What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[747heavy]

http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/CMT380_lowres.pdf

[WhiteBlue]

That Capstone car is fitted with a range extender. The turbine is not directly driving the car but generating electricity for reloading the battery. 38 miles/gallon on the highway isn't very impressive. My BMW 120d is doing better there. The acceleration performance is nice but the cost is probably astronomical. For F1 it is difficult to estimate how they would meet the power/weight and fuel consumption targets. There are no specific data that would allow such an estimate.

[ringo]

But you don't. The project 747 mentioned had shaft speed of 8000 rpm. The Chrysler turbine also ran low speed by virtue of variable vanes that did the primary torque regulation.

The way the 747's post reads is that 8000rpm is the shaft spead after reduction gearing. It doesn't really make any sense for a gas trubine to be running that slowly.

Especially not a small one. It's just the same as a turbocharger, the smaller you go the faster they run.

No, I don't think it has a reduction gear with the efficiency quoted. It has a free power shaft with a turbine that is designed to run slowly. Note that the other shaft runs very fast.

Let me clear something up for you.
All if not most turbo shafts have a free power turbine, the Chrysler engine is not special.
The free power turbine ensures shock loads do not directly affect to generator turbine and compressor. It's basically like a torque converter in a car.
Being separate from the compressor shaft also protects against compressor stall or surge. When the compressor stalls the combustion mixture can flow out the front of the engine, which is not desirable.
It also does not run at the same speed as the compressor and high pressure turbine, as we all know. It's speed is controlled with the turning vane angle, but at the same time this is not used to reduce the speed to 8000 or 6000 rpm compared to the 50,000rpm coming off the HP turbine. It's not designed to turn slowly at all. It's main intent is just to extract energy efficiently from the lower pressure gases. In some cases 35% of the total power goes to the free power turbine, 65% goes to the compressor and auxiliaries.
So the gear box is fitted to the free power turbine for the slow speeds that you mention.
I think it's is possible for the free power turbine to turn really slowly but it may just be a waste of kinetic energy, most of it exiting the engine at very high temps, or overheating the turbine and over loading the bearings.

[ringo]

double post!

[autogyro]

The transmission for a car running a turbine as prime mover in performance applications would be a very big problem.

Why would that necessarily be the case? The unit would probably have a fundamental design like the Chrysler with a free power shaft, and an MGU for moderation that would produce electricity for a transaxle electric drive.

The fact you need very large reduction ratios make the gears unreliable without making the gearbox overly large, or having a multi stage transmission.

Auto, what exactly was the issue with the Tesla gearbox? I didn't think the electric motor revved that high.

Flat torque curve.
To achieve a good range of performance with no gearbox using electric traction is no problem and at present the easy direction taken by most EV makers.
However energy efficiency can be much improved if a very efficient gearbox is used to keep the motor revs between an rpm band that matches the 'sweet spot' of the motor. This results in a far better range.
Unfortunately current conventional gearbox thinking cannot meet the need for a light rapid shift and reliable unit based on layshaft technology or a basic automatic epicyclic unit, without going over the weight allowed in the designs or ending up with a gearbox that lasts a poor maximum of 2000 miles.
CVT or TVT transmissions are even worse and also require higher energy input than when used in ic applications just to maintain drive friction between the cones or disks.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.tomorrownewsf1.com/technique ... -cyl-15925

Toutes les deux semaines, sous la présidence de Gilles Simon, le groupe de travail moteur de la FIA tiens réunion pour définir d’ici la fin de cette année le prochain moteur 2013.
Actuellement, la première ébauche d’un 4cyl 1600cm3 turbo est favori, mais la Scuderia Ferrari a mis tout son poids dans la balance pour qu’un moteur V6 1800cm3, déviré des V8 actuels, soit retenu (voir ici). En vain. L’équipe italienne a finalement accepté, à contrecœur, le principe du 4 cylindres. Ferrari a donc perdu la bataille d’influence du moteur 2013.
Toutefois, restera un détail d’importance : le moteur sera-t-il en ligne ou en V ? Ferrari souffle que ce moteur n’est qu’un projet, pas un règlement ferme et que dans le principe il doit être affiné, pour éviter une hausse des coûts. Là semble être le problème pour plusieurs clients de moteurs. Un moteur plus coûteux dans la conception (le chiffre de 100 millions d’euros est annoncé) sera plus chere à l’achat…
Mais déjà les discussions ce déplacent sur le règlement des turbos. En effet, l’idée d’une turbine unique fait son chemin, pour éviter les astuces techniques moteurs. Restera aussi le principe du carburant. Bref, beaucoup reste à faire, mais le principe du moteur 4cyl 1600cm3 semble désormais validé par tous les constructeurs moteurs.

