Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NEW V6 ENGINES ANGLE AND SINGLE TURBO....


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 gazacland123

gazacland123
  • New Member

  • 25 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 15 January 2014 - 12:50

It is 2014 and this marks the start of the brave new world of the 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 engines with their electrical/turbo compounding systems in F1. Great, at last we're getting rid of those torque-less V8's (in my opinion, those gutless V8's in dry conditions were too easy to drive, hence why so many processional dry weather races over the years). However, reading the regulations on the FIA website, it specifies that the vee angle is fixed at 90 degrees and that only a single turbocharger can be used. Eh????, Isn't the optimum angles of any V6 engine (forced induction or not) either 120 degrees (as used by Ferrari in the early 80s with which they won the constructors championship consecutively in 1982/83) or, realistically for tight packaging into today's F1, a 60 degree angle? By angling the V6 at 60 degrees, you can use a 3-throw crankshaft with flying arms between the crankpins, giving the engine 120 degree separation required but also acts with a counterweight to eliminate any secondary imbalance - and therefore better smoothness and less uneven firing order. Using a 90 degree V6 gives the V6 format a lot more vibration than a 60 degree V6. I know you can eliminate some of the vibration by using off-set split crankpins on the crankshaft as well as balance shafts, but these add considerably more weight and power sapping friction which makes the unit considerable less efficient than a 60 degree V6. Also, wouldn't a V6 at 60 degrees have better aero-balance as it is narrower, therefore with less frontal area and better underbody downforce exploitation possible? 

Another issue is the one of why only a single turbocharger? Surely with any V configuration it is better to have two turbochargers, one on each bank of clyinders, to give better response, as well as much more linear, progressive torque curve. Also, if one turbo failed, at least there is still the possibility of continuing (possibly) with the single forced induction, where as if these single turbo V6 units fail, race over for the driver. Also twin turbochargers is much less "startling" for the block, again, giving a smoother, more progressive power and torque output. It does seem to me that these slightly odd engine regulations over Vee angles and single turbo's are going to cause a lot of vibration problems for both cars and drivers.........

 

Comments welcome, if you can enlighten me, please do! 

 



Advertisement

#2 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 384 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 January 2014 - 13:08

Great, at last we're getting rid of those torque-less V8's (in my opinion, those gutless V8's in dry conditions were too easy to drive

 

 

Remind me, which team did you drive for?



#3 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 January 2014 - 13:10

The vee angle is common with the V8. The V8s also had less than brilliant ballance. But since these are racecars it doesn't really matter.

In terms of fitting in the chassis, the floor is flat either side of the motor, with the central step being where the bottom of the crankcase is mounted. The shape of the engine can't do anyting to influence underbody aerodynamics.

The single turbo comes from teh original regulations, slated for 2013, that required a single turbo 4. Also, since the turbo is able to be connected with a motor/generator unit to recover exhaust energy. With twin turbos you would require two such MGUs, possibly at the cost of extra weight. The centre positioned turbo can also benefit from the intake above the driver's head.

One disappointment with the regulations is that they specified that the exhaust must exit from the outboard side of the cylinder centreline.

#4 gazacland123

gazacland123
  • New Member

  • 25 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 15 January 2014 - 13:26

On the subject of gutless V8's, that's the opinion of Mr Martin Brundle of Kings Lynn as well as myself. Martin has driven several 2.4 litre V8 cars and feel that they're not paritcularly challenging because of the lack of torque compared to previous engine regulations. Martin also said that the 2.4 litre V8 "wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding."  I'm being relative in my comments of course, but compared to the 3 litre V10 or the previous 1.5 litre twin turbo V6 the 2.4 litre V8 had a very limited torque curve so if a car had lots of downforce and good aero balance - such as the Red Bull in recent years - they wern't squirming all over the place unlike a 3 litre V10 or 1.5 litre bi turbo V6. The old engine regulations produced cars that were terrifying to watch; I never got that impression from the 2.4 litre V8. Gary Anderson has said as much as well. 



#5 gazacland123

gazacland123
  • New Member

  • 25 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 15 January 2014 - 13:33

The vee angle is common with the V8. The V8s also had less than brilliant ballance. But since these are racecars it doesn't really matter.

In terms of fitting in the chassis, the floor is flat either side of the motor, with the central step being where the bottom of the crankcase is mounted. The shape of the engine can't do anyting to influence underbody aerodynamics.

