What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[autogyro]

For the vast majority of people who watch F1 ringo, aero is of no interest whatsoever but it seems to hold at least 90 percent of the interest on this and other technical forums and bloggs etc.
You are missing the point over what makes F1 watchable on TV.
It is not the noise or the power output. Such things cannot be experienced on TV.
Close racing with as much dicing for position makes up most of the visual experience. It is only a tiny minority at the circuits who experience the noise and atmosphere. Most new foreign venues are practicaly empty these days, or do you all avoid this fact.
The regulations so far outlined are aimed at making the cars fast enough and tricky enough to handle for the almost standard circuit configurations designed for TV coverage. With a moveable fuel amount regulation for each car this situation can be maintained year to year while allowing technical developments in energy savings to progress. This is ESSENTIAL if F1 is to survive into the future.
I just hope that vested interest does not force to much control on the formula.

[djos]

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.

I think it's more about F1 getting the absolute maximum power out of a small capacity engine and not placing artificial limits on engine development - it's the artificial limits which many (myself included) would consider to be against the spirit of F1.

[WhiteBlue]

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.

User professor here on the board would be one source, Autosport.com reported it, Norbert Haug mentioned it months ago and there is a very recent report by http://www.tomorrownews.com. I'm not at all obliged to find the sources for you.

[alelanza]

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.

You´re welcome and yes we all make mistakes, I´m happy to admit to them and also to differentiate between opinons, guesses and facts, and so are most people here on this forum. But that doesn´t apply to someone that posts as stubbornly, arrogantly and frequently as you do. It certainly does not apply to someone who comes to a ´future f1 engine´thread every 10 minutes and overwhelms it by posting his opinions/google mashups as facts, yet doesn´t know the most basic engine stuff. That ignition occurs prior to TDC is not something specific or exclusive to a high level engine design course, it is nothing more than part the practical/real life otto cycle and they teach you that in any basic car mechanic course or book the day after you learn that an ICE goes suck squeeze bang blow. All the thermodynamical reasoning behind may not be as basic, but the core concept as explained by ACRO should be well known by anyone who speaks as authoritatively as you do about the future of F1 engines.

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.

It sure is good to have people contributing to the discussion, in fact the way you typed your post above is very nice and sensible, it´d be great if you actually behaved like that.

[ringo]

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.

User professor here on the board would be one source, Autosport.com reported it, Norbert Haug mentioned it months ago and there is a very recent report by http://www.tomorrownews.com. I'm not at all obliged to find the sources for you.

Well because you used the word confirmed. It sounds like it is put down in stone.
I agree with the displacement and # of cylinders, but the power figure i don't quite remember anything being confirmed.
It's hard to confirm a power value, when power is a by product of the rules.
It's easier to confirm fixed items such as displacement and KERS output, this can be constant across the board.

This is troubling though:

According to GP Week the teams have agreed to adopt 1.6 litre, 4 cylinder turbo engines, limited to 10,000 rpm and producing approximately 650bhp. The new engines will be mated to kinetic energy recovery systems, capable of producing a further 150bhp power boost. A fuel flow rate limit will also be introduced to ensure the engines are frugal compared to the current crop of 2.4 litre V8s.

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/27521.html, it's old news.

but only 10,000rpm! that's too low!!
Of course these are not confirmed facts. The teams meet every 2 weeks, the ideas are changing constantly.

[WhiteBlue]

According to GP Week the teams have agreed to adopt 1.6 litre, 4 cylinder turbo engines, limited to 10,000 rpm and producing approximately 650bhp. The new engines will be mated to kinetic energy recovery systems, capable of producing a further 150bhp power boost. A fuel flow rate limit will also be introduced to ensure the engines are frugal compared to the current crop of 2.4 litre V8s.

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/27521.html, it's old news. But only 10,000rpm! that's too low!

Why would 10,000 rpm be too low? Power is build by rpm times torque.

I believe that 10,000 rpm will be pretty much the limit that would be sensible for a formula that has both power and drivability. An over revving engine is nothing adorable if it has no torque to speak of.

Excessive engine rpm is not beneficial for a formula that has twice the torque potential of the old formula. The new formula has 1.6L of displacement times three for the boost pressure (3 bar). Three times 1.6L is 4.8L. That is the torque potential of the new formula. And 4.8 L is twice the displacement of the the old 2.4L formula. So lowering the rpms from 18,000 to 10,000 is still under proportional and will result to pretty much the same or higher power of the old formula with much better drivability.

Now it is your turn to explain to me why this makes no sense in your world.

