What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[Pingguest]

Totally agree as Cosworth does.

However, Cosworth wants the costs to stay down. On the short term a fuel consumption limit could make manufactures to detune their engines and thus increase the engine life span, but would it keep costs down on the long term?

Tim Routsis apparently thinks so. One would have to continue a strict resource restriction policy for engines like they do for chassis. But AFAIK that is already in place.

The resource restriction was agreed by the teams and manufactures, but it's not a part of the regulations. Newcomers don't have the obligation to apply. If it would become a part of the regulation, it would become very difficult to enforce.

[WhiteBlue]

1.6 liters at 10 kRpm should yield more than 800 Hp at 2.0 Bar boost, why there must be some fuel- or boost-limitation?

The 150 hp gap is the pot of gold for the developers who manage to increase their efficiency. They can increase rpm or boost to the legal limits which others can't due to lack of fuel. You can enjoy a power advantage until the the competition has found out what you have done. I guess they will not drop the fuel limits within one season. So we can still see competitive advantages being pursued.

[autogyro]

It is absolutely crucial that these new regulations are carefuly drafted.
IMO this is the most important time in the history of F1 relating to its future.
Up until now regulations have been motivated by economics and vested interest in performance ic technology/politics.
This is no longer the main motivating force.

[ACRO]

They can increase rpm or boost to the legal limits which others can't due to lack of fuel. You can enjoy a power advantage until the the competition has found out what you have done.

i,m afraid it will not happen so. i guess they will all go exactly the permitted boost and rpm and all engines will have nearly the same output. fia will surely indicate engine dimensions ( bore x stroke) , electronics etc. that will definitvly not be an open tubocharged era class like the 80,s .

the engine may degrade just to a powerplant that has to do the job without being focused- to produce lets say 650 hp. all engines in the filed will do exactly the same, i bet.

or even one step further- fia will rule a standart engine by one supplier.

[autogyro]

They can increase rpm or boost to the legal limits which others can't due to lack of fuel. You can enjoy a power advantage until the the competition has found out what you have done.

i,m afraid it will not happen so. i guess they will all go exactly the permitted boost and rpm and all engines will have nearly the same output. fia will surely indicate engine dimensions ( bore x stroke) , electronics etc. that will definitvly not be an open tubocharged era class like the 80,s .

the engine may degrade just to a powerplant that has to do the job without being focused- to produce lets say 650 hp. all engines in the filed will do exactly the same, i bet.

or even one step further- fia will rule a standart engine by one supplier.

If those drafting the regulations do as you say, F1 will rapidly decline after the rules come into force.
There will be no comparison to the open turbo era of the 80's. There cannot be with sensible fuel amount restrictions.
Fuel efficiency increases result in two things, more power and longer range on the fuel allowed. If drafted correctly, F1 will encourage engine development to the ultimate potential of the ic engine and also develop rapidly KERS and HERS systems with direct relevence to road vehicles and our environmental demands.
Nothing else is going to be acceptable.

[godlameroso]

The new formula would be very appealing to other manufacturers. Manufacturers who have never even though about F1 can use their 4 cyl designs and test them out, become engine suppliers.

With 28 psi, or 2 bar you can produce roughly 680ish hp, but you wouldn't hit full boost until ~4,800 - 5,200rpm, that leaves you with roughly 5,000rpm worth of usable power band. Compare that to today's F1 cars that have grunt all the way from 8,000 - 18,000 rpm, that's double the power band. The only advantage to using a turbo is the additional torque, luckily turbo technology has advanced to the point that the torque produced at full boost isn't sudden and can actually be modulated with throttle control.

If KERS can be used to help spool the turbo so that it has full boost by 2,000rpm then you would have 8,000rpm with a flat torque curve, you could also use KERS to account for the lack of torque off boost. This could open up some interesting strategies: do you use all your KERS to maintain a responsive power band to help you negotiate the twisty stuff, and run out when you need some extra power on the straights? Or on the other hand, do you take your chances with a higher risk of spinning due to the turbo kicking in violently, so that you can use KERS to boost your straight line speed?

Slightly off topic, but remember the Diesels in LMP1, the reason the Diesels destroy the petrol cars isn't because the Diesels have more top end power, it's because the diesels have power everywhere. They produce maximum torque at 1,500rpm, granted they only rev to 5,400rpm, but they can come out of turns even at 2,000rpm and still have 750lb/ft of torque to get them on their merry way. And since there is virtually no lag, power can be metered accordingly to maximize speed and traction exiting corners.

[Pingguest]

The only advantage to using a turbo is the additional torque, luckily turbo technology has advanced to the point that the torque produced at full boost isn't sudden and can actually be modulated with throttle control.

That will depend on the regulations regarding the ECU. It's foreseeable that traction control will be re-legalized additionally.

[tok-tokkie]

The single, most sensible rule is limiting the mass of fuel available for each race. And that fuel is a controlled spec fuel (ie. methanol, ethanol. etc.). With no other engine rules. This would result in each engine design naturally being optimized for the best efficiency.