From now on until the end of the year the engine working group of the FIA, chaired by Gilles Simon, meets every second week to define the next engine formula for 2013. Currently in the first draft stage a turbo charged 1.6L four cyl. is the favorite, but the Scuderia Ferrari has put its full weight behind 1.8L V6, a spin off of the current V8. In vain. The Italian team finally agreed reluctantly to the the principle of 4 cylinders. Ferrari has lost the battle for the 2013 engine decision.

However one important detail remains: Will the engine be in line or V? Ferrari insists that the regulation should not be set in stone and that it must be tweaked to avoid higher costs. Cost seems to be the problem for many engine customers. An engine design with higher development cost (a figure of €100 million is rumored) will be more expensive for the customer ...
In the meantime the discussions have moved on to the turbo charger specification. Basically the idea of a spec unit is looked at to avoid cheating with engines. The question of the exact fuel type also remains open. In short, much remains to be done, but the principle of a 1.6L 4 cyl. engine seems to be agreed now by all engine manufacturers.

Some good and some bad news. The four cylinder engine is emerging as a firm detail after a long fight. I actually do not care much if they go L4 or V4. Perhaps they will use VR4 or W4 in the end for a compromise. Ferrari seems hell bent to avoid the GRE configuration which is obviously not in their interest. A spec design for the turbo seems a dumb idea because there is much development in that technology with e-boost and hybrid turbo chargers. After all cheating can be stopped by an FiA controlled pressure sensor.

[ringo]

So it's a 4 cylinder. Well that is settled then.

I was really wondering how it would pan out with different turbo makes.
A spec turbo does simplify things a lot though.

If multiple makes are to be allowed, then there will need to be detailed regulations on turbo construction. I would prefer multiple makes to increase innovation and competition. Companies like; IHI, Honeywell, Holset, Borg Warner could all get involved.

[747heavy]

is this 100 million figure for each engine manufacturer, or across the board development cost for all?
If we take the current 4 + VW this would make ~ 20 million each.
If it is 100 million each, a engine lease deal for 5 million a year, is maybe a bit of an stretch, if manufacturers want to un it as an pofitable business.

[WhiteBlue]

is this 100 million figure for each engine manufacturer, or across the board development cost for all?
If we take the current 4 + VW this would make ~ 20 million each.
If it is 100 million each, a engine lease deal for 5 million a year, is maybe a bit of an stretch, if manufacturers want to un it as an pofitable business.

According to AMuS it is bout 100 million per manufacturer. But this is relatively small fish compared to what they have previously spent. They used to spend 1 billion together per year which compares to 165 m annually for each of the six manufcturers. The new project will stretch well over 2 years, so it is roughly a third of what they used to spend. Even Cosworth is eager to participate and will not be held back by those costs. They are also convinced to be able to do it at much lower cost than other firms.

[747heavy]

I doubt a bit that they spend a combined 1 billion on engine development alone, especially during the last years, but maybe during the heydays of the engine war, why not. Sounds more like total budget to be in F1.
Anyway,we know how it ended, with a couple of manufacturers running for the door, leaving the sport on the brink of a collapse.

Now if we use 100 million development costs, take our current 4 engine manufacturers and grid size, we end up with ~3 teams per manufacturer.
If we try to recoup our outlay for development via a 5 year period, we are left with ~6,6 million per year, just to recoup our development costs, without any money spend to actually built, run and service these engines.

How is this going to work with the 5 million per year engine cost target for a team?
Unless the engine manufacturers are being allowed to charge a substantial higher fee for there engines, why would any company in their right mind, want to do that - especially Cosworth?

Sorry, but that does not make a lot of sense to me.
It´s a very expensive fig-leaf to make F1 look green, not sure the manufacturers want to subsidize F1 to this tune, much longer.

[WhiteBlue]

I believe the cost are going to be much lower for a company with the expertise of Cosworth.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86722?

We have very ambitious plans for developing the Cosworth offering for 2013, and we certainly want to be with teams throughout the grid. We want to be winning again. We want to be with teams capable of winning the world championship. That's why the relationship with Williams, and other relationships, will be very important to us.

