there will no doubt be plenty of ballast on the floor to offset any CoG penalty.

Secondly being a Diesel means that (I believe) there are no throttle bodies on the cylinder heads so you eliminate to prblem of balancing the throttles accross the outside of the two heads.

Thirdly that engine doesnt have turbo compounding so there is less weight and heat sensitive components to be placed in the V and also reducing "lag" or response times by minimising exhaust runs is a tangible benefit.

I've still not heard one benefit to having a Hot V on the current F1 engines, aside for some grumbling about "lag", which because we arent in 1984 isn't exactly a problem anyway.

One big disadvantage though is that it is very wide. This would pose a problem in a Formula1 car which tends to require a very narrow body for air flow on the outside and through the chassis.

The Hot V idea can work if the turbine is behind the engine and not on top though. But as mentioned the throttle plates and trumpets will only make the engine very wide. If there was a single throttle in front of the compressor the hot v is a workable concept to follow.