What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[autogyro]

There is something in what you say but the future direction is fuel 'efficiency' and a 5 liter pushrod V8 is about as far from that as it is possible to go, no matter what fuel is used.

[Dukeage]

Is there any reason they couldn't allow both I4s and V6s, with separate rev limits if needed? Super 2000 touring cars allow 4, 5 and 6 cylinder engines FWIW, with different rev limits.

[djos]

There is something in what you say but the future direction is fuel 'efficiency' and a 5.8 liter pushrod V8 is about as far from that as it is possible to go, no matter what fuel is used.

My point was using Bio-Fuels made from waste goes a long way to getting greenies on-side based on the Aussie V8 SuperCar Experience (and they are 5.0ltr not 5.8 ).

If you go back a bit AG you'll see that im all for turbo I4 at 1.6 litres in displacement providing they are free to innovate within 2 strict finacial budgets - an engine materials cost budget of say $200k each inc turbos and an overall Dev budget for say 10 Million per year on engines for the OEM.

Reliability is sooo boring, I want an engine bill of materials ceiling (eg manufacturing cost max of $200,000 each = $4 million for an entire 20 race season) including turbos, 1 engine per weekend and development freedom within an overall development budget cap of say $10 or $20 million per year regardless of how many customers an Engine maker has.

The only other condition I would apply aside from capacity (1.6ltr or 1.8ltr doesn't bother me), is a smallish maximum size fuel tank that forces the teams down a path of maximum efficiency at the same time.

The engine companies would have to be setup independently of the teams and run under strict financial supervision but imo it's workable.

I know I'm dreaming but I just wish the F1 teams could be more creative in their approach - I miss the excitement of turbo motors on the absolute edge with huge horsepower as they where in the 80's!

[WhiteBlue]

It is difficult to follow your incentives from post to post WB, is it reducing energy with a "green"-agenda, which you denied earlier, or is it reducing downforce? If the latter, eliminate the front wing, if the former, reduce fuelflow.

My motivation is simply to achieve the same racing performance and entertainment with the highest fuel efficiency that can be achieved by good technology in electrical, mechanical and aerodynamic engineering. If you can reach a target by using better technology and higher efficiency then it makes no sense to burn more fuel in the first place. In some years we will be using LED light only instead of glow wire or neon because it is more efficient. Why should this not also apply to F1.

Regarding high downforce I'm of two minds. On one side you need a certain downforce at medium speeds to achieve performance on the other side you want to reduce drag which is an obstacle to overtaking. A formula which achieves 12% drag reduction and 25% fuel reduction for the same performance would be a good start. The target of the FiA is to reduce fuel consumption even more to 50% and that will require deeper cuts into drag forces.

Similar as the resource restrictions it is probably better to make those changes gradually. It is important in my view to set the correct incentives for the engineers to follow the efficiency philosophy for the next concord period in the years 2013-2017. They will be automatically realizing further efficiency opportunities in engine design, regeneration and drag reduction the more they get rewarded by a competitive advantage for doing it.

[agip]

a total noob question:

what's the percentage of downforce produced by wings and floor in 2010 and what's the FiA aiming for 2013?

I know the rumors say that they will increase ground-effect and decrease wings, but how much each?

[747heavy]

how about a slightly different approach to engine design?




http://www.new4stroke.com/

[strad]

Why in the hell would we want to run alcohol? On the one hand you talk about efficiency then you talk of alcohol..about half the available energy and you still make greenhouse gases.

[ringo]

how about a slightly different approach to engine design?




http://www.new4stroke.com/

The centre of gravitiy must be by the driver's head.

[ringo]

I think it's best refueling is introduce, if we really want to save fuel.
The weight of the vehicle is the cheapest and most direct way of saving fuel.
The minimum weight however is increased from the previous regulations.

50cc/s is a good enough fuel flow for the first year. If they feel the need to adjust that for 2014 they can. It's best they take a conservative approach to all these changes.

My ideal configuration would be hydrogen fuel cell power gas turbine, or LNG gas turbine integrated to an electric motor and KERS and HERS system.
The gas turbine is more efficient at a certain speed and also has a high power density.

It seems as if someone else is considering it:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589

[747heavy]

The centre of gravitiy must be by the driver's head.

just mount it 90° tilted to one side, that should not be the biggest problem

[WhiteBlue]

I think it's best refueling is introduce, if we really want to save fuel.
The weight of the vehicle is the cheapest and most direct way of saving fuel.
The minimum weight however is increased from the previous regulations.

50cc/s is a good enough fuel flow for the first year. If they feel the need to adjust that for 2014 they can. It's best they take a conservative approach to all these changes.

My ideal configuration would be hydrogen fuel cell power gas turbine, or LNG gas turbine integrated to an electric motor and KERS and HERS system.
The gas turbine is more efficient at a certain speed and also has a high power density.

