Idea's for the next engine formula

[MOWOG]

I am a strong advocate of the tri-turbo Y-9!

[n_anirudh]

Why not multi stage turbochargers at some point? Maybe vortex based energy recovery system

[FoxHound]

I don't get your point. The idea of the formula would be to ditch most of the powertrain regulations in favour of a power limit enforced at the wheels.

And me, I'm fully in favour of what you state.
What I ask is this, who bears the onus?

I want merc/ferrari/Honda to come in and smash some brick wall that has thus far eluded common convention.
But, the onus aint on these guys to do that.
And if anyone is reading clearly that means the dudes on the ground haven't been pushed far enough due to ...wait for it...regulations.

[feni_remmen]

I really liked the idea of the current engine with unlimited energy recovery with unlimited electrical power, but listening to all the complaints about noise, the FIA should mandate the following;
500kw pump fuel naturally aspirated engines, open exhaust and totally open electrical assist and regen!
The Noise will be insanely loud and + power will be insane!

[Tim.Wright]

I don't get your point. The idea of the formula would be to ditch most of the powertrain regulations in favour of a power limit enforced at the wheels.

And me, I'm fully in favour of what you state.
What I ask is this, who bears the onus?

I want merc/ferrari/Honda to come in and smash some brick wall that has thus far eluded common convention.
But, the onus aint on these guys to do that.
And if anyone is reading clearly that means the dudes on the ground haven't been pushed far enough due to ...wait for it...regulations.

Ah I get you. Yea well I have thought about that and the answer isn't pretty...

The only people with a budget to seriously have a crack at such a formula are the large OEM's and they (or any large multinational company) do not have the culture to move quickly to find a functional optimum. They do not work well in environments where things are so open that they have no control over the solution. They are happy in their current situation. Mercedes like to use F1 to prove that turbo hybrids are the optimum solution. Audi use Le Mans to prove that diesels are the optimum solution. And they all pump millions into advertising to push these facts.

The reality is that, if there are no rules except the laws of physics, the optimum could well turn out to be something else. How inconvenient would it be for Audi if the "optimum" solution was not a diesel? How silly would the Tesla look if the "optimum" turned out to be something other than full electric?

Such a series would need to start small from a group of (f-ing rich) enthusiasts and be extremely well managed to avoid the OEM's coming in and bribing the series to make the rules favour their solution like what has happened in F1 and endurance racing.

The setup in endurance racing irks me the most. They have the illusion of having more open rules than F1 but in reality, the VW group (via Audi and Porsche) have the series by the balls. They said, right we want to win Le Mans with a diesel (otherwise we f--k of and leave you with a field of 2 cars) - so the rules were made to favour diesels. Then they all partied like mad when they got "the first Le Mans win by a diesel engine" 2006. Then they decided they wanted to win with a hybrid - so they pushed the governing body to favour hybrids and in 2012 they all went nuts as they took "the first victory for a hybrid in Le Mans". I like endurance racing but these political "set-ups" makes me vomit in my mouth...

The other difficult thing would be to find a way to adequately govern the safety of the cars with such different powertrains, but I think this problem could be overcome, albiet with a lot of knowledge - perhaps by homologating safey restrictions for a number of different technologies. For example, nuclear powered cars would be allowed - but their powertrain would have to be enclosed in a 500mm thick box of steel reinforced concrete therefore it will not be seriously considered.

It would be a massive massive job, but sadly, as you suggest, it is in nobodys interest at the moment to do this at the moment.

[MOWOG]

I want merc/ferrari/Honda to come in and smash some brick wall that has thus far eluded common convention.

Someone did that once. His name was Andy Granitelli and he showed up at Indy one year with a turbine powered, 4 wheel drive car that smashed lots and lots of brick walls. His creation was promptly outlawed. Yet a few years later, Colin Chapman brought his itty bitty, rear engine Lotus along with Jim Clark to the Brickyard to compete against the behemoth, front engine Offenhauser cars and changed Indy racing overnight. Why was his brick wall busting creation NOT banned when Granitelli's was?

Personally, I quite enjoyed Formula One when Ferrari and Lamborghini raced 12 cylinder cars against the mighty Cosworths. It was exciting to be trackside and know which cars were coming next by the different sound of their exhausts. I liked that BRM could create an H-16 if they felt like it. Or that Alfa Romeo could try their hand at V-8's even if they never were competitive. The notion that some race car designer/builder could chance upon an idea that would smash the status quo, as Granitelli and Chapman did, is quite appealing. Jim Hall probably belongs in that group as well, as he ushered in the era of winged race cars, for better or worse.

