F1technical.net

¿Why the F1 cant get a F1 racing engine...like the V10?...i cant understood

PABLOEING wrote:¿Why the F1 cant get a F1 racing engine...like the V10?...i cant understood

V6 turbo is also a racing engine.

As is a supercharged in-line 4.

Or a naturally aspirated V8.

I never fully understood why the rules don't specify "60L of fuel will be delivered on race day in a sealed container, you can burn it how you want to get to the end of the race but thats all you can use, now go fish"

Or am I thinking about this too simplistically?

Piraxian wrote:I never fully understood why the rules don't specify "60L of fuel will be delivered on race day in a sealed container, you can burn it how you want to get to the end of the race but thats all you can use, now go fish"

Or am I thinking about this too simplistically?

It has been around before.

From 1985 or 1986 to 1988 the fuel tank size was limited and refuelling banned. For 1988 turbo cars got 150l and the N/A cars got 220l.

Th eproblem with these type rules, particularly when there are no other limitations, is that the engines can become absurdly powerful for qualifying and brief periods in the race, while much of teh race is running at much reduced power to make it to the end.

The fuel flow regulation is a far better way of allowing competition between different engine configurations.

In either case it must be noted that a solution similar to today's power units would be superior to most/all other types of engine under both methods.

And 60l is about 45kg, less than half of what they are allowed now.

No flow limit would see a return of 1500hp qualifiing mode and a 2000hp overtake button. I think we would see epic, fast and the furious like wheelspin @ 200mph, overtake scenes.

wuzak wrote:It has been around before.

From 1985 or 1986 to 1988 the fuel tank size was limited and refuelling banned. For 1988 turbo cars got 150l and the N/A cars got 220l.

Th eproblem with these type rules, particularly when there are no other limitations, is that the engines can become absurdly powerful for qualifying and brief periods in the race, while much of teh race is running at much reduced power to make it to the end.

The fuel flow regulation is a far better way of allowing competition between different engine configurations.

In either case it must be noted that a solution similar to today's power units would be superior to most/all other types of engine under both methods.

And 60l is about 45kg, less than half of what they are allowed now.

Surely though the manufacturers of the power unit if given free reign to do whatever they wanted as long as they only burn't the provided fuel would look at advanced ways to burn said fuel to get the most out of it and increase use of energy recovery systems which ultimately makes for more efficient road cars (in theory). Also wouldn't having periods of the race run at higher power and then periods at lower power allow for some interesting strategy calls? Again I am probably looking at this rather simplistically.

Also I was making up the 60L number but (in my simplistic view) given the challenge i'm sure the engineers will find a way to make the power unit run at 1000bhp for the entire race within 2-3 years.

NL_Fer wrote:No flow limit would see a return of 1500hp qualifiing mode and a 2000hp overtake button. I think we would see epic, fast and the furious like wheelspin @ 200mph, overtake scenes.

I'm not sure thats a bad thing.....

With only the fuel consumption being limited, races will become a fuel economy run even more. One might question whether this would increase the sports' appeal.

Piraxian wrote:Surely though the manufacturers of the power unit if given free reign to do whatever they wanted as long as they only burn't the provided fuel would look at advanced ways to burn said fuel to get the most out of it and increase use of energy recovery systems which ultimately makes for more efficient road cars (in theory). Also wouldn't having periods of the race run at higher power and then periods at lower power allow for some interesting strategy calls? Again I am probably looking at this rather simplistically.

It's far more likely they'll develop their engines to have a much higher peak power rather than focusing on having the highest race averaged power. It's far better from a performance standpoint to have access to a much higher peak power at the cost of having fuel saving rather than having less peak power and higher average power. If you want the manufacturers to focus on engine efficiency above all else than you need a rule-set like it is now.

Having said all this, I think it would be more interesting if the rules imposed a power limit rather than a fuel flow limit. Having a fuel flow limit means there is a sort of runaway advantage since higher efficiency means more power, less fuel saving and a higher race averaged power. Having a max power limit would nullify engine performance differences somewhat in qualifying (whether or not this is desired or not who knows), while allowing the races to show the differences in engine efficiencies as the race averaged power will be higher for the more efficient engines. This removes part of the 'problem' of just having a total fuel limit because it means there should be little difference in peak performance, while the teams can develop more efficient engines for a race advantage, or have a very fast car and use fuel strategically to compensate for a less efficient engine.

wuzak wrote:

PABLOEING wrote:¿Why the F1 cant get a F1 racing engine...like the V10?...i cant understood

V6 turbo is also a racing engine.

As is a supercharged in-line 4.

Or a naturally aspirated V8.

Or a naturally aspirated v5 or inline 5 or anything else. Race engines are as diverse as street engines.

I don't understand any reason to want any particular cylinder configuration, as a fan, other than sound or manufacturer attachment.

Cold Fussion wrote:Having said all this, I think it would be more interesting if the rules imposed a power limit rather than a fuel flow limit. Having a fuel flow limit means there is a sort of runaway advantage since higher efficiency means more power, less fuel saving and a higher race averaged power. Having a max power limit would nullify engine performance differences somewhat in qualifying (whether or not this is desired or not who knows), while allowing the races to show the differences in engine efficiencies as the race averaged power will be higher for the more efficient engines. This removes part of the 'problem' of just having a total fuel limit because it means there should be little difference in peak performance, while the teams can develop more efficient engines for a race advantage, or have a very fast car and use fuel strategically to compensate for a less efficient engine.

