F1technical.net

agip wrote:That's why I really want they go V6-turbo in 2013. If inline-4 engines will sound as in the 80's, a lot of people -including me- will be very angry and dissapointed.

The Turbo Lotus (Renault V6) sounded pretty fantastic:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dWLhhTt ... re=related[/youtube]

xpensive wrote:50 cc/sec fuel-flow restriction.

I would say 35 ml/s. 50 is way too much. A sensible target would be 110 kg of race fuel. Engineers are likely to achieve average fuel flows of 90% of the maximum you set. In a 80 min race that would just give you the 110 kg. But ideally the figures should be set in a more scientific way looking at individual consumption on all circuits making sure that you cut 25-30% of todays consumption.

Can someone explain the need to limit fuel flow in addition to a fuel amount limit. Wouldnt limiting the fuel amount achieve the drive for efficiency?

mcdenife wrote:Can someone explain the need to limit fuel flow in addition to a fuel amount limit. Wouldnt limiting the fuel amount achieve the drive for efficiency?

It has been discussed in this thread.

A total limit has the advantage of the highest incentive for efficiency. A fuel flow limit is favored by some to equalize the different efficiencies of individual engines. An engine with lower consumption in part load mode can not go to a higher power setting to take advantage of the savings. It simply is a way of helping teams with a less efficient engine. The source of competitive advantage would come from the better regenerative system or the better chassis.

There are some signs that both methods could be used in combination.

WhiteBlue wrote:

mcdenife wrote:Can someone explain the need to limit fuel flow in addition to a fuel amount limit. Wouldnt limiting the fuel amount achieve the drive for efficiency?

It has been discussed in this thread.

. It simply is a way of helping teams with a less efficient engine.

I don't want to help a team with a less efficient engine...I want them to win on merit..Why do so many of you want spec cars? Why do you not want competition? And if a team has a real insight and advantage I have no trouble letting them walk the championship ala McLaren in what '88 where they won all but one race?
I don't think it's supposed to be a club where everyone gets to win and where everyone is equal. What's that word?? Meritocracy?

WhiteBlue wrote:

xpensive wrote:50 cc/sec fuel-flow restriction.

I would say 35 ml/s. 50 is way too much. A sensible target would be 110 kg of race fuel. Engineers are likely to achieve average fuel flows of 90% of the maximum you set. In a 80 min race that would just give you the 110 kg. But ideally the figures should be set in a more scientific way looking at individual consumption on all circuits making sure that you cut 25-30% of todays consumption.

35ml/s,
fuel ranges from 0.71 to 0.77kg/l , wikipedia has gasoline at about an energy content of 34.8 MJ/l

That's 34.8 kJ/ml, 35 ml/s will equate that to 1218 kW = 1633 potential horsepower.
knowing that IC engines are about 33% efficient, we may see only 539 brake hp from that flow rate.

50 is about right; 50ml/s gives you 770 hp with a 33% efficiency. I am not sure how less or more efficient the F1 engines are or those that are turbo charged.

Scotracer wrote:

agip wrote:That's why I really want they go V6-turbo in 2013. If inline-4 engines will sound as in the 80's, a lot of people -including me- will be very angry and dissapointed.

The Turbo Lotus (Renault V6) sounded pretty fantastic:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dWLhhTt ... re=related[/youtube]

here's the BMW 4cylinder:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-JTFBMvBi4[/youtube]

they sound ok, but a bit muffled and dull, definitely not like the screaming V10s or V8s.

WhiteBlue wrote: ...
A total limit has the advantage of the highest incentive for efficiency.
...

The above is the poster's opinion of course, F1's Technical Working group seems to be of different opinion.

One of the benefits of the fuel-flow limit, apart from rewarding fuel-efficincy with power-gains, is that it will not create this pitiful tactical economy racing, instead you got the power you can xtract from the fuel-flow and that's it.

So this is the way it's gonna be, I think, V6s and a fuel-flow limitation, or I'll eat...

agip wrote:That's why I really want they go V6-turbo in 2013. If inline-4 engines will sound as in the 80's, a lot of people -including me- will be very angry and dissapointed.

After a year or two you will get used to the sound of new engine. Frankly speaking, the 18000 rpm V8s of today sound dull if heard just after watching the F1 season review from the past with sweet V12s and screaming V10s.

@strad:

I don't want to help a team with a less efficient engine...I want them to win on merit..Why do so many of you want spec cars? Why do you not want competition? And if a team has a real insight and advantage I have no trouble letting them walk the championship ala McLaren in what '88 where they won all but one race?
I don't think it's supposed to be a club where everyone gets to win and where everyone is equal. What's that word?? Meritocracy?

+1. F1 seems to seems to slowly be moving toward a spec car (or at least a very dumbed-down formula)

Just to be up front...I think anyone who would drop F1 because it didn't sound as cool as they like is really not the kind of fan I think we want anyway.
What ya gonna do when someday they force mufflers on them? Leave in droves cause it don't sound cool?
I started with four bangers and I still think they have their own cool sound...If we were going strickly by sound...I want Formula 5000...not a lot sounded cooler ..Maybe Can-Am

F1 is sport entertainment, so it needs all kinds of fans.
This is the essence of it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aif1GSj70Bo[/youtube]
This alone would draw a crowd. No other marketing gimmicks needed.

The sound is very important. I like the V6 idea, but i'm ok with 4 cylinders since it attracts constructors and it's cheaper and relates to road cars, which will draw more crowds as well. It's hard to say which layout would be the way forward.

See I'm not Bernie and I don't make a dime off them, so I don't give a whit for whether F1 is loved universally and popular in every corner.
I wouldn't care if half these fair weather fans left.

The 3L BRM H16 was an exciting engine concept with a very nice sound but it proved over weight and under powered compared to a Cosworth V8 DFV. Same goes for the Ferrari V12 versus the Renault V10 and even the Ford V8 of the early 1990ties. A nice sound doesn't make a champion. When the name of the game is efficiency a V6 will be blown away by a V4 or L4 of the same capacity. Lower internal friction and better power/weight ratio will always kill the higher cylinder count in an efficiency contest. Teams given a choice will rather win in a faster car than take the wooden spoon in a very nice sounding car with less vibrations. Image and luxury does not sell racing engines, but performance does. So if the manufacturers are faced with competitors like Cosworth who make more power from their lighter L4s in a fuel limited formula they will not build V6 engines. They would be mad to.

But I don't believe it will be up to each manufactrer's discretion to choose engine layout, when my guess is still that F1s Technical working group will decide on a 82.4/50 mm, 12 kRpm, 90-degree V6 with 50 cc/sec limitation on fuel-flow.