But as much as the thought of innovation excites us, as race fans, do we want a series where any car on the grid can reach the podium or are we happy to see one team driving off into the middle distance at the start and finishing 2 laps ahead of the field? If we want Door A, we get spec racing. If we want Door B, we get Vettel winning 7 WDC's in a row.

We say we want transformative technology that disrupts conventional thinking. But do we really?

[langwadt]

I want merc/ferrari/Honda to come in and smash some brick wall that has thus far eluded common convention.

Someone did that once. His name was Andy Granitelli and he showed up at Indy one year with a turbine powered, 4 wheel drive car that smashed lots and lots of brick walls. His creation was promptly outlawed. Yet a few years later, Colin Chapman brought his itty bitty, rear engine Lotus along with Jim Clark to the Brickyard to compete against the behemoth, front engine Offenhauser cars and changed Indy racing overnight. Why was his brick wall busting creation NOT banned when Granitelli's was?

Personally, I quite enjoyed Formula One when Ferrari and Lamborghini raced 12 cylinder cars against the mighty Cosworths. It was exciting to be trackside and know which cars were coming next by the different sound of their exhausts. I liked that BRM could create an H-16 if they felt like it. Or that Alfa Romeo could try their hand at V-8's even if they never were competitive. The notion that some race car designer/builder could chance upon an idea that would smash the status quo, as Granitelli and Chapman did, is quite appealing. Jim Hall probably belongs in that group as well, as he ushered in the era of winged race cars, for better or worse.

But as much as the thought of innovation excites us, as race fans, do we want a series where any car on the grid can reach the podium or are we happy to see one team driving off into the middle distance at the start and finishing 2 laps ahead of the field? If we want Door A, we get spec racing. If we want Door B, we get Vettel winning 7 WDC's in a row.

We say we want transformative technology that disrupts conventional thinking. But do we really?

the "problem" is that now all the team can fire up their computer do a few simulation and they know pretty much what
the optimal configuration is.
People are already complaining about the sound of the new engines, imagine if they left the rules open and they all showed up with four cylinder at half the RPM of the the current engines because that was the optimum

[theTTshark]

I want merc/ferrari/Honda to come in and smash some brick wall that has thus far eluded common convention.

Someone did that once. His name was Andy Granitelli and he showed up at Indy one year with a turbine powered, 4 wheel drive car that smashed lots and lots of brick walls. His creation was promptly outlawed. Yet a few years later, Colin Chapman brought his itty bitty, rear engine Lotus along with Jim Clark to the Brickyard to compete against the behemoth, front engine Offenhauser cars and changed Indy racing overnight. Why was his brick wall busting creation NOT banned when Granitelli's was?

Personally, I quite enjoyed Formula One when Ferrari and Lamborghini raced 12 cylinder cars against the mighty Cosworths. It was exciting to be trackside and know which cars were coming next by the different sound of their exhausts. I liked that BRM could create an H-16 if they felt like it. Or that Alfa Romeo could try their hand at V-8's even if they never were competitive. The notion that some race car designer/builder could chance upon an idea that would smash the status quo, as Granitelli and Chapman did, is quite appealing. Jim Hall probably belongs in that group as well, as he ushered in the era of winged race cars, for better or worse.

But as much as the thought of innovation excites us, as race fans, do we want a series where any car on the grid can reach the podium or are we happy to see one team driving off into the middle distance at the start and finishing 2 laps ahead of the field? If we want Door A, we get spec racing. If we want Door B, we get Vettel winning 7 WDC's in a row.

We say we want transformative technology that disrupts conventional thinking. But do we really?

the "problem" is that now all the team can fire up their computer do a few simulation and they know pretty much what
the optimal configuration is.
People are already complaining about the sound of the new engines, imagine if they left the rules open and they all showed up with four cylinder at half the RPM of the the current engines because that was the optimum

That's not even close to the truth. Engineering is far from being that simple. Look at the WEC this year. They only have energy limits, and yet you have so far 3 different ideas on how an LMP1 car should go. A V6 turbo diesel, V4 turbo gasoline, and V8 NA gasoline. In Formula 1, they would want an engine with the least disruption to the airflow (size), an ability to still be a structural member of the chassis, produce lots of power, use as little fuel as possible, weight as little as possible, and be reliable. The problem is that no engine is going to satisfy all the requirements as adequately as they would like, so you end up with a choice. Which concept do we go for? Not very easy to decide. And simply put, no simulations can make your choice for you. This is why still to this day project management is still the most important factor in being successful. But all this doesn't account for why an open engine formula would never work, money. No one would want to spend the money it would take, especially if your engine was a dud compared to others. Because they would have to start the process all over again. They would make the current PU look cheap.

