2017 F1 engine dream configs

[J.A.W.]

i'm sorry, but my english is really bad.

i don't understand your answer.

Google is your fiend.. ..try typing movie quotes.. ..(with the quotes provided)..

[PlatinumZealot]

V10 Atmo 1000 hp, 30 000 rmp max, with traction control.

boring to see F1 slow in corner and tired to hear this noise...

for me...

yeah that would be interesting... though claimed point of limiting returns is around 23,500 rpms.

[nokivasara]

I like the turbo V6 we have now but the fuel flow limit is too low. It was great watching Schumacher and Häkkinen go balls out right from the start, I miss that. Think it was called "racing"?
Maybe cut the race distance if the fuel usage can't be increased?
5 laps less would free up quite a bit of fuel to be used earlier in the race?

It would also be nice to see different engine types, but in the long run all teams would end up with the same config anyway so that's that I guess.

So my dream config is actually what we have now sans the fuel saving bit.

[Rhodium]

yeah that would be interesting... though claimed point of limiting returns is around 23,500 rpms.

i think, if engineers have time and money for that, they can make everything.
IMO, 30 000 is possible...

some example of hight level rmp exist, like tesla turbine. it's green, and easy to make.




i know i'm not in the right place, but

in formula one, some things can make single seater fast for nothing (money), i don't understand why some technologies are not exploited.
for example, the paint: fluid dynamic, in natural world, some animals have green technologies for upgrade his performence.
shark have a skin who make it faster... why engineer don't test a similar skin on F1 ?


...or use MHD technologie.
is not complicated, and not really expensive.

[J.A.W.]

R, you need to do some basic reading on piston engines to learn why your dream of "30,000rpm" is just silly for F1 racing..
..suggest you start with practicable piston speed limitations..

[Moxie]

My intention here is to free up engineering development while at the same time allowing the engines to be relevant to consumers.

The engine block and heads should be available to the General public, with current production runs of 5,000 units.
The block should come directly from the mainstream production line. If a manufacturer wants special castings then 5,000 castings should be produced and made available in the cars they produce. (Cherry picking the best of those castings for use in F1 is acceptable). FOM should encourage cross marketing of its own brand by allowing manufacturers to use "F1" in the marketing of vehicles that include the F1 homologated block.

One manufacturer may choose to use a turbocharged, direct inject engine, while another manufacturer may choose another combination. As long as the blocks and heads are available to the public, it is all good.

Heads must also be produced for the general public, but they may be sold as aftermarket items. The 5,000 unit threshold still applies. Again, cross marketing of brands should be encouraged.

Pump gasoline (petrol) for all teams to be supplied from a single supplier that must be a chemical match to a station, randomly selected from the providers fleet.

Ancillary items such as turbochargers, ERS systems, are all open to experimentation and development.

[wuzak]

My intention here is to free up engineering development while at the same time allowing the engines to be relevant to consumers.

The engine block and heads should be available to the General public, with current production runs of 5,000 units.
The block should come directly from the mainstream production line. If a manufacturer wants special castings then 5,000 castings should be produced and made available in the cars they produce. (Cherry picking the best of those castings for use in F1 is acceptable). FOM should encourage cross marketing of its own brand by allowing manufacturers to use "F1" in the marketing of vehicles that include the F1 homologated block.

One manufacturer may choose to use a turbocharged, direct inject engine, while another manufacturer may choose another combination. As long as the blocks and heads are available to the public, it is all good.

Heads must also be produced for the general public, but they may be sold as aftermarket items. The 5,000 unit threshold still applies. Again, cross marketing of brands should be encouraged.

Pump gasoline (petrol) for all teams to be supplied from a single supplier that must be a chemical match to a station, randomly selected from the providers fleet.

Ancillary items such as turbochargers, ERS systems, are all open to experimentation and development.

You've pretty much knocked Ferrari out of the equation by specifying 5,000 units per year to be built.

Blocks and heads for road use will be bigger and heavier than those for race use, simply because they have to last far longer.

[Moxie]

You've pretty much knocked Ferrari out of the equation by specifying 5,000 units per year to be built.

The number of 5000 was not intended to be an absolute. Rather it was intended to represent the principle. I would think that at least 1000 should be produced. Admittedly, I'm am not an expert on automotive production numbers. I would hope that the production requirement is high enough that a manufacturer won't hire a shell company to buy all of the cars using the spec units, thus allowing them at great expense to engineer a block that is not truly worthy of road use.

