F1technical.net

tok-tokkie wrote:That would be supercharging. Surely not permitted.

That is a question of definition. Usually you take the power of the engine shaft to call it supercharging and it would not be very efficient. If you do an electric boost and and electric turbo compounding the energy would still come from the exhaust energy recovery but you would have higher recovery rates and a more precise boost. It is a question if you want to have a high HERS power rate without compromising your boost quality and your packaging. You have to pay with a bit of weight and with some conversion inefficiencies but you can potentially gain a lot. If this is the most efficient design - which we don't even know - then they would be fools to forbid it.

Pingguest wrote: In the late-1960s and 1970 the engine produced 400-500 bhp and the racing was good. I can't see why it'd be necessary to have at least 700 bhp.

In those days 400hp was the pinnacle in production and race cars. In this day and age, i don't think an F1 power-plant should be weaker than a sports car. F1 should be at the top at all times, it has the best drivers so it needs to have the best cars as well.
With sports cars making over 500 and 600hp nowadays i don't think F1 can go bellow that.

ringo wrote:

Pingguest wrote: In the late-1960s and 1970 the engine produced 400-500 bhp and the racing was good. I can't see why it'd be necessary to have at least 700 bhp.

In those days 400hp was the pinnacle in production and race cars. In this day and age, i don't think an F1 power-plant should be weaker than a sports car. F1 should be at the top at all times, it has the best drivers so it needs to have the best cars as well.
With sports cars making over 500 and 600hp nowadays i don't think F1 can go bellow that.

So, if the ACO would decide that LMP1-cars should have at least 1200 bhp, the FIA should follow and make Formula 1-cars to produce even more power?

Besides, in the late-1960s and the 1970s Formula 1 didn't have the most powerful engines. In Can-Am the engines produced much more power.

djos wrote:

autogyro wrote:So why not just do away completely with downforce?

How about cross-ply tires while we are at it?

At least Formula 1 could well re-introduce all-weather tyres. Without or with very little downforce and all-weather tyres Formula 1 would be more road relevant.

Pingguest wrote:

ringo wrote:

Pingguest wrote: In the late-1960s and 1970 the engine produced 400-500 bhp and the racing was good. I can't see why it'd be necessary to have at least 700 bhp.

In those days 400hp was the pinnacle in production and race cars. In this day and age, i don't think an F1 power-plant should be weaker than a sports car. F1 should be at the top at all times, it has the best drivers so it needs to have the best cars as well.
With sports cars making over 500 and 600hp nowadays i don't think F1 can go bellow that.

So, if the ACO would decide that LMP1-cars should have at least 1200 bhp, the FIA should follow and make Formula 1-cars to produce even more power?

Besides, in the late-1960s and the 1970s Formula 1 didn't have the most powerful engines. In Can-Am the engines produced much more power.

If it's safe enough for an LMP1 to have that power, it's logical F1 can be safe to have that powerlevel as well. F1 has to be to pinnacle if it wants to be economically viable. The engineers and drivers see it like this as well.
So yes F1 would have to move up to 1200hp.

ringo wrote:[...]
If it's safe enough for an LMP1 to have that power, it's logical F1 can be safe to have that powerlevel as well. F1 has to be to pinnacle if it wants to be economically viable. The engineers and drivers see it like this as well.
So yes F1 would have to move up to 1200hp.

Formula 1 should be the pinnacle of open-wheel racing, but not necessarily of motor sport in general. In the past, Can-Am and Group C cars were more advanced than Formula 1, but nobody seemed to bother.

To me, being the pinnacle isn't the same as being the fastest. More about being the most difficult to drive. This is one of the racing why I oppose driver aids in Formula 1 but approve them in Prototype racing.

ringo wrote:

Pingguest wrote: In the late-1960s and 1970 the engine produced 400-500 bhp and the racing was good. I can't see why it'd be necessary to have at least 700 bhp.

In those days 400hp was the pinnacle in production and race cars. In this day and age, i don't think an F1 power-plant should be weaker than a sports car. F1 should be at the top at all times, it has the best drivers so it needs to have the best cars as well.
With sports cars making over 500 and 600hp nowadays i don't think F1 can go bellow that.

This discussion sounds a bit unreal. 2013 F1 cars will have 800 bhp top power at 655 kg qualifying weight including the driver. This is 1.22 bhp/kg. Sports cars have 0.4-0.6 bhp/kg and practically no downforce compared to F1. In every performance category you can imagine F1 will still beat it.

One can overdo it with the power stealing paranoia, you know. Perhaps it would help to do some old fashioned figuring before one starts to annouce the end of the world, as we know it.

WhiteBlue wrote:

- port ignition unfortunately was a typo, which I overlooked, sorry for that

- (....) I have looked it up again and I find no reference to the actual ignition point. So I have to conclude that I mistranslated max pressure and ignition timing. (...)

Yeah most likely. I suggest you first study the basics of the ICE before going into the more advanced systems, on the one hand you won´t fall prey (and subject others) to your own mistranslations, and on the other hand you´ll gain an understanding of engines and thus be able to make positive contributions to this and other motor related forums.

@the rest of the forum:

I disagree with the overpowered/undergripped notion that´s being thrown around. You say this because of rain affected races, but the reason wet races throw unexpected results and chaos is because of changing grip, not due to low grip. As long as you have cars that can break grip during any type of acceleration (presently F1 cars can), then I don´t see what there is to gain from reducing grip, drivers and teams will still adapt and set the car up accordingly. Rain is different, going to a corner and not knowing how hard to push is what throws a spanner in the works, which in turn affects tyre degradation, further adding to the unexpected outcomes.
If you think about it, this year´s canadian gp had most of the elements of a wet race except there was no rain, grip and tyre degradation were a bit more of an unknown quantity than in other circuits and that produced a wonderful race. Then again you can´t have wonderful races all the time, otherwise you would stop noticing how great they are wouldn´t you?

