A simple fuel-flow formula?

[xpensive]

What if the WMSC had just gone with a 40 or 45 cc/second fuel-flow formula, left everything else free,
I wonder what we might have seen on the grid in 2013? Not totally convinved they'd be all I4 turbos.

[747heavy]

a (gas)turbine + KERS perhaps

BTW, that would be the "perfect engineering rule" - IMHO, plus the necessary safety rules + crash tests, nothing more is really needed.
Another way would be to demand a max. weight (let´s say 450kg), race ready (incl. fuel)
I would love to see F1 going this way, but have little hope they ever will.

[Mystery Steve]

Maybe I'm mistaken (very possible considering I'm not an engine guy), but if you set a mandatory fuel flow would the "optimal" design then converge on a single engine displacement?

Assuming that is true, would there be an optimal configuration from the perspective of using the fuel most efficiently (i.e. maximizing the ratio of increased vehicle kinetic energy to chemical energy of the fuel that is used)? Or would it be a trade off between having a high impulse torque engine (higher revs/shorter stroke) vs. "sustained" torque engine (lower revs/longer stroke)?

[WhiteBlue]

What if the WMSC had just gone with a 40 or 45 cc/second fuel-flow formula, left everything else free,
I wonder what we might have seen on the grid in 2013? Not totally convinved they'd be all I4 turbos.

Source F1F: It’s interesting that you say Formula 1 shouldn’t be “lagging behind” in some respects. Historically Formula 1 hasn’t had that problem because the regulations were free and allowed people to pursue what they wanted, like in the Chapman era. But now it seems that embracing new technology has to happen through the regulations to contain costs.

MG: And that’s the interesting balance. The new regulations are not devised to spend money, they are devised to increased innovation.

I hope they are successful and, to go back to your point, we all hope that no-one runs away with the ball and Formula 1 remains highly competitive between multiple teams.

Gallagher is right about this issue. It would only take some years and more money for all to come to the same solution anyway. This is a very complex situation with a lot of different requirements to balance out for the rule makers. I think they did a good job so far.

[xpensive]

...
Gallagher is right about this issue. It would only take some years and more money for all to come to the same solution anyway.
...

Is that so, amazing, guess we should ask the moderator to lock this thread then?

[Caito]

A fuel flow rule would have to be well written. Else teams would do things like keep constant 45cc/s and inject part of it to the engine, and part of it to another thank.

They would then use the other tank(filled while braking, coasting, pit stop, etc) to have more than 45cc/s.

And that kind of things f1 engineers like to do.

[WhiteBlue]

...
Gallagher is right about this issue. It would only take some years and more money for all to come to the same solution anyway.
...

Is that so, amazing, guess we should ask the moderator to lock this thread then?

Let me elaborate a bit more. You propose to discuss an alternative scenario which the F1 expert commission eliminated very early and very quickly. I will try to explain why the scenario was rejected in the real world and let that be my contribution to this thread. It is the decision of the members if they want to discuss a hypothetical scenario further.

The expert commission had to balance the objectives and requirements of various stake holders who are represented in the decision making bodies F1commission and FiA WMSC. If the requirements were not sufficiently met the proposed solution would be rejected. So they automatically steered very early towards concepts that received broad support.

The teams have a decisive majority in the F1commission and they all have very hard criteria to be met:

• Keep the cost low.
• Avoid a run away success for one engine manufacturer.
• They want a solution which leaves the majority of the success factors for a championship winning car in the hand of the chassis constructor.

They have seen that the engine freeze more or less delivered such a solution to them. They could simply stall a new formula and keep the old one if the new solution did not meet the same criteria.

A formula libre with fuel restrictions was compared to a turbo charged engine loosely based on the GRE concept but different in some execution parameters. I think that the expert group quickly realized that a formula libre could not be tweaked to meet the criteria of the teams. There would be too much incentive to diversify initially and then quickly focus on the most successful development in the following years. That process is costly, creates the run away perspective for the best manufacturer and negates the superiority of the chassis design.

It would be easier to tweak the GRE concept and remove some of it's restrictions to get on common ground. There would be some resistance by Ferrari for marketing purposes but practically all other decision makers could live with a tweaked GRE. In the end they decided to fix the L4 config, the displacement and the bore just above the GRE spec and split the project into stages of the core engine for 2013 and the advanced turbo options for 2014. That way some cost aspects would be addressed and a certain technical development in the following year would be maintained. The formula also has the inherent option to restrict the fuel flow further in 2015-2017 to open new development steps. Thus the sterility of a total freeze is avoided. The solution also includes a separate new RRA for all engine manufacturers which is still being hammered out. According to Cosworth the resource control will involve audits by KPMG commissioned by the FiA and under FiA authority.

The selected solution may not look so convincing to outsiders but at close inspection it meets the requirement of the majority of the decision makers much better than a formula libre could have done. The attraction lies in the political fit for a complex negotiation situation and not in the fascination of free development. The new formula brings a lot of innovation compared to the V8s, meets the fuel efficiency objectives of the FiA and maintains relative cost and technical stability.