Fiat makes a lot of cars. I don't care how the engines are branded, as long as they are produced in sufficient numbers and available to the public. I can envision Ferrari producing a car that uses only 100 the F1 spec blocks. The rest of the lot might be used in Alfa's, Maserati's and Abarth's

Blocks and heads for road use will be bigger and heavier than those for race use, simply because they have to last far longer.

True enough. The WCC is a competition of engineers. Give them roadworthy, production blocks and heads and let them engineer all the speed they can get out of them.

The theory behind this is as follows:

1. Reducing the cost for a team to compete in F1. The blocks and heads will be in the market and available. Of course there will still be great expense squeezing speed out of them, but I expect that this strategy will reduce the negotiating power (extortion leverage) manufacturers currently have over the teams.

2. Opening up the engineering options. There must be limits of some sort, for safety and fair competition. Rather than dictate the minutiae of engine specs as does current FOM, this system provides a financial/ production starting point, but then let's the engineers have at it.

3. Road relevance. Honestly, this is not really my concern, but it seems that some of the powers behind F1 saw this as a reason to switch to the current engine spec. The result is an engine that has been disapointing to many, and precious little road relevance.

[Spoutnik]

My 2017 dream config, I think the formula one is an engineering competition and idk why actually for some reason (loud sound) the people want the comeback of the high reving V8 or V10 altought ?
The Formula One need to improve with his time, and tbh now, I like those new V6. The real issue past year was the freezing rules, not that's over.
Therefore, the best configs is :
-Determinate full load
-Determinate max cylinder and lowest unitary cylinder
-Determinate a maximum energy (or Hybrid) consumption per lap (in MJ)
-For Turbo engine determinate a maximum pressure and for NA derteminate a maximum rpm range
-Determinate a max and min weight
etc..

For finally, give freehand for the engineer, they choose the best configuration for us, and this rules leave some differences between all car, in term of power, in terme of capability according to the track demand.

[hpras]

oooo, new dumb idea. Minimum 0.5kg dry car mass/rear wheel horsepower. Engines rolling dyno'd before and after race, lowest number taken for legality. Engine last 4 races concurrently. Customer engines for $10m/season. No toxic alloys. Otherwise engineers have at it.

OK, I said it was dumb.

[j3st3r]

My ideal is still a fuel limited engine series. Give drivers 120 liters to complete the race, have at it like in the 80s.

If you want to run a 1 liter 3 cyl engine, go for it .... if you want a V12 .. have at it but you only get 120liters to make it to the end... this would make it much much more interesting... also more expensive off course as different manufacturers develop different engines... but the current engines rules are not so much rules as they are a blueprint on how to make an engine there is very little freedom left.
I find it amazing how much difference Mercedes managed to make with this little freedom.

[UlleGulle]

I'd like to go a different route. Let's go back to the roots and make F1 "cheap" and road relevant.

The engine must be derived from a commercial engine delivered in more than 3000 road legal cars.
Engine configuration is free. Diesel and Ethanol fuel is permitted.
The engine must not exceed a specified volume.
Turbocharging and/or supercharging is allowed. No maximum turbo-pressure is specified.
Materials not found in the original engine is not permitted.
Teams are allowed to change the construction of the fuel injection, valve-control, crankshaft, rod and piston to a certain degree.
Fuel is completely standard and supplied by FIA. Teams are allowed to use as much fuel as they like.
ERS system is supplied by FIA.

[OO7]

R, you need to do some basic reading on piston engines to learn why your dream of "30,000rpm" is just silly for F1 racing..
..suggest you start with practicable piston speed limitations..

To be fair, only a few months ago there were many saying 900hp from the current V6T PUs would be impossible, so I can understand why the thought may be entertained, despite the practical limitations.

[Brian Coat]

V10 Atmo 1000 hp, 30 000 rmp max, with traction control.

boring to see F1 slow in corner and tired to hear this noise...

for me...

A couple of notable quotes - from those in the know - may be apropos in relation here..

1, "Tell him he's dreamin'!"
&,
2, "Och laddie, ye cannae change the laws o' physics!"

Well I like the 30,000 rpm limit because it makes the rev limiter mean piston speed calculation so easy!

Joking apart, at practical bore sizes with 10 cylinders, you would need much less than the stated maximum 30K RPM to make well over 1000 hp n/a, so I'm not feeling too constrained by the laws of physics.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but ...

[TurboLag]

A more reasonable flow limit (let's say 150 kg/hr), the rest up to the teams.. I like variety