2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

Formula 1 can do what Toyota did with the Lemans car.

What’s the Toyota TS040 Hybrid’s powertrain spec?

It’s the biggest (and possibly the best-sounding) engine of the three LMP1 big-hitters. While Porsche has opted for turbocharged V4 petrol power, and Audi a V6 turbodiesel, the TS040 uses a wailing 3.7-litre petrol-fuelled V8, developing 513bhp.

Toyota brags that the V8 engine is built at the company’s Higashi-Fuji technical centre, where Toyota’s road-going engine R&D work is carried out. The Japanese maker is making plenty of noise about its petrol-hybrid racing tech having a direct trickle-down effect into your next Toyota or Lexus hybrid.

In addition, Toyota has taken full advantage of the relaxed rules on hybrid boost propulsion. While the petrol engine feeds the rear wheels, the electric motors deliver drive to all four wheels, with a huge 473bhp kick. Together, the TS040’s powerplants add up to make 986bhp – an identical (1000PS) power figure to the original-spec Bugatti Veyron.

Look no further than the above. Maybe a small v8 with the increased capacity super capacitor Hybrid power. This is the none turbo option that can keep the signature sound. Sounds like a pre 2014 setup doesn't it? lol but it was the right direction. It only need the 2014 integration of the electric boost and the increased capacity.

Where are you getting the extra energy to run the MGU?

At most tracks on teh F1 calendar they cannot get 2MJ of captured energy through braking alone. They have to "lift and coast" to top up the battery.

[mrluke]

Give the teams the choice and see how many go back to a na v8.

[ian_s]

Formula 1 can do what Toyota did with the Lemans car.

Where are you getting the extra energy to run the MGU?

At most tracks on teh F1 calendar they cannot get 2MJ of captured energy through braking alone. They have to "lift and coast" to top up the battery.

just put a recovery turbine and GU-H in the exhaust (no need for a motor part, no forced induction)
all the time you are at full throttle its recovering exhaust energy, maybe at a cost of crankshaft HP due to back pressure but there should be a good amount of 'free' hp available

[Facts Only]

just put a recovery turbine and GU-H in the exhaust (no need for a motor part, no forced induction)
all the time you are at full throttle its recovering exhaust energy, maybe at a cost of crankshaft HP due to back pressure but there should be a good amount of 'free' hp available

If you recover enenergy from the exhaust you end up with the same sound level as the current V6. Sound = Energy thus removing the energy removes the sound. You may see more induction noise but everyone would still complain.

On a related note, I heard from a first hand source that when Merc ran the 'trumpet' megaphone exhuast the (slight) increase in sound meant they realised that they could more aggressively harvest from the turbine and so would actually end up back at the same (or perhaps lower) noise level with that set-up than the current exhaust.

[ojlopez]

I would stick with the current V6 formula but remove the fuel flow limit, so they can rev it a little higher. Plus some kind of exhaust that would make more noise. Maybe a small hole before the turbine

[garrett]

Bring back the 2006-2013 V8, update them with modern technologies, add an electric compressor that uses ERS power exlusively and boosts the V8 at the lower revs only. (why not: remove two cylinders)
That way you keep the high revs, the sound and the costs under control : P

and other related postings.

Sounds good. Who pays? CVC or you?? =D>

[Powerslide]

Going back to the crank bore offset discussion, friction aside, how about its effect on piston speed? Its secondary vibration is clear which got me thinking on long rod, if I were to take a normal road car engine and change its pistons and rod to a long-rod variant, will this reduce vicbration? be interesting if there were both lighter weight in connecting rod and piston.

Guess combining the two is not too bad an idea

[ian_s]

just put a recovery turbine and GU-H in the exhaust (no need for a motor part, no forced induction)
all the time you are at full throttle its recovering exhaust energy, maybe at a cost of crankshaft HP due to back pressure but there should be a good amount of 'free' hp available

If you recover energy from the exhaust you end up with the same sound level as the current V6. Sound = Energy thus removing the energy removes the sound. You may see more induction noise but everyone would still complain.

that is true, but the sound wasn't the reason. i was responding to Wuzak about where the recovered energy could come from.

personally i prefer the new sound, even on TV. I went to the British GP in 2011 and came away not really enjoying it as it was just too loud. even with ear defenders on i had a massive headache for several hours which just wasn't fun.
When the noise levels of the support series go down to a similar level to the current F1 cars, i'll think about going again.