[xpensive]

I could obviously not disagree more, only twenty years ago when the turbos were banned, it resulted in a fantastic variety of interpretations of the 3.5 liter formula, V8s, V10s and V12s, all with different layouts, it took the FIA to ban everything but V10s for the engineers to concur on one format. Just the way things should be if you ask me.

I am certain that a simple fuel-flow limit would trigger a never seen creativity among the engineers, while giving back some technical and marketing incentive to integrate the development of an F1 engine in the general such of the manufacturer.

The idea that engineers of the world would rapidly home in on a common concept is to my mind complete nonsense, in a perfect world perhaps, but luckily we do not live in a such. If that was the case, all production cars would be the same wouldn't they?

I happen to believe that a 1.6 turbo I4 would not prove to be the preferred xecution, evertything taken into account.

[autogyro]

It would be great.
Ferrari could build a large capacity V12 and take their rightful position, Last.

[riff_raff]

xpensive,

If there were a fuel flow limit, with other engine regulations open, the engines would be low revving, large displacement, and turbocharged. Such an engine would give the best combination of power, efficiency, weight and packaging. But it would likely be a V6, and not an I4, due to chassis layout requirements.

Also, the fuel flow rate would probably be based on mass, and not on volume.

riff_raff

[xpensive]

I agree that would be one logical way, but the interesting thing would be to behold the diversity and how marketing
incentives plays in, where some might be more likely to go multicylinder, others more inclined on larger volume, etc.

But taking everything into account, installation complexity and all, are you certain that turbo be the way to go?

I don't see mass- or volume-flow as overly critical, mass is complex to measure as well as control,
while temperature's influence on density not that dramatic and should be equal for all anyway?

[WhiteBlue]

I could obviously not disagree more, only twenty years ago when the turbos were banned, it resulted in a fantastic variety of interpretations of the 3.5 liter formula, V8s, V10s and V12s, all with different layouts, it took the FIA to ban everything but V10s for the engineers to concur on one format. Just the way things should be if you ask me.

Let me point out a slight inaccuracy in your version of the history. 1995 was the first year of the 3.0L NA formula. It took F1 just one year to find out that V10 was the way to go. In 1996 only the tail end charlies Footwork and Minardi ran a V8. The rest was completely on V10 without any interference of the FiA. In 1998 all engines were V10.

1995 - 14 teams - 1 x V12 - 6 x V10 - 7 x V8
1996 - 11 teams - 9 x V10 - 2 x V8
1997 - 12 teams - 9 x V10 - 3 x V8
1998 - 11 teams - 11 x V10

So much for the theory that you do not have an automatic convergence to the successful engine format in modern F1.

[WhiteBlue]

If there were a fuel flow limit, with other engine regulations open, the engines would be low revving, large displacement, and turbocharged. Such an engine would give the best combination of power, efficiency, weight and packaging. But it would likely be a V6, and not an I4, due to chassis layout requirements.

With turbo allowed and a fuel flow limit resulting to around 100 kg race fuel - as the FiA announced - displacement and rpm would still go down to 1.5L. A V6 would not have a chance in a formula libre unless it is mandatory. We would probably see V4, L4 and L3 configurations and my money would be on an L3 with the least moving parts and a naturally better balance than an L4 to be the convergence winner.

[747heavy]

I will try to explain why the scenario was rejected in the real world and let that be my contribution to this thread.

Hey WB, your New Years resolutions, did not last all that long - what happen?

Happy New Year !!

And in your last statement you just admitted, that the new F1 engine formula, is not about technical progress, it´s just about the smallest common denominator and a handy format for marketing purpose.
It´s a shame really, good intention (limiting the use of resources), very bad excecution, from an engineering PoV.

[WhiteBlue]

Hey WB, your New Years resolutions, did not last all that long - what happen?

Happy New Year !!

And in your last statement you just admitted, that the new F1 engine formula, is not about technical progress, it´s just about the smallest common denominator and a handy format for marketing purpose.
It´s a shame really, good intention (limiting the use of resources), very bad excecution, from an engineering PoV.

A happy new year to all at F1T!!

@747heavy!
I was hoping that me elaboration would provide a suitable explanation why the proposed formula libre did not happen. As it turns out further posts were made that contained what I would call fundamental misrepresentations and some hypotheses on engine specification. I took the liberty to comment on those inaccuracies, post the facts and my view on alternative specs. Your comment about the 2013 regulation is actually a bit OT here, so I will not comment in this thread but where it belongs.

If I examine my own preferences I would actually prefer a formula libre if it meets the the strong fuel restrictions of the FiA. On the other hand I'm too much of a realist to overlook the facts that have lead the rule makers to dismiss such a formula. I have written enough about the political forces that formed the decision and nothing really needs to be added from my side to that.