With a fixed amount of energy available for each race, every part of the car would need to be optimized for efficiency. Aero, suspension, transmission, tires, engine, etc. It would be the perfect set of rules. It would provide equality, yet also provide technological freedom.

What do you think?

riff_raff

That, to me, would be the first prize. I would also like some control on the money so that ingenious low funded enterprises have a chance. I disliked the money war.

[WhiteBlue]

If KERS can be used to help spool the turbo so that it has full boost by 2,000rpm then you would have 8,000rpm with a flat torque curve, you could also use KERS to account for the lack of torque off boost. This could open up some interesting strategies: do you use all your KERS to maintain a responsive power band to help you negotiate the twisty stuff, and run out when you need some extra power on the straights? Or on the other hand, do you take your chances with a higher risk of spinning due to the turbo kicking in violently, so that you can use KERS to boost your straight line speed?

You are describing only one side of hybrid turbo charging. Yes e-boosting the turbo to have instant response and an almost flat torque curve is one advantage. The other advantage would be turbo compounding the exhaust for maximum energy extraction. You obviously have the chance not only to take the bit of energy out that you need for the boost compressor. You would have the chance to extract as much energy as you can to go all the way down from 900°C close to ambient temperature. I do not know if that is really feasible but I have read that commercial diesel engines already do such things. That kind of HERS would be quite attractive due to relatively low weight compared to the BMW proposal of two additional Rankine cycles.

Once you have a huge high power battery in your car you might as well take advantage of it to have longer electric assisted acceleration phase. If you think about it, it would not even be the most efficient system. You could also feed the electric power from the turbo compounding immediately to the electric front and rear wheel motors without the need to store it at all. Yet another variation would be a two spool hybrid turbo compounder immediately attached to the engine. One spool would feed working power directly to the crank shaft and the second would run a generator. The second spool electric power would mainly provide the power for the compressor but any surplus would be soaked up by the battery.

While I like very much the Cosworth philosophy of total freedom of the engine with only fuel limitation as the formula constraints I'm afraid that the working group will not go down that path. The haggling over the engine layout and displacement has shown that they are not inclined to go down that path. Hence I am convinced that a standardized computer control of the power train should be retained into the new formula. It would guarantee that all the rules of max fuel flow, max boost pressure, max rpm limitation, no launch control, no ABS and no ESP are properly observed. It would also open the chance to have proper dual torque with the electric drive working all the time instead of the activation by the KERS button. That would reduce the requirements on the battery capacity and improve weight.

[ringo]

IMO it will have little if any effect on the majority of F1 TV viewers.
It will of course depend on how the new formula is sold to the general viewing public by the media.
Ringo could use a road Toyota turbo even but unfortunately his cars would run out of fuel just after half race distance, so no point realy.

Well if a race goes to half distance because of poor conditions now.

My statement was just to demonstrate how attainable the performance is. The engine speed was the holy grail of F1, you just cant get up one day and say you're going to build an 18,000rpm engine.
A 10,000rpm engine now, you go to the right suppliers and consultants and you may be able to develope an engine for a fraction of this 100 million euros.
Many companies in europe such as pankl, have the capability. Direct injection is another matter, but existing systems could be applied.
BMW did this in the 80's with the M12 engine, history can repeat itself.

IMO F1 needs to keep itself on another level performance wise. There will be a divide in the efficiency of these specialized engines and other cheap imitators such as my proposed engine , because of engine management, but this is mainly based on the engineering talent and the fluids suppliers. Engine management might play a greater role in 2013 than the simple little engines themselves.
It will be a battle of the systems and control engineers. The physical engine will use the usual technologies like light weight low friction components, advanced tribology, cylinder head design, (not sure if pneumatic valvle spring will be retained). All in all i think the teams will all reach the exact same level engine design wise, but it's the fuel, boost, temperature manage that will make the difference.
It's a tough sell to the viewers, but we got to wait and see. I will notice that the cars are moving and turning in slower and being much easier to control; but i guess it can still work.

[Pingguest]

Personally I doubt that a standardized ECU is absolutely necessary to enforce the ban on driver aids. It worth mentioning that in WTCC the driver aid ban is successfully enforced without standardizing the electronics.

[ringo]

If KERS can be used to help spool the turbo so that it has full boost by 2,000rpm then you would have 8,000rpm with a flat torque curve, you could also use KERS to account for the lack of torque off boost. This could open up some interesting strategies: do you use all your KERS to maintain a responsive power band to help you negotiate the twisty stuff, and run out when you need some extra power on the straights? Or on the other hand, do you take your chances with a higher risk of spinning due to the turbo kicking in violently, so that you can use KERS to boost your straight line speed?

You are describing only one side of hybrid turbo charging. Yes e-boosting the turbo to have instant response and an almost flat torque curve is one advantage. The other advantage would be turbo compounding the exhaust for maximum energy extraction. You obviously have the chance not only to take the bit of energy out that you need for the boost compressor. You would have the chance to extract as much energy as you can to go all the way down from 900°C close to ambient temperature. I do not know if that is really feasible but I have read that commercial diesel engines already do such things. That kind of HERS would be quite attractive due to relatively low weight compared to the BMW proposal of two additional Rankine cycles.

