What would the engines be if they never banned turbos in '89

[Powershift]

http://www.k20a.org/upload/HondaRA168EEngine.pdf


Re-reading the SAE paper on the RA186E got me to thinking about how amazing the F1 engines would be if they didn't ban turbo's for '89. 504kW/675 hp with only 2.5 bar and 150L of fuel (although 80% toluene) is beyond impressive, and to think that was done with 1988 computing power. Banning of the turbos in one of the 2 huge mistakes in f1 tech(banning ground effects being the other), Instead of banning the turbo's they should have mandated pump fuel as they do now and continued to lower the fuel allotment. With proper ERS they could easily be completing a race distance with so 70kg of today's race fuel, if not less.

What do you guys think F1 would be running if they were never banned in '89?

[Cold Fussion]

They aren't running on pump fuel today, for that we could be certain. I don't think it really matters that turbos were banned in 89, what matters are all the restrictions placed on the engine design today. A more open rule book would probably see more exotic material choices and thus lighter engines, perhaps leading to slightly higher efficiency. We would also probably see things like variable valve timing and possibly variable lift systems, maybe fully pneumatically actuated valves to infinitely control the cam profiles and timing.

[Tommy Cookers]

the 1988 fuel met the performance spec of road fuel eg 102 RON
in use (at race rpm and mixture strength) it acted like a much higher Octane
its mass-specific energy was poor (like a cruise missile fuel it is optimised for volume-specific energy)
but a greater mass is burned for a given mass of air
so power would be only slightly higher on 2014 F1 fuel at 100 kg/hr than on 1988 F1 fuel at 100 kg/hr
IIRC the best efficiency was 35%

now fuel is officially Octane-unlimited
such fuels are the key to high efficiency in a boosted engine
but eg 2013 NA engines only need to use about 95 Octane even with 13-13.5 CR partly due to the very high rpm
they cannot have a higher CR because of the large size of the valve pockets etc

[SectorOne]

They aren't running on pump fuel today, for that we could be certain.

It´s very very close. Alonso and BBC i believe even made a short feature with him lapping Fiorano with both fuels.

And unless i´m entirely mistaken he actually went a smidge faster on the pump gas you can buy at the store, V power.
Basically their F1 fuel was for engine health rather then performance.

[Cold Fussion]

They aren't running on pump fuel today, for that we could be certain.

It´s very very close. Alonso and BBC i believe even made a short feature with him lapping Fiorano with both fuels.

And unless i´m entirely mistaken he actually went a smidge faster on the pump gas you can buy at the store, V power.
Basically their F1 fuel was for engine health rather then performance.

It's a Shell marketing ploy.

[langwadt]

They aren't running on pump fuel today, for that we could be certain.

It´s very very close. Alonso and BBC i believe even made a short feature with him lapping Fiorano with both fuels.

And unless i´m entirely mistaken he actually went a smidge faster on the pump gas you can buy at the store, V power.
Basically their F1 fuel was for engine health rather then performance.

pump fuel was almost 1 second slower a lap, but interestingly slightly faster down the straight

[SectorOne]

pump fuel was almost 1 second slower a lap, but interestingly slightly faster down the straight

Really? I have to watch that again, i could have sworn it was actually a bit quicker.

edit: correct, i need to get my head examined i think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEpOxLuI3Ss

[Juzh]

pump fuel was almost 1 second slower a lap, but interestingly slightly faster down the straight

Really? I have to watch that again, i could have sworn it was actually a bit quicker.

edit: correct, i need to get my head examined i think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEpOxLuI3Ss

How does that work?

[jp5]

We would also probably see things like variable valve timing and possibly variable lift systems, maybe fully pneumatically actuated valves to infinitely control the cam profiles and timing.

I agree that we would have infinite control over valve actuation however I think that pneumatics would play a role in control only, the real development would be in fully electronically controlled valves using an advanced solenoid type actuator.

We can only imagine what the possibilities would be...

Does anyone know how much the current valve-train technology (as regulated) actually limits head flow performance? How much are we leaving on the table?

[Powershift]

laser ignition for extremely high CR?
6 stroke engines?
If the layout was open maybe they would have moved to a 4 cylinder, combining with the gearbox into a motorcycle layout.
bio waste derived fuels?

[Lycoming]

laser ignition for extremely high CR?
6 stroke engines?
If the layout was open maybe they would have moved to a 4 cylinder, combining with the gearbox into a motorcycle layout.
bio waste derived fuels?

Motorcycle layout engine is silly because you would no longer be able to carry the engine as a stressed member, which Newey and others protested, hence why the current engine rules are a V6 instead of I4.

And I believe they currently use fuel with a small amount of ethanol, which would be derived from biomass. But the common options on that front, isobutanol and ethanol, are both less energy dense than what they currently use. The benefits don't justify the inclusion of a larger fuel tank.

[Powershift]

Motorcycle layout engine is silly because you would no longer be able to carry the engine as a stressed member, which Newey and others protested, hence why the current engine rules are a V6 instead of I4.

Really not that big a deal, the IL4 would give much better packaging than a v6 and probably be more efficient.

[xpensive]

The equality formula of 1988 was flawed, 2.5 bar absolute for a 1.5 engine was far superior to a 3.5 atmospheric such,
but only Honda and Ferrari bothered to develop it as I can recall. If the FIA had wanted to keep both options for 1989,
they would have had to further reduce it 2.2 or something like that.

A 2.5 bar 1.5 turbo of today's technology, with unlimited fuel-flow, would probably rev to 16 kRpm and produce 900 Hp or more.

[matt21]

Motorcycle layout engine is silly because you would no longer be able to carry the engine as a stressed member, which Newey and others protested, hence why the current engine rules are a V6 instead of I4.

Why not running a V4 with an included gearbox?

If the FIA had wanted to keep both options for 1989,
they would have had to further reduce it 2.2 or something like that.

There have been discussions to reduce the capacity for turbo engines to 1200cc in the 80ies.
I´m trying to find a source for this.

[xpensive]

I know that Keith Duckworth, sadly enough a staunch enemy of the turbos back then, argued in two ways;

A) Boost control, displacement times absolute pressure constant at 3.0, such as 2 bar for a 1.5 liter turbo.

B) A fuel-flow limit, build and boost whatever you want.

Duckworth was not a stupid man.