F1technical.net

He could buy the Toyota design for starters.

Is the Toyota engine-design for sale? Is BMW's? Is Honda's?

n smikle wrote:I guess the Renault is the most fuel efficient.. (which might make it the most powerful if they decide to add more fuel). It was also reliable in the hands of Renault team.

Adding fuel to the maps does not always equal more power, quite the opposite usually, but it does help for cooling.

xpensive wrote:Is the Toyota engine-design for sale? Is BMW's? Is Honda's?

Nope on all fronts.

It seems like manufacturers still hold engine tech close to their hearts. it must actually be useful to them post-F1

Altho i did see Honda's engine-design for sale on eBay.. a $0.01 listing.. went unsold

Definetely true, simply adding fuel will not necessarily increase power. If it were that simple, Renault would have put more fuel in.
Generally engines that are lower on power require less fuel, this could account for Renault's position.

The increase in fuel they you would normally see in this type of situation won't make much difference to cooling.

I think engine freeze should be removed and lets start developing properly!

F1_eng wrote:Definetely true, simply adding fuel will not necessarily increase power. If it were that simple, Renault would have put more fuel in.
Generally engines that are lower on power require less fuel, this could account for Renault's position.

The increase in fuel they you would normally see in this type of situation won't make much difference to cooling.

I think engine freeze should be removed and lets start developing properly!

IC engine development is today at the same stage as steam engine technology was 50 years ago. Improvements are to small to warrant the ever increasing expense to achieve them. Unless F1 changes radically, it will end up representing an obsolete motive force and will die at about the same time.

They havn't even scraped on heat recovery and the efficiency increases it brings to stationary power generation. Why should that not be achieved in F1? If you have 80 kg of ballast in the car you can use it for something sensible and tweak the aero, tyre and suspension rules in such a way that cars can run the weight distribution without ballast.

I don't feel IC need to change dramaticaly, just freeing up of the rules. Taking the geometrical constraints and material restrictions away, variable inlet and exhaust geometry. Maybe changing the rules so things like solenoid opperated valvetrain are an attractive consideration, exhaust gas driven energy recover systems but not turbos.

Certainly taking the 18,000 rpm limit away would make things very interesting. Maybe increase engine life further.

The cross between removing constraints such as geometrical and material whilst removing RPM cap and increasing engine life would make for very interesting development paths.

Pity.

I'm all for taking away technical restrictions, and putting in budget restrictions.

If F1 is truly concerned with how much it costs and encouraging lower-budget teams.. restricting technology is a silly way of doing it. If you want to limit spending, limit spending like other professional sports teams.

Let the team engineers have a wide open drawing board and encourage them to be creative. "Ok, you have X million dollars to spend on the season, and you will receive Y gallons of fuel to use for each race weekend. Go to it."

4 cyl, 6 cyl, 12 cyl... N/A, turbo... 1.5L, 3L... all fair game. But you only have so much fuel you can use. You'd see some creative --- then...

If there was a chance to police a budget restriction, when there is no telling who did what in this brave new globalized word.

F1_eng wrote:I don't feel IC need to change dramaticaly, just freeing up of the rules. Taking the geometrical constraints and material restrictions away, variable inlet and exhaust geometry. Maybe changing the rules so things like solenoid opperated valvetrain are an attractive consideration, exhaust gas driven energy recover systems but not turbos.

Certainly taking the 18,000 rpm limit away would make things very interesting. Maybe increase engine life further.

The cross between removing constraints such as geometrical and material whilst removing RPM cap and increasing engine life would make for very interesting development paths.

Pity.

How about developing the mechanical efficiency of the rotary engine by igniting fuel in an exhaust driven electric turbine generator FI-eng?
Far fewer moving parts and the heat and fuel problems of the rotary cured in one stroke. Sorry for the pun.

F1_eng wrote:I don't feel IC need to change dramaticaly, just freeing up of the rules. Taking the geometrical constraints and material restrictions away, variable inlet and exhaust geometry. Maybe changing the rules so things like solenoid opperated valvetrain are an attractive consideration, exhaust gas driven energy recover systems but not turbos.

Certainly taking the 18,000 rpm limit away would make things very interesting. Maybe increase engine life further.

The cross between removing constraints such as geometrical and material whilst removing RPM cap and increasing engine life would make for very interesting development paths.

Pity.

I'd hazard a guess that the min weight combined with reduced revs was what give the engines the reliability they had today. Less load but the same amount of material.

I'd like to see the weight restiction and rev limit removed, see if people go for a 1 race full power balls out approach (im thinking mid to back of grid teams) and take a penalty at some other race or keep the reliability.

autogyro wrote:How about developing the mechanical efficiency of the rotary engine by igniting fuel in an exhaust driven electric turbine generator FI-eng?
Far fewer moving parts and the heat and fuel problems of the rotary cured in one stroke. Sorry for the pun.

Alot of those "heat & fuel problems" as you put it with the Rotary are taken care of with direct injection. Turbocharging is still the best way to take advatage of the immense energy of the exhaust out of an ICE(especially in a rotary) but for some reason their are many who dont like Turbo's because they quiet the engine down. Me? I'd take a more powerful & efficient engine over a louder one anytime.

Alot of those "heat & fuel problems" as you put it with the Rotary are taken care of with direct injection. Turbocharging is still the best way to take advatage of the immense energy of the exhaust out of an ICE(especially in a rotary) but for some reason their are many who dont like Turbo's because they quiet the engine down. Me? I'd take a more powerful & efficient engine over a louder one anytime.

Agreed but not turbocharging for more power directly from the IC engine (rotary).
Use the exhaust to drive a turbine generator and store the electrical energy produced, in batteries, flywheel or capacitors, or a combination.

This way complete burning of fuel can be ensured and any over rich running of the rotary will no longer be a problem. If a gearbox that also harnesses energy and applies it to the powertrain is also used, that can be accurately controlled over all operational requirements. Then the shifts themselves can be used to either apply energy or harvest it, as well as harvesting and applying energy when needed in all stepped ratios. Energy applied would be balanced to allow the IC engine to be reduced in mechanical output when ensuring full charge to storage was required.
OK guys, who's got the computer program to work out the efficiency?
Don't forget, only one bearing in direct top gear.

I recon the whole power unit could go into a box 300mm long by 200mm x 200mm.

Hmmm