Once you have a huge high power battery in your car you might as well take advantage of it to have longer electric assisted acceleration phase. If you think about it, it would not even be the most efficient system. You could also feed the electric power from the turbo compounding immediately to the electric front and rear wheel motors without the need to store it at all. Yet another variation would be a two spool hybrid turbo compounder immediately attached to the engine. One spool would feed working power directly to the crank shaft and the second would run a generator. The second spool electric power would mainly provide the power for the compressor but any surplus would be soaked up by the battery.

How light will you car be?
That's a lot of motors you got there. The front wheel motors may be a safety issue. Motors of high torque and power capacities tend to have big diameters as well.
multiple turbo chargers and their generator motors, the piping and oil and water systems. Control solenoids and wiring.
HERS heat exchangers and solenoids, refrigerants, valves etc.
Considerable weight addition for all those technologies.

What's the recovered power capacity per Kg of equipment weight?
And what effects on centre of gravity, moments of inertai, packaging, aerodynamics.
And how will the low budget teams cope?

[WhiteBlue]

How light will you car be?
That's a lot of motors you got there. The front wheel motors may be a safety issue. Motors of high torque and power capacities tend to have big diameters as well.
multiple turbo chargers and their generator motors, the piping and oil and water systems. Control solenoids and wiring.
HERS heat exchangers and solenoids, refrigerants, valves etc.
Considerable weight addition for all those technologies.

What's the recovered power capacity per Kg of equipment weight?
And what effects on centre of gravity, moments of inertai, packaging, aerodynamics.
And how will the low budget teams cope?

HERS with turbo compounding would have no primary heat exchangers. The electric MGUs and inverters would be water cooled and would use standard water radiators.

Almost all of these questions have been discussed in the thread "Impact of unlimited KERS on chassis design"
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8819&start=60

Since we had those discussions it transpired that the 2013 chassis will have much more forward positioned side pots. Those could be used to house the bulk of the front KERS equipment such as power electronics and batteries.

Today the KERS equipment has a specific weight of 0.875 kg/MJ energy recovered during the race. I hope that they will reduce this substantially over the next 30 month to perhaps 0.65 kg/MJ and that the weight diet will continue over the years. Going to true dual torque would help reducing the battery capacity required for storing the total harvested lap energy. The energy could be expended at the next acceleration and the storage capacity for 2 .2 MJ/lap system could perhaps go down to 1 MJ. This could perhaps bring the specific weight down to even 0.53 kg/MJ.

[ACRO]

guys, i will not afraid you but when yout think twice, with the new turbo era fia will finally quit any technologocal battle in engine design.

in the 80,s we had turbos with just the displacement and maximum boost dictated by fia. the revs were free, the choice of how many cylinders also, the whole engine design ( bore, stroke diameters, cylinder spacing , cylider heads...) was free. it was a real battle when all tried to push higher and higher revs AND turbocharging.

the strengts of the materials used was the limit, thats why we had such incredible power outputs in the qualifying when the engine had to withstand the massive boost and rpms just some minutes. you can say it was a gas turbine with power takeoff to the wheels via the crankshaft...

now its a totally different game !

when fia dictates the max boost ( and bet they will!!!), the numers of cylinders , the diameter of cyliders ( like they do now...) and a rev limiter the engine designers has NO option to be better of worse than others. everybody has to design the same core engine, and surprise surprise, every engine will produce the same power when boosted the same and operated at the same rev...

and a nowaday 1,6 litre turbo is far not at the end of its mechanical possibilities when it generates 650hp.

fia only needs informations what boost at what rev is needed for reaching lets say the talked 650hp and so they will set the rules at thatlike. period.

further, they have the full option of a nearly direct control of the power of the entire field by setting new boost limits when they want to. standart electronics will give full support in control that the boost and revs are kept by all.

like i said- dont expect an open technological battle in the engine design! forget turbo compound systems and much more.

the cars will have enough power to make challanging racing, and fia surely thinks that the "normal" spectator wants to see exact that and is not interested from how many cylinders, which boost and what displacement this happens.

i tell you- at the new turbo era the engine will become an efficient, cheap and by fia fully controllable powerplant which is not a highlight anymore but simply does the 650hp job in all cars.

it will be not the same monsters of the 80,s

[747heavy]

I think you have some valid points ARCO.
Unfortunately, they choose a very expensive way to make ~650hp
I would be nice if they did not force a higher minimum weight on competitors, so we can have a competition between KERS and no-KERS on more equal terms.
Now, they want to promote efficency by KERS, and then use the re-gained energy to push a much heavier car around the track. Not the most efficient way IMHO.
If the technology is mature enough, it should be able to compete on equal lower weight terms. Let's reduce minimum weight by 100 kg and keep all the safety/crash tests or even increase them.
Not much good in being forced to carry xx kg ballast weight around, all the time.
The mindset of bring back KERS and increase the weight is flawed - IMHO, and shows the limitations of the KERS technology at this point in time.