F1technical.net

xpensive wrote:Right, so let's make it 1.6 liter, but can we have pneumatic valves?

Do we need pneumatic valves if the revs are much lower and power comes through higher torque (i.e. turbocharged) rather than high RPM?

machin wrote:

xpensive wrote:Right, so let's make it 1.6 liter, but can we have pneumatic valves?

Do we need pneumatic valves if the revs are much lower and power comes through higher torque (i.e. turbocharged) rather than high RPM?

If rpm is limited and valve type opened up, we could have sleeve valves and proper power output at last.

It would be great if they could free up large areas of the engine for proper development... as long as the technical details are divluged to all us geeks!!!!

(I'm proud to be a geek!)

machin wrote:

djos wrote:
* Engine must last the entire race weekend - any change equals back of the grid

I'd go further and keep the multiple races per engine rule we currently have... probably go further; 5 races per engine?

F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.

autogyro wrote:If you give the teams 'excess power' you encourage them to use the excess for creating more DF, drag and wake turbulence.
If you give them less power and fuel restriction you encourage them to make the cars more aero efficient with less drag and less wake turbulence.
If you include KERS and other energy recovery systems you encourage development for further efficiency.
Put an intake restrictor on current engines and see how fast the aero people change their tune and take of anything creating DF and drag.
There is no super technology to be had bolting on huge power.
There is an old saying:
"You can make a brick sh-- house fly if you give it enough thrust".

AG, thats why I proposed spec wing elements with mandated min/max AoA to go along with the spec Diffuser that we where supposed to have last year. There is no other way to really control DF - as we have seen in the past, if you just mandate wings to be higher off the ground or forward of the rear axle line etc the engineers will find a a way to make those wings super efficient, stall them etc.

djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.

Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!

machin wrote:

djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.

Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!

700hp is pathetic for the pinacle of motorsport - nascar's with push-rods and carbys make more than 800hp and V8 supercars make about 650hp from push-rod v8's using tuned port fuel injection with a 7500rpm limiter!

djos wrote:

machin wrote:

djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.

Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!

700hp is pathetic for the pinacle of motorsport - nascar's with push-rods and carbys make more than 800hp and V8 supercars make about 650hp from push-rod v8's using tuned port fuel injection with a 7500rpm limiter!

What is pathetic about todays cars? They also have about 700+ hp and last several races. There is no point to increase the cost again beyond what we have now. I personally do not want a cost race. I want a contest of the best engineers for the better ideas. I don't want more performance or power. The tracks cannot afford more expensive safety measures and the spectators do not want to get removed further and further from the action. The sensible concept is to stabilize the power and balance performance increases by allowing ever decreasing energy use.

WhiteBlue wrote:I want a contest of the best engineers for the better ideas.

Where's the contest in having the same 1.5L hot hatch engine (GRE) with different stickers for everyone?

NOTE: my 666th post is on GRE

Pandamasque wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:I want a contest of the best engineers for the better ideas.

Where's the contest in having the same 1.5L hot hatch engine (GRE) with different stickers for everyone?

NOTE: my 666th post is on GRE

Non, but there would be if the engine regs were opened up, including free valve types and the power was restricted by fuel allowed and helped with energy recovery.
That should take IC engine development to its ultimate level and make the engine investment worth while in the real world spin offs.
There is absolutely no future in any uncontrolled power race. That is all ancient history and it is pointless wasting money going over old ground.

All these posts about how wonderful American motor sport is, when all they do is pour gasoline into huge blocks of cast iron or alloy annoys me no end.
It is 19th century technology brought up to date for the benefit of the greedy oil barons nothing else. It has no more 21st century finesse than a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
I used to race dragsters based on the technology and it was fun but has no more relevence to todays vehicles and the future, than the triple expansion steam engine.

autogyro wrote:All these posts about how wonderful American motor sport is, when all they do is pour gasoline into huge blocks of cast iron or alloy annoys me no end.
It is 19th century technology brought up to date for the benefit of the greedy oil barons nothing else. It has no more 21st century finesse than a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
I used to race dragsters based on the technology and it was fun but has no more relevence to todays vehicles and the future, than the triple expansion steam engine.

But watching noisy V8s it is more exciting than watching F3 cars pass by sounding like: *yaaaawn* *yaawn* *yaawn* (as discribed by Graham Goodwin of Daily Sportscar). That's what comes to mind every time anyone mentions GRE. Especially when you know they've been built to be as cheap and durable as possible, just like the noisy prehistoric American V8s, except with better fuel efficiency. Although NASCAR could turn out to be much 'greener' than F1 with GRE as it doesn't fly back and forth around the globe so that BE could reap his profits.

The problem with F1 is that whoever is in charge they don't know what it should be, so the formula is slowly turning into a bad compromise - not too exciting for a petrolhead to watch, not quite the pinnacle of motoring technology, not green at all, and neither blindingly fast. And still very expensive.

djos wrote:

machin wrote:

djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.

Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!

700hp is pathetic for the pinacle of motorsport - nascar's with push-rods and carbys make more than 800hp and V8 supercars make about 650hp from push-rod v8's using tuned port fuel injection with a 7500rpm limiter!

Nascar 5.57 liter
V8 Supercars 5.0 liter
F1 2.4 liter.

F1 engines are far more impressive when size is taken into account, not merely counting hamsters.

I cannot understand how 'petrolheads' conclude it as essential to have the noise of a big V8 when they 'watch' F1. They are muddling their basic senses here.
Most of them 'watch' on TV which is limited by the speakers on the set and at the track the 'experience is only 'heard' by a very small minority.
Watching is done using eyes not ears!
Few people who follow F1 I speak to have ever heard a big racing V8 up close.
I agree it is an experience not to be missed and my own hearing has been damaged by it if I am not mistaken. Not a sensible thing to wish on others unfortunately.
Things are changing and like it or not motor racing noise is not going to remain the prime mover in the sport, if it is still there in ten years at all.

Some engine sounds even when heard on TV give me goose bumps. Literally. Although I personally prefer 12 and older 6 cylinder engine sounds. I know many F1 fans who keep repeating "bring back good old 3.0L V10s!" every time you mention anything about F1 engine regulation changes. Many of them aren't even too interested in the technical side of racing.