[Brian Coat]

"On a related note, I heard from a first hand source that when Merc ran the 'trumpet' megaphone exhuast the (slight) increase in sound meant they realised that they could more aggressively harvest from the turbine and so would actually end up back at the same (or perhaps lower) noise level with that set-up than the current exhaust."

FO : Please could you clarify what you mean here. The way it is written (or I am reading it!) it defies the laws of physics.

[garrett]

Could it be that the engine sound at the Jerez test in February was significantly louder as later on? In this video from Jerez one can hear the difference between the Mercedes engines: Whereas the works Mercedes was using another engine mapping (that one with the Superbike sound which they were keeping afterwards), on the other hand the Williams and McLaren cars were using another configuration which sounded much more louder. You can compare it just at the beginning of the video, as both engine types are passing by one after the other. Also the McLaren at 7:00. If so, it should be possible to increase the noise vice versa?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA0Hun0xb-Y

[Holm86]

Could it be that the engine sound at the Jerez test in February was significantly louder as later on? In this video from Jerez one can hear the difference between the Mercedes engines: Whereas the works Mercedes was using another engine mapping (that one with the Superbike sound which they were keeping afterwards), on the other hand the Williams and McLaren cars were using another configuration which sounded much more louder. You can compare it just at the beginning of the video, as both engine types are passing by one after the other. Also the McLaren at 7:00. If so, it should be possible to increase the noise vice versa?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA0Hun0xb-Y

It's pretty simple I think, the reason the cars were louder during testing was because of two things. First, they were dialing in the mappings, experimenting etc. So they were not fully optimized. And these engines are all about efficiency so more efficiency equals less sound. Second, they were not subjected to the 100kg of fuel regulation as they are in the races, if this regulation was abandoned I'm sure the engines would be louder as the engineers would use more fuel just to burn off in the exhaust to make more energy with the MGU-H.

[mrluke]

Likely due to development work on waste gate control vs mguh

[chip engineer]

It's pretty simple I think, the reason the cars were louder during testing was because of two things. First, they were dialing in the mappings, experimenting etc. So they were not fully optimized. And these engines are all about efficiency so more efficiency equals less sound. Second, they were not subjected to the 100kg of fuel regulation as they are in the races, if this regulation was abandoned I'm sure the engines would be louder as the engineers would use more fuel just to burn off in the exhaust to make more energy with the MGU-H.

The regulation of using less than 100kg of fuel per hour limits fuel use most of the time, so I doubt changing the 100kg total would make much difference in the sound. Also, why would anyone burn fuel in the exhaust rather than in the ICE where it will generate the most power?

[garrett]

Holm86, I rather think it could be the engine mappings (Ok in the Mercedes case it`s obvious ) than the second option. Burning fuel in the exhaust would mean something like the anti-lag to keep the turbo spinning, but that would sound quite different??

It was btw almost the same at the Silverstone test in July as Mr. Steve shows on his video. Listen to the big noise the cars make, at least in comparison with a GP weekend. Furthermore, I think he used an ordinary handcam to film test progress, so nothing special to tune up the noise volume or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQX2FTUYXT8

I know companies like austrian AVL are trying hard at the moment to "increase the noise", so I think if the noise level of these two videos could be retained in 2015 I think it should be allright for everybody (or almost everybody).

[mrluke]

Holm86, I rather think it could be the engine mappings (Ok in the Mercedes case it`s obvious ) than the second option. Burning fuel in the exhaust would mean something like the anti-lag to keep the turbo spinning, but that would sound quite different??

It was btw almost the same at the Silverstone test in July as Mr. Steve shows on his video. Listen to the big noise the cars make, at least in comparison with a GP weekend. Furthermore, I think he used an ordinary handcam to film test progress, so nothing special to tune up the noise volume or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQX2FTUYXT8

I know companies like austrian AVL are trying hard at the moment to "increase the noise", so I think if the noise level of these two videos could be retained in 2015 I think it should be allright for everybody (or almost everybody).

That is what they sound like live. Its just the broadcast that makes them suck.