The single turbo comes from teh original regulations, slated for 2013, that required a single turbo 4. Also, since the turbo is able to be connected with a motor/generator unit to recover exhaust energy. With twin turbos you would require two such MGUs, possibly at the cost of extra weight. The centre positioned turbo can also benefit from the intake above the driver's head.

One disappointment with the regulations is that they specified that the exhaust must exit from the outboard side of the cylinder centreline.

Thanks for the insight Wuzak, but I would say engine balance is important, because too much vibrations can cause problems with power loss, fuel economy, worm brakes and tyres, etc. That's my point: in making an engine vee angle unsuited for smooth running it's creating an extra hurdle for the teams that really could of been avoided.

Thanks for your insight on the single turbo, but I still bi-turbocharging would ultimately be better: smoother power delivery, more torque with a more linear curve and so on. Also, I know 30 degree of angle doesn't sound a lot, but it still has an impact on aero balance, weight distribution and frontal area. However, as you rightly point out, the energy recovery system effectively will act as a secondary turbo



#6 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 January 2014 - 22:02

The engine (sans exhaust) will be no wider than the tub, so making it narrower will be pointless.

 

In the original turbo era the vee angles of the V6s varied. Ferrari started at 120° but ended up around 90°. The TAG engine was designed to allow for tunnels and was 80°. 

 

Making the vee angle 60° will not provide an aerodynamic gain in the current era. It will reduce the space in the vee for intakes (Ferrari have made 65° V6s and V12s to allow more space for intakes) and accesories that may be placed within the vee - like the MGU-H, which will be in the vee according to Renault's released pictures, and what can be gathered of Ferrari's engine.

 

In terms of driveability, the MGU-H will be able to drive the turbo when there is insufficient exhaust energy. The turbine is oversize, in order to recover more energy from the exhaust, which would normally mean more lag - but it won't because of the MGU-H.



#7 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 15 January 2014 - 22:34

Any crank pix available yet?

 

Anyone know if crank configuration is ruled, or if a 'big bang'-type firing order is allowable?

 

Or run as 3 staggered V-twins vs 2 phased triples?



#8 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 January 2014 - 23:22

Why would they want a "big bang" firing order? That was done on motor bikes to ease the issue of loss of traction and the potential for high sides. Not such an issue in F1.

 

And no, no crank pics. Barely even got pics of the whole engine, and whether they represent the final product is debatable.

 

I figure they will use a standard 120° crank.



#9 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,424 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 January 2014 - 00:19

Re twin turbos.

1. Single turbo with MGU will have better lag and low rpm torque characteristics than twin turbos without.

2. The remaining turbo will not produce any boost when one of twin turbos fails. It could be done if the turbos were segregated (3 cyl each) but the limping engine would have 3 boosted cylinders and 3 unboosted. I guess that would be "big bang" and little bang.


Edited by gruntguru, 16 January 2014 - 00:20.


#10 JAW

JAW
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:10

'Big-bang' was more than just a high-side issue, it  also had discrete tyre hysteresis/efficacy/longevity effects..

 

Something that may ( or may not) have relevance to F1..



#11 RedRabbit

RedRabbit
  • Member

  • 158 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:11

'Big-bang' was more than just a high-side issue, it  also had discrete tyre hysteresis/efficacy/longevity effects..

 

Something that may ( or may not) have relevance to F1..

 

Now that we've had the engines out for a while, does anyone have an answer to this? To me, the engines sound like V-twins, but could it be that they are "big-bang" engines, the same as some MotoGP bikes?



#12 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 July 2014 - 22:33

What you mean big bang? they sound silky smooth to me.



#13 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 883 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 16 July 2014 - 05:57

Thanks for the insight Wuzak, but I would say engine balance is important, because too much vibrations can cause problems with power loss, fuel economy, worm brakes and tyres, etc. That's my point: in making an engine vee angle unsuited for smooth running it's creating an extra hurdle for the teams that really could of been avoided.

Thanks for your insight on the single turbo, but I still bi-turbocharging would ultimately be better: smoother power delivery, more torque with a more linear curve and so on. Also, I know 30 degree of angle doesn't sound a lot, but it still has an impact on aero balance, weight distribution and frontal area. However, as you rightly point out, the energy recovery system effectively will act as a secondary turbo

The 3L V6 turbo engine used in the very successful Nissan GTP car from '87 to '89 was a 60deg V and used split crank pins. This engine was run in both single and dual turbo configurations. The reason a 60deg block and a split pin crank were used had nothing to do with technical advantages. This configuration was used because the Nissan marketing people wanted the race engine to look similar to their production engines. The one problem we had with a split pin crank was the limited fatigue life caused by the poor structural load path where the rod pins were split. It took quite a bit of effort to get one of those split pin V6 cranks to last a 24hr race distance.