It seems as if someone else is considering it:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589

Introducing refueling would increase the cost significantly and sets the wrong incentives. Sporting wise we would loose low fuel qualifying which would be a crying shame. I haven't enjoyed qualifying as much as I have this year for a very long time. It is a real fight with all stops pulled out as it should be. No Toyota show boating with a Trulli train to follow.

I would be interested to know how you power a gas turbine with a fuel cell. A fuel cell is supposed to produce electricity which is useless to run a turbine IMO.

The pitpass link is seven month old and turbines have reportedly long been discarded as an option by the engine working group. They may be a neat idea to achieve high power to weight ratio but so far nobody has managed to build one that isn't a total gas guzzler.

[ringo]

Refueling is not expensive.
It definitely doesn't need tens of millions of dollars of R&D. The perfectly working fueling machines of 2009 are probably sitting down somewhere rotting away.

All the FIA need to do is have a standard fuel rig like how they have a standard tyre. Problem solved.
A fuel rig is nothing compared to any of the technologies that you mentioned. A rig is basically a pump with a controller. Shipping costs are another trivial issue. If they want low consumption and emissions reintroduction of refueling is the cheapest solution. The qualifying format can be low fuel qualifying just the same, you just chose your starting fuel weight; this is another matter though.

Refueling does not set the wrong incentive. The incentive is reduced consumption through weight.
What would you rather? Put a month's worth of fuel in you green road car making heavy and cumbersome, or refuel it once a week and have a light car that puts less load on the engine? The same logic applies to F1. A short fueled car is faster and lighter and puts less load on the engine and tyres. If you want less drag you can have a smaller tank to help that. Weight saving is one of the fundamental pillars of fuel efficiency, and has a direct application to road cars.


About the fuel cell, i am speaking of liquefied gas or liquefied hydrogen.
i see what you are reffering to though this right?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy8dzOB-Ykg[/youtube]

i was reffering to combustion of hydrogen:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjWCXD4P3XQ[/youtube]
this can be done with fuel mix.
A gas turbine is more efficient at higher speeds, it's the low speeds that give the lag and fuel problem.
However my solution uses batteries and an electric motor that drive the gearbox whenever the Turbine is under it's operational speed.
A piston engine cannot compare to a gas turbine in any metric. If we really want to push the bounds of technology, F1 has to follow the path of aeronautical industry; dump the pistons and reach for the turbines.
We will still have the wow factor in terms of the sound and acceleration and the cars would gain power with speed. There are also more opportunities to scavenge heat energy off of a gas turbine.

[autogyro]

Why does a sensible road car with a reasonable range have to have anything other than an electric power train? The problems with the energy infra structure CAN be overcome.
F1 should follow this inevitable development direction and not be delayed by turbines, hydrogen ideas and other pointless technologies that come from vested interest.

Inline four cylinder, turbocharged, reciprocating ice coupled to a hybrid system in the form of KERS is the only logical first step towrds fuel efficient F1.

However it will only work and develop with a set amount of fuel and set downforce level.

[WhiteBlue]

Btw, the late Intertechnique refuelling system was standardized from day one (1994) in Formula1.

Piston engines drive ships, tanks, road and race cars more efficiently than turbines. Turbines are right for aviation only.

You obviously do not have the same cost understanding as FOTA which banned refueling due to transportation and personnel at race track cost. The more you allow to refuel the more fuel will get wasted because there is no competitive disadvantage from carrying it. So I see no point to discuss with you about the incentive and cost aspects. I let you have your opinion.

[ringo]

You sure piton engines are more efficient?
I wonder why they don't use them in aircraft or modern power stations then.
Turbines by themselves have a weakness when it comes to low engine speed, this may happen in a turn or braking areas.
However you are ignoring the fact that i mentioned that they could be coupled to an electrical system.
Turbines are not less efficient that Piston engines, they have less moving parts and are far more reliable, they also have much higher power density and much lower weight.


Trust me refueling is not as expensive as you make it out to be. definitely not as much as the systems you mentioned.
transportation costs? personell? Come on man, that's a poor excuse to ignore fuel saving benefits of refueling.

How many tyres do you think Bridgestone transport every race? Do you know how much volume and mass 15 tyres per driver take up versus 12 fuelling cabinets?
Why is no one complaining about tyre logistics?
If you have a dedicated fuel pump provider, such as bridgestone provides tyres, your costs will be greatly reduced. Logistics is the last thing the FIA should think about if it comes to saving fuel.
You are avoiding the fact that having a car considerably lighter than one loaded up with all kinds of energy systems, that take years and millions of dollars and countless engineers, will be more efficient.

If you compare how much fuel it takes to accelerate a car of a given weight and the energy required to stop it compared to a car with half as much fuel you will see what I am getting at.
Lower weight is a no brainier.