[Tim.Wright]

the "problem" is that now all the team can fire up their computer do a few simulation and they know pretty much what
the optimal configuration is.
People are already complaining about the sound of the new engines, imagine if they left the rules open and they all showed up with four cylinder at half the RPM of the the current engines because that was the optimum

No way, not even close...

[Lycoming]

the "problem" is that now all the team can fire up their computer do a few simulation and they know pretty much what
the optimal configuration is.

If it were that easy, I'd have a job at Audi by now.

Which, spoiler alert, I don't.

[Emerson.F]

Tesla free energy technology?

[langwadt]

Someone did that once. His name was Andy Granitelli and he showed up at Indy one year with a turbine powered, 4 wheel drive car that smashed lots and lots of brick walls. His creation was promptly outlawed. Yet a few years later, Colin Chapman brought his itty bitty, rear engine Lotus along with Jim Clark to the Brickyard to compete against the behemoth, front engine Offenhauser cars and changed Indy racing overnight. Why was his brick wall busting creation NOT banned when Granitelli's was?

Personally, I quite enjoyed Formula One when Ferrari and Lamborghini raced 12 cylinder cars against the mighty Cosworths. It was exciting to be trackside and know which cars were coming next by the different sound of their exhausts. I liked that BRM could create an H-16 if they felt like it. Or that Alfa Romeo could try their hand at V-8's even if they never were competitive. The notion that some race car designer/builder could chance upon an idea that would smash the status quo, as Granitelli and Chapman did, is quite appealing. Jim Hall probably belongs in that group as well, as he ushered in the era of winged race cars, for better or worse.

But as much as the thought of innovation excites us, as race fans, do we want a series where any car on the grid can reach the podium or are we happy to see one team driving off into the middle distance at the start and finishing 2 laps ahead of the field? If we want Door A, we get spec racing. If we want Door B, we get Vettel winning 7 WDC's in a row.

We say we want transformative technology that disrupts conventional thinking. But do we really?

the "problem" is that now all the team can fire up their computer do a few simulation and they know pretty much what
the optimal configuration is.
People are already complaining about the sound of the new engines, imagine if they left the rules open and they all showed up with four cylinder at half the RPM of the the current engines because that was the optimum

That's not even close to the truth. Engineering is far from being that simple. Look at the WEC this year. They only have energy limits, and yet you have so far 3 different ideas on how an LMP1 car should go. A V6 turbo diesel, V4 turbo gasoline, and V8 NA gasoline. In Formula 1, they would want an engine with the least disruption to the airflow (size), an ability to still be a structural member of the chassis, produce lots of power, use as little fuel as possible, weight as little as possible, and be reliable. The problem is that no engine is going to satisfy all the requirements as adequately as they would like, so you end up with a choice. Which concept do we go for? Not very easy to decide. And simply put, no simulations can make your choice for you. This is why still to this day project management is still the most important factor in being successful. But all this doesn't account for why an open engine formula would never work, money. No one would want to spend the money it would take, especially if your engine was a dud compared to others. Because they would have to start the process all over again. They would make the current PU look cheap.

The reason for the different idea in WEC is that the rules are made to equalize them (and often get tweaked through the season),
the Diesels get less fuel flow and smaller tanks than the gasolines, so the diesels isn't the only option
More energy recovered per lap get less fuel so the V4T with ers-h isn't the only option

if Toyota had to start from scratch they probably wouldn't chose an NA V8, but that's what they have been developing and the rules are tweaked to let them keep it

[Töm87]

Engine formula?

3l standard or 1,5l turbo that's ist.

That's all the regulations you need.

[WaikeCU]

With Mercedes renaming the W05 to W05 Hybrid, I think the dominance has set a new era of the sport. The dominance also speeds up the process of getting more innovative regenerative and clean energy in F1. One day I think F1 cars will have an E-motor alongside the 1.0 turbo 3-cilinder engine, which is required due to the changing of the regulations. Regulations will state that F1 cars have to deploy e-mode when entering the pits. This will be triggered by the pit limiter button, which not only limits speed, but also triggers e-mode.

[langwadt]

Engine formula?

3l standard or 1,5l turbo that's ist.

That's all the regulations you need.

if that were the regulation why would anyone choose a 3l NA?