I think if you had a maximum allowed power you would see turbo engines that hit the maximum power low in the rev range and maintained it all the way to red-line.

Probably what would have happened with the current formula had the fuel flow limit not be dependent on rpm up to 10,500rpm.

wuzak wrote:

Cold Fussion wrote:Having said all this, I think it would be more interesting if the rules imposed a power limit rather than a fuel flow limit. Having a fuel flow limit means there is a sort of runaway advantage since higher efficiency means more power, less fuel saving and a higher race averaged power. Having a max power limit would nullify engine performance differences somewhat in qualifying (whether or not this is desired or not who knows), while allowing the races to show the differences in engine efficiencies as the race averaged power will be higher for the more efficient engines. This removes part of the 'problem' of just having a total fuel limit because it means there should be little difference in peak performance, while the teams can develop more efficient engines for a race advantage, or have a very fast car and use fuel strategically to compensate for a less efficient engine.

I think if you had a maximum allowed power you would see turbo engines that hit the maximum power low in the rev range and maintained it all the way to red-line.

Probably what would have happened with the current formula had the fuel flow limit not be dependent on rpm up to 10,500rpm.

That's a possible downside considering that regular fans already hate the sound. I guess you could link the max power to rpm in a similar fashion to the fuel flow limit rule in order to force the engines to rev.

I don't think we should be making regulations to try and define the engines power curve. At the end of the day there is simply no need. What is it that we are actually trying to achieve in f1?

The sport has a longer rule book than most countries constitutions and it is slowly killing it.

Cold Fussion wrote:

wuzak wrote:

Cold Fussion wrote:Having said all this, I think it would be more interesting if the rules imposed a power limit rather than a fuel flow limit. Having a fuel flow limit means there is a sort of runaway advantage since higher efficiency means more power, less fuel saving and a higher race averaged power. Having a max power limit would nullify engine performance differences somewhat in qualifying (whether or not this is desired or not who knows), while allowing the races to show the differences in engine efficiencies as the race averaged power will be higher for the more efficient engines. This removes part of the 'problem' of just having a total fuel limit because it means there should be little difference in peak performance, while the teams can develop more efficient engines for a race advantage, or have a very fast car and use fuel strategically to compensate for a less efficient engine.

I think if you had a maximum allowed power you would see turbo engines that hit the maximum power low in the rev range and maintained it all the way to red-line.

Probably what would have happened with the current formula had the fuel flow limit not be dependent on rpm up to 10,500rpm.

That's a possible downside considering that regular fans already hate the sound. I guess you could link the max power to rpm in a similar fashion to the fuel flow limit rule in order to force the engines to rev.

To get more revs reduce the number of gears. Drop from 8 now to maybe 5.

No doubt there will be those who complain that F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle so having less gears than a Golf would make it oh so underwhelming.

Have the FIA get in touch with Polyphony, Turn 10, and other racing sim developers. Broadcast a variety of synthesized engine sounds, informed by the cars' data feeds/ECU signal. Whatever informs the rpm/pedal position visualizations. Allow the viewer to select from their choice of "real racing engine" sound overlays, be that an NA V10, a BRM H16, a Cosworth DFV, a NASCAR V8, a 2 stroke kart engine, or whatever else might be consider the sound of a "real racing car" per FIA focus group studies. The elite afficionado might be tempted by the "galloping hooves" option, available with the 'Purist' package, at a cost of €20 per broadcast. There will of course be a "normal feed" option for the less nostalgic. To attract new viewers, the voices of popular celebrities, performing artists, and particularly melodic drivers, will be recorded singing hit songs and pitch bent in accordance with engine RPM. Furthermore, if dear viewer is concerned that the cars aren't loud enough, at regular intervals during the race a message will be scrolled across the screen stating, "The FIA Viewer Satisfaction Initiative would like to take this moment to ask: Have you considered rotating your volume knob clockwise?" and "Remember: Always wear adequate ear protection when simulating the Real Racing sound. -The FIA SafeSpeakers Initiative." A further development of this technology would include a "Murray Walker" filter for alterning commentators' voices toward the creation of the authentic "real commentator" sound.

matt21 wrote:I have just read somewhere, that Audi is planning to develop no new ICE from 2025 onwards.
So IMO sooner or later the big manufacturers will go away from F1 if the rely on ICE.
I suspect that more manufacturers will follow the route of Renault and JLR to go towards Formula E and similar.

In the meantime I would keep the current ICE and reduce the amount of energy provided by fuel and increase the amount of recuperated energy accordingly.

Maybe some of you find this article interesting:
https://www.iav.com/sites/default/files ... brooke.pdf

You know all this talk about going to Electric in Formula 1 makes me think about the Koenigsegg 1-1 it has a ice that puts out about 680-700hp coupled directly to a 160hp electric motor/generator going into a torque converter with a clutch behind that then to a 500hp electric motor that's direct drive to the differential no transmission just the combination of a torque converter and a clutch. So why does f1 still use a transmission ?