Those who are active and study things occasionally make mistakes. The important thing is to learn from it and it is good to have people here who contribute to the discussion and try to find the truth. All of the active members have gaps in their knowledge of one or the other aspect.

I admit that I have not actively considered wether it makes sense to have ignition before or after the TDC because I have never before looked into the specifics of engine design and the bit I studied before wasn't in the English language so that 99% of all definitions are unfamiliar to me. When I dig out some interesting bits and share them here I'm always prepared to meet a critical audience and expose my figures to scrutiny. If they do not stand up I'm pretty happy to look at alternative figures by other users.

So thanks for the criticism and think of it the next time you make a mistake.

yes, but you did not ask such terms like ignition before or after TDC but gave a stetement that this is a fact... ok, back to theme...

i think we will definitivly will not see a gas turbine but a petrol piston engine.

maybe the will cut displacement to 1.8 litre and a V6 or even 1.2 Litre to an inline 4 in thoughts that it is just cutting away cylinders. ( like they did before wit 3.0 v10 vs 2.4 V8 )

the question is what power output the aim after the v8 era... we do not know.

like said, turbo charging, hybrid systems, efficient fuel use, that will surely come.

the "green" side is only one aspekt, they are also panic to keep costs down. in my eyes F1 with the introduction of a rev limiter, dictating a maximum bore and a standart ecu stopped to be what it was at birth and decades after:

an open class with superior an interesting technological solutions.

in my eyes they should only limit displacement and no charging ans leave all other free.

or- like discussed- limit only the amount of fuel available for a race distance and let all other free.

ACRO wrote:maybe the will cut displacement to 1.8 litre and a V6 or even 1.2 Litre to an inline 4 in thoughts that it is just cutting away cylinders. ( like they did before wit 3.0 v10 vs 2.4 V8 )

the question is what power output the aim after the v8 era... we do not know..

Neither the cylinder count, nor the displacement or the power output are a secret any more. This thread quotes several sources confirming that peak power will be 650 bhp from the engine and 150 bhp from KERS. The displacement is agreed at 1.6 L and the cylinder count at four.

ringo wrote:

Pingguest wrote: In the late-1960s and 1970 the engine produced 400-500 bhp and the racing was good. I can't see why it'd be necessary to have at least 700 bhp.

In those days 400hp was the pinnacle in production and race cars. In this day and age, i don't think an F1 power-plant should be weaker than a sports car. F1 should be at the top at all times, it has the best drivers so it needs to have the best cars as well.
With sports cars making over 500 and 600hp nowadays i don't think F1 can go bellow that.

Even tin top's like V8 SuperCars make 650hp and NASCAR's make about 750hp!

Having played with piston engined warbirds with 3800 horsepower, I cannot accept that high power figures make F1 technology the peak of development.
This is simply a motor head red herring. High power output is no longer high tech.
Continuing to promote it will confine F1 to the history books and also risk destroying it for good.
I agree with WB that the 1.6 inline four cylinder with turbocharging and a target bhp of 650 is all but finalised. I agree in basic principle.
I hope that these 'target restrictions' can be achieved with a raft of regulations that manage to open up development by using fuel and downforce limitations and little else and do not include standardised engine internals, turbo chargers and KERS/HERS systems.
Such a heavily controlled formula will fail.

WhiteBlue wrote:

ACRO wrote:maybe the will cut displacement to 1.8 litre and a V6 or even 1.2 Litre to an inline 4 in thoughts that it is just cutting away cylinders. ( like they did before wit 3.0 v10 vs 2.4 V8 )

the question is what power output the aim after the v8 era... we do not know..

Neither the cylinder count, nor the displacement or the power output are a secret any more. This thread quotes several sources confirming that peak power will be 650 bhp from the engine and 150 bhp from KERS. The displacement is agreed at 1.6 L and the cylinder count at four.

I am curious as to where you got that power figure of 650hp from as facts.

I don't remember any quotes on it, and from what djos said it's troubling if F1 gets relegated to some ordinary open wheel racing series powerlevels claiming to be the fastest and most exciting while demanding the top dollars from meet organizers and spectators.
A 4cylinder is bad enough, i'll accept it though, but if it's much weaker and sounds weaker too, i don't know if i can continue watching it.
KERS doesn't really float my boat either, there's nothing exciting or explosive about it.
I'm for the 4 cylinders if they're more powerfull than what we have already.
100hp of electrical energy is only temporary and no sights or sounds are associated with it, except for a litle battery symbol on the display indicating energy is being used.
The entertainment aspect is questionable.

autogyro wrote:Having played with piston engined warbirds with 3800 horsepower, I cannot accept that high power figures make F1 technology the peak of development.
This is simply a motor head red herring. High power output is no longer high tech.
Continuing to promote it will confine F1 to the history books and also risk destroying it for good.
I agree with WB that the 1.6 inline four cylinder with turbocharging and a target bhp of 650 is all but finalised. I agree in basic principle.
I hope that these 'target restrictions' can be achieved with a raft of regulations that manage to open up development by using fuel and downforce limitations and little else and do not include standardised engine internals, turbo chargers and KERS/HERS systems.
Such a heavily controlled formula will fail.

Well when you restrict something such as power, you have to control many elements that contribute to making power. So in essence you can't have both restriction and then want things to be non standardized.