There's a recognition throughout the grid that there isn't a significant performance advantage to be had, but reliability varies tremendously across the engine providers, and we've got the most reliable engine, and that's very attractive. We not only provide an engine that's competitive and reliable, but actually is produced very economically. We provide a very good financial solution as well. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out teams are very interested.

Companies like Ferrari have got used to utilize resources on an unlimited scale that they do not know any more how to get good results cost effective. Domenicali confirmed this only a month ago when he referred to the RRA and how Ferrari's gestione sportiva must change when they have to operate on a third of the resources they used to have.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 22803.html

In the past we have worked completely target oriented. Money was no issue. Now we have to get by with fewer people, less tools and less money. We must balance the result against the costs, we have to set priorities. This requires an entirely new way of thinking from us, another culture.

There have been several comments that Ferrari is planning to switch their best redundant engineers from gestione sportiva to the engine department in December. So it would not surprise me if they are operating with budget figures as they have in 2005 when the last big engine redesign was done.

I bet that Cosworth is planning to do this development for a third of what Ferrari does and that their planned margin on the supplied engines would be way bigger than Ferrari's. They also think they can be a supplier to WCC teams and that their engines will be in great demand by other teams. You also have to put this into perspective with other propulsion projects like big aircraft turbines where the break even point comes only after 25 years. I'm not saying that such times would be applied to an F1 project but 8 years seem to be quite ok to me. F1 is unlikely to make any formula changes any time sooner than 2025 if this one is done properly. The engine will not be the focal point of developments and they can play with boost and rpm to adjust it to whatever other factors come along.

Regarding companies like Ferrari and Mercedes they have proven times and again that their engine departments and engine companies were allowed to run budgets exceeding € 100m in the past with very little if any income from customer sales. MBHPE Ltd. and the Stuttgart group of engine engineers that later got amalgamated in Brixworth probably had a budget of € 180 m in 2005 and they did not charge anything to McLaren. They regard it as promotional cost for the brand as long as they are successful.

If VW incurre an initial cost of € 100 mil for getting into F1 of which they may recover 30 or 40 mil over some years and then continue without further cost they may consider that a nice deal. Honda and Toyota payed billions to get their names on F1 cars and never had the chance to break even after an initial investment.

There are different way how the cost of an F1 engine program can be justified but all of them have winning races in mind. If F1 continues as it does at the moment more engine suppliers actually get a chance to win races than they had for a long time before.

[xpensive]

An inline-four to be the future of F1, I could live with it when Nelson was hurling a gone-mad-BMW around Österreichring in 1985, but not like this as a fuel-starved compulsary thing, why I refuse to believe it.

I wonder what Carlo Chiti was thinking when he went against the grain in the 80s with his gas-gobbling 1.5 Alfa V8?

[WhiteBlue]

An inline-four to be the future of F1, I could live with it when Nelson was hurling a gone-mad-BMW around Österreichring in 1985, but not like this as a fuel-starved compulsary thing, why I refuse to believe it.

Considering that we are extremely likely to end up with a 1.6L four pot what are your plans then? Stop watching?

I would not dramatize it so much either. The new cars are likely to have 800 bhp top power compared to 1000 in the race at the time when Nelson did his thing. On the other side chassis efficiency has made progress in leaps and bounds in 28 years far beyond the 20% gap we are talking. The resulting performance jump is still likely to make Nelson's mouth water. The 1985 engines had no drivability whatsoever. Most of the time drivers had to pray when they applied the throttle that the lag was just right to keep them from spinning out of a corner. The 2013 will have drivability by spades from much increased low torque even compared to todays engines. It should still be awe inspiring to drive such machines as it is now.

[xpensive]

Options galore WB, how about these for starters;

- Hook up to Speed-TV and watch Nascar and IRL go around with 20 pace-cars.
- Convert to a full-time rally-cross fan perhaps, it's not so bad?
- Freezing my ass-off in the woods for two hours to see Kimi go off in a blaze.
- Bury myself in work or beer. Or both, that option is mighty underrated actually.

But most likely!
- Playing F1 2010 with screaming V8s on PS3 with my 11-year-old!

Besides, the point of being there in 1985 was watching Nelson in qualifying with 1300 Hp without driveability or chassis, with aerodynamics and suspensions nowhere near of today's.

[ringo]

I'm all for increased power and revs. I'm hoping more than 12,000rpm and more than 850hp.
Turbo lag adds to the racing spectacle and at least gives the driver's something to think about.
Turbo lag is also unavoidable for a 1.6lt making 700hp. No way an engine that small wont have any lag. The turbo needs to be extremely huge and thus the lower revs will suffer.