747heavy wrote:One thing, which is worth to consider is, does we have a bi/twin -turbo layout or a mono turbo. Looking at the R18 (Audi) and compare to the R15+/R10 the coupe (R18) uses a top/roof single air-intake (similar to F1) compared with the two periscope snorchels of the older cars. Most F1 turbos from the "old area" where bi-turbos with an V-engine (except for the BMW)
Ulrich Baretzky wrote:
If you want to look at all the efficiency components you want to incorporate in the future, like waste energy recovery systems from the exhaust or the cooling system, then you need a little bit of space on the left and right side of the engine. A four-cylinder gives you that space but a vee engine is the wrong thing to have because you are so limited in space. You have an exhaust system on both the left and rightside and you also have to double all the energy recovery systems which makes it very heavy, very complicated and very inefficient. So it's better to have the hot side on one side of the engine and the cool side on the other side so you can arrange all these things accordingly. That's the opportunity with the four-cylinder.
Here you have it from the horses mouth. No bi turbos!
Formula None wrote:Lights on the car could also indicate when KERS and wing are activated. I agree, it would be great for fans at the track to have some indication of when these push-to-pass gimmicks are being used. Executed properly, yes, the sound generator could be cool, but runs the risk of being very cheesy/gimmicky. Maybe a simple alarm klaxon or car horn type sound would be less foreign/alienating. Either way, it could sound epic with the Doppler effect during flyby, combined with the engine noise.
Formula None wrote:The more awkward shape of the I4 for a stressed member, along with the Audi R18 release has me wondering if anyone will attempt to go for a full carbon frame, with tubs joined top/bottom, leaving the engine/transmission unstressed or semi-stressed. The engine weight could be reduced, and you'd be replacing that material with CF in the chassis. Not sure if there would be any weight savings in the end, but you might benefit in terms of engine reliability if it is more isolated from stresses acting on the chassis. FIA ultimately wants to get down to 4 engines/year, with 5/year spec'd for 2013, IIRC.
Ulrich Baretzky wrote:
This is for sure a problem and has always been a problem with a four-cylinder. But there are methods to overcome that. Three years ago we contributed a lot to making a Formula Three engine for Volkswagen and in the beginning it had a structure around it. I said, why? If you do it the right way with the right materials, and I don't want to go into too much details because Mercedes-Benz always doubted how we made it and how the engine was so much better than theirs. So I don't want to tell them how to do it. But we thought very logically about some things and we determined we didn't need a separate structure. And the engine is running very succesfully today and has been running very successfully for some time. Now, I don't say it's the same with a 600 horsepower turbocharged engine. But even if you do make a subframe, where is the problem?
So even the pope of GRE thinks you use horses for courses. It probably depends of the project details how it pans out.