#14 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,424 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 July 2014 - 06:26

Re twin turbos.

1. Single turbo with MGU will have better lag and low rpm torque characteristics than twin turbos without.

2. The remaining turbo will not produce any boost when one of twin turbos fails. It could be done if the turbos were segregated (3 cyl each) but the limping engine would have 3 boosted cylinders and 3 unboosted. I guess that would be "big bang" and little bang.

3. A single large turbo will have higher thermal efficiency for both compressor and turbine than two smaller ones. This equals higher power. Even if twin turbo's were permitted, none of the teams would be using a twin configuration.


Edited by gruntguru, 16 July 2014 - 06:26.


#15 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 July 2014 - 18:08

What really grinds my gears is that they coulda gone DI on the old V8 rulebook. And add a fuel flow limit to lower the power a tiny bit.. Sure Merc might have left but **** em.. F1 is not dead without them.



#16 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 19 July 2014 - 01:50

What really grinds my gears is that they coulda gone DI on the old V8 rulebook. And add a fuel flow limit to lower the power a tiny bit.. Sure Merc might have left but **** em.. F1 is not dead without them.

 

Reanult would probably have left too.

 

And Honda wouldn't be coming back.

 

And would DI really make that much difference to the V8s?

 

How much design changes would be required to teh V8s to incorporate DI?



#17 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 July 2014 - 09:49

I think licking the balls to factory teams is worse. Cosworth era is ok by me. It was ok the last time. Hell. perhaps brands like JUDD would have reappeared.

 

Thing is.. Perhaps toyota would have come back as engine supplier. They allready have a V8 DI engine in LM.

 

And would DI really make that much difference to the V8s?

 

Sure it would have made some difference but mainly to allow lean running when the flow limit stagnates. I learned this from you guys basically..

 

How much design changes would be required to the V8s to incorporate DI?

 

Well it depends on how much FIA allows them. But a clean sheet design should be ok.. they did that with the V6s so it would probably still be cheaper than adding turboes and new tech like Turbo KERS++

 

Also they should have kept the 7 speed gearbox. So we can hear the engines going through the revs more.. Now all we hear is weep weep weep wweeeeeeeep map map map.

 

More parts to perfect, more costs..


Edited by MatsNorway, 19 July 2014 - 10:10.


#18 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,424 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 July 2014 - 07:25

Don't they have 8 speeds now?

 

The lack of gear changes is due to the much wider power band of the current engines.

 

The lack of screaming RPMs is due to fuel flow limit shaping and the pursuit of thermal efficiency.



#19 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:26

Yea so what are you talking about, they do nothing but chance gears now..



Advertisement

#20 senna400

senna400
  • New Member

  • 6 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 20 July 2014 - 21:17

The technical aspect of F1 has become so incredibly boring now.  How can the younger generation get excited about mechanical things when the modern contemporary grand prix car is so uninspiring?  The most exotic, exciting racing cars are now Formula Renault 3.5, those are thoroughbred racing cars....F1 are no longer the pinnacle anymore because of the hybrid aspect.  Bernie knew it, the sponsors knew it, the fans knew it, but the manufacturers are GREEDY and put themselves first not the sport.  Until the power to make decisions is taken away from the manufacturers F1 will only ever cater for the desires of the manufacturers which means it's no longer a sport but a business.  I personally think the manufactureers who threaten to leave if the rules are changed should politely be asked to leave....and if most of the manufacturers end up threatening to leave then let them all go, open the door and kick them out, F1 doesn't need them anyway, the golden era was the 1970's when 90 percent of the grid were powered by one engine, the Ford DFV and the teams were entered by local garages, F1 is not about the technical aspect that's for geeks, it's about the racing, always has been. 



#21 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,424 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 July 2014 - 23:12

Lots of emotive claims but no substance. For me the powertrain technology is more complex and interesting than ever before. If the racing is boring it isn't due to the powertrain.


Edited by gruntguru, 21 July 2014 - 03:26.


#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,424 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 July 2014 - 23:18

Yea so what are you talking about, they do nothing but chance gears now..

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post.



#23 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 July 2014 - 02:25

Aren't the engines in Formula Renault 3.5 modified road car V6s?