[riff_raff]

The single, most sensible rule is limiting the mass of fuel available for each race. And that fuel is a controlled spec fuel (ie. methanol, ethanol. etc.). With no other engine rules. This would result in each engine design naturally being optimized for the best efficiency.

With a fixed amount of energy available for each race, every part of the car would need to be optimized for efficiency. Aero, suspension, transmission, tires, engine, etc. It would be the perfect set of rules. It would provide equality, yet also provide technological freedom.

What do you think?

riff_raff

[WhiteBlue]

Totally agree as Cosworth does. And then the ugly politics set in.

[Ciro Pabón]

Duh. After 2.4 V8, comes 2.0 V6... in ten years, give or take.

Politics are beautiful.

[ringo]

According to GP Week the teams have agreed to adopt 1.6 litre, 4 cylinder turbo engines, limited to 10,000 rpm and producing approximately 650bhp. The new engines will be mated to kinetic energy recovery systems, capable of producing a further 150bhp power boost. A fuel flow rate limit will also be introduced to ensure the engines are frugal compared to the current crop of 2.4 litre V8s.

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/27521.html, it's old news. But only 10,000rpm! that's too low!

Why would 10,000 rpm be too low? Power is build by rpm times torque.

I believe that 10,000 rpm will be pretty much the limit that would be sensible for a formula that has both power and drivability. An over revving engine is nothing adorable if it has no torque to speak of.

Excessive engine rpm is not beneficial for a formula that has twice the torque potential of the old formula. The new formula has 1.6L of displacement times three for the boost pressure (3 bar). Three times 1.6L is 4.8L. That is the torque potential of the new formula. And 4.8 L is twice the displacement of the the old 2.4L formula. So lowering the rpms from 18,000 to 10,000 is still under proportional and will result to pretty much the same or higher power of the old formula with much better drivability.

Now it is your turn to explain to me why this makes no sense in your world.

It's not that it doesn't make sense. It's just not impressive really.
There's not much challenge in building that engine. Existing engine designs in production cars will easily meet a 650hp mark if turbo charged for racing. The car companies probably have decades of advanced development on their little engine sub 2.0lt designs than an F1 team can develope in 2 years.
Look on any tuner forum and you'll see 1.6lt turbo cars making this range of power at these engine speeds.
10,000rpm can guarantee an engine can last a season, it's too easy. Development cost should be more like 1 million euros.
If you have the money, you can build a turbo 1.6 revving to 10k rpm with off the shelf parts right now, mark you the parts wont be as light or the head wont flow as well, but you can easily build an engine with similar power and torque to what is being proposed here.
Direct injection is also a non issue now. The technology doesn't even have to be developed further to be applied to such low engine speeds.

You know what, I'll put in a bid as an engine supplier for 2013. I can start building my 1.6l turbo 10,000 rpm toyota corrola engines from now!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjnBaNk0O1g[/youtube]

[xpensive]

1.6 liters at 10 kRpm should yield more than 800 Hp at 2.0 Bar boost, why there must be some fuel- or boost-limitation?

[Pingguest]

Totally agree as Cosworth does.

However, Cosworth wants the costs to stay down. On the short term a fuel consumption limit could make manufactures to detune their engines and thus increase the engine life span, but would it keep costs down on the long term?

[WhiteBlue]

Totally agree as Cosworth does.

However, Cosworth wants the costs to stay down. On the short term a fuel consumption limit could make manufactures to detune their engines and thus increase the engine life span, but would it keep costs down on the long term?

Tim Routsis apparently thinks so. One would have to continue a strict resource restriction policy for engines like they do for chassis. But AFAIK that is already in place.

[ACRO]

well... lets see what the final rules will be, if its really a 1.6 twinturbo inline4 .

i think that here two aspects has to be taken into account. from the technician point of view i think we all totally agree that a high turbocharged 1.6 4cyl aimed for roughly 650-700 hp in nowadays easily can do the job. you will need no very high revolutions since you can at a turbocharged engine with no problems reach very high BMEP,s and so torques, in an athmo you are from a physikal point of view striktly limited here ( in bmep and torque) and the nearly only secret of power at small displacement are revolutions .


from the spectator point of view an 1.6 inline4 looks very similar to that engine his wife uses for the ride to the supermarket. even when - of course- the technology , sound and power output will not be comparable with a stock family car, the first impression maybe laughable.

[autogyro]

IMO it will have little if any effect on the majority of F1 TV viewers.
It will of course depend on how the new formula is sold to the general viewing public by the media.
Ringo could use a road Toyota turbo even but unfortunately his cars would run out of fuel just after half race distance, so no point realy.