2017 F1 engine dream configs

[adriannewey9864]

as OP i give you guys congratulations, some great discussions here, lol this thread exploded while i was away

[adriannewey9864]

i would use a v10 twin turbo ( i know ), but with a twist , fuel tanks are replaced with cooled liquid hydrogen tanks cooled by the radiators, and use that as fuel, eco bastards would stop complaing because of the low percentage of emmisions (0.00000...%), hydrogen has the highest octane rating of any fuel and exhausts would give drivers a refreshing spray of water, actually scratch that, a searing boiling mess on their helmets.

aparrently noise is far louder with hydrogen to shut up spectators by detonating their eardrums, hoooraaaay

footnote: update on my ideas coming soon

[smokeduv]

i would use a v10 twin turbo ( i know ), but with a twist , fuel tanks are replaced with cooled liquid hydrogen tanks cooled by the radiators, and use that as fuel, eco bastards would stop complaing because of the low percentage of emmisions (0.00000...%), hydrogen has the highest octane rating of any fuel and exhausts would give drivers a refreshing spray of water, actually scratch that, a searing boiling mess on their helmets.

aparrently noise is far louder with hydrogen to shut up spectators by detonating their eardrums, hoooraaaay

footnote: update on my ideas coming soon

I'd love that, but as of now, hydrogen is not a viable solution, at least not on F1, as you need a very heavy storage tank and even with that, it would leak or crack. Also, hydrogen has a lower energy density than gasoline, so fuel economy might be poor and environmentally is not as good as it sounds, as it is obtained by hydrocarbons or electrolysis, which is very energy-consuming. I think that the best use of hydrogen would be as a fuel cell producing electricity and not as an ICE but again, not entirely relevant to F1.

[wuzak]

i would use a v10 twin turbo ( i know ), but with a twist , fuel tanks are replaced with cooled liquid hydrogen tanks cooled by the radiators, and use that as fuel, eco bastards would stop complaing because of the low percentage of emmisions (0.00000...%), hydrogen has the highest octane rating of any fuel and exhausts would give drivers a refreshing spray of water, actually scratch that, a searing boiling mess on their helmets.

aparrently noise is far louder with hydrogen to shut up spectators by detonating their eardrums, hoooraaaay

footnote: update on my ideas coming soon

I'd love that, but as of now, hydrogen is not a viable solution, at least not on F1, as you need a very heavy storage tank and even with that, it would leak or crack. Also, hydrogen has a lower energy density than gasoline, so fuel economy might be poor and environmentally is not as good as it sounds, as it is obtained by hydrocarbons or electrolysis, which is very energy-consuming. I think that the best use of hydrogen would be as a fuel cell producing electricity and not as an ICE but again, not entirely relevant to F1.

It depends how you measure it....

Petrol has a calorific value, or heat of combustion, is ~45MJ/kg.

Hydrogen has a value of ~120MJ/kg.

But since that is a gas, the value by volume is low.

[autogyro]

Electric motor with energy induction from the track on the move, no energy storage.

Historic F1 to have two classes V8 and 1.5 turbo cars no later than 1988.

[Turbo]

I say let each team use what ever engine config they want but they all have to equal the same horsepower and revs.

[Andres125sx]

Revs? Why?

That would rule out many configurations, turbo and atmospheric engines work at very different revs, so if you put a mandatory rev margin, you´re forcing them to use one specific configuration

You only need a max fuel flow (that limits max power) and cost cap to avoid it goes too far. All the rest can be free so there would be some interesting competition on the engineering side

[.poz]

Petrol has a calorific value, or heat of combustion, is ~45MJ/kg.

Hydrogen has a value of ~120MJ/kg.

But since that is a gas, the value by volume is low.

indeed.

Liquid H 10,1 MJ/L
700 bar H 5,6 MJ/L
petrol 34,6 MJ/L

[adriannewey9864]

ah, but what youre forgetting is that hydrogen has the highest octane rating of any fuel

[langwadt]

ah, but what youre forgetting is that hydrogen has the highest octane rating of any fuel

that's not going to fix the need for a ~800liter tank

[PlatinumZealot]

Hydrogen?!! I would want to be a driver of a renault engined car if that's that's the fuel in it!

Science class.... Relights a glowing splint....

More like relighting a smouldering heap of carbon fibre!

[guffe]

Hydrogen?!! I would want to be a driver of a renault engined car if that's that's the fuel in it!

Science class.... Relights a glowing splint....

More like relighting a smouldering heap of carbon fibre!

I think you are thinking of oxygen. Hydrogen (in oxygen rich athmosphere) would cause a bit more violent reaction...

[Speng]

My WAG is if F1 changes the rules significantly Renault are gone... why should they stay? They're just getting whomped, everybody's badmouthing them, the only hope they have is to stick with RB who're still a good team, straighten out their engine and get back to podiums and maybe even wins. Back in the homologated NA days Renault won a lot even when "everybody knew" they were down on HP because they had a special relationship with RB and they'd both optimize their designs to suit the other.

And here's a small secret: the 90s/2000s aren't coming back when every major car company wanted to be in F1: they're off to Prototypes where they can be far more creative with engine layouts, hybrid energy stores, fuels etc. OR not racing at all, because, to be honest, your Golf TDI might have a more high tech engine than a current F1 engine. I'm really surprised Honda came back in and I reckon if they don't do better in 3-4 years then they're out.

IMHO Rule stability is the best way to get more teams/engine suppliers in. I don't know if anybody noticed but you can start F1 races now without qualifying... How soon before that becomes a race tactic?

[inox]

In civil car industry we have already seen under 1 liter 3-cylinder turbo engines. These seem to be getting very good reception (Ford EcoBoost in particular) and I think this engine configuration will be most the popular one within 5 years. Manufacturers probably continue to pursue even smaller engines. I think we may see 0.6 liter 3-cylinder turbo engine soon.

Therefore I would quite fancy if F1 would pursue this same 0.2 liter cylinder size in their V6 turbo. That would mean reduction of engine size from 1.6 to 1.2 liters. In theory the max revs could be rised from 12,000 to 16,000 rpm, using the same fuel flow limits and producing similar levels of power (slightly less of course due to increased friction).

But what is your opinion? Is 0.2 liter cylinder size too small for an efficient engine? Will it cause excessive fuel usage or loss of power? I remember reading somewhere that too small cylinders don't allow optimal burning of fuel, but I can't recall what was considered to be too small.

[gruntguru]

Sounds like a good suggestion to me. Although a 3 or 4 cyl 1.2 would make more power under the current rules, the high revving V6 would have more appeal for the traditional race fans.