F1technical.net

Pandamasque wrote:Max had his chance but kept implementing the exact opposite policy for how many years?

It was never that simple.

Why is there little to no engine talk in this last page?

This thread is dedicated to what will come after the current engine. Please keep it that way. That means avoidance of politics and personal comments.

mx_tifosi wrote:Why is there little to no engine talk in this last page?

This thread is dedicated to what will come after the current engine. Please keep it that way. That means avoidance of politics and personal comments.

Sorry but a brief diversion into the politics is I think relevent to the thread topic. I agree not the insults.

I think 1.6 turbo is the engine spec most favoured.
I would like a fairly open regulation of such an engine and the development direction steered towards efficiency by limiting fuel amount and possibly flow.
My ideal would encourage ic development (be it at the 1.6 turbo level)to the logical final level of the technology, which would be slightly higher than the last of the post war aviation ice's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Crecy

mx_tifosi wrote:Why is there little to no engine talk in this last page?

This thread is dedicated to what will come after the current engine. Please keep it that way. That means avoidance of politics and personal comments.

Good Call.

I welcome new engine development, but F1 is a sprint race and in my opinion never going to be very revelant to road technology. Id like to keep the 2.4 NA engines, but make that the only restriction, except for daft materials obviously. This would allow them to experiment again, and maybe introduce the sleeve valves as autogyro was on about and what ever other crazy tech they come up with, but without loosing the uniqueness f1. By that i mean 18,000rpm screaming engines that cant be found anywhere else, rather than a 1.6 turbo that can be found in many small to mid-size family cars. (And yes I know they'd be far more advanced etc but still)

Good point about the current 2 point 4 OA engines.
However if development is to be opened up, which I agree within fuel used control, then 2.4L would soon give over 1000bhp and be above the safety limits of the circuits etc. Restricting the fuel allowed further at this engine size would heavily restrict development.
In a turbo formula at 1.6 the level would not be as easily reached and turbo boost could also be limited but still allow high level developments for efficiency.

As a side note: I keep noticing that in ACO sanctioned sports car racing the small turbocharged engines (AER, Mazda) have significantly more failures than bigger NA.

http://www.tomorrownewsf1.com/f1-2013-l ... urbo-12862

TomorrowNewsf1.com wrote:Il semblerait que les motoristes ont déjà fixé les grandes lignes de ce que sera la motorisation future en Formule 1. Tout d’abord, un moteur avec 4 cylindres en ligne contre 8 sur les blocs actuels. La compensation se ferait par le biais d’une suralimentation exercée par deux turbos ! Le tout pour une cylindrée estimée à 1,5L.
Autre point, le système de récupération d’énergie cinétique (KERS) ferait son retour mais avec une puissance multipliée par trois comparée à la saison 2009.

This french site reports under the head line "2013 - The era of bi-turbo?" that the GRE will make its planned entrance and will have a KERS capacity of three times the 2009 limit.

If they are going to get over 200BHP from KERS this is going to be spectacular!
If Todt is behind this Im beginning to see the light in terms of what he brings to the table technically speaking.
They should keep the time on KERS the same though as I think that was just about right.

They need to get the battery issues sorted first imo - Li-Po should be the minimum spec (allowing for newer battery types later on) as the Li-Po have less disposal issues than other current battery types.

Williams Flybrid system should be perfect for this spec and far more "green" than a battery based system imo.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:If they are going to get over 200BHP from KERS this is going to be spectacular!
If Todt is behind this Im beginning to see the light in terms of what he brings to the table technically speaking.
They should keep the time on KERS the same though as I think that was just about right.

I don't think that power release will tripple, just the energy that can be harvested from braking.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83106?

There are still miracles in F1.

Ferrari's CEO Amedeo Felisa wrote:If F1 has to develop something helpful for real driving conditions, then the best solution is for an engine that is turbocharged and GDI," said Felisa. "That is what we would support. It is the best solution for driving efficiency and utilisation of the engine in a positive way.

So now we get support for a twin turbo charged small GDI petrol engine from Ferrari. Earlier already Haug said:

Norbert Haug wrote:The fascinating thing about Formula 1 is it's fast, it's loud, it's on the limit. We can discuss green initiatives, but Formula 1 needs to be technically driven.... We need to be mindful that we are building the cleanest cars we can. The engine will be downsized in 2013 because the fuel consumption has to go down, and we need to cut carbon emissions. But we must not think that a 700bhp engine is going to be the greenest car ever, because that's not great.

So Haug is also supporting a petrol engine because diesels would need catalytic soot filters to handle NOx emissions and that would not allow the noise that is part of the spectacle.


Now we just need to see dual fuel technology accepted in F1 and have the new formula brought forward to 2012 instead of 2013. By mid decade we could have ten manufacturers back in the game with some glorious returns as Porsche, Audi (Autounion), Aston Martin and BMW.

Turbo Engines for 2013. 1.5 Liter 670HP

WhiteBlue wrote:diesels would need catalytic soot filters to handle NOx emissions and that would not allow the noise that is part of the spectacle.

I definately agree it has to have a great sound. Injecting a tiny amount hydrogen into the cylinder to initiate the combustion can dramatically reduce NOx in gasoline engines according to research. I wonder could this be applicable to diesel engines? That would mean you wouldnt really need a catalytic converter. Also hydrogen is louder than petrol when burnt in an engine.

Unfortunately even a petrol version of the new purposed engine wont be any match fo the scream of the 2.4 v8.

1.5l turbo GDI would be very nice i think ... but it should not be limited in the number of cylinders allowed. if the regulations for 2013 says it has to be a 4 cylinder then it sucks!
really hope there will be no limit on cylinders.

Holm86 wrote:1.5l turbo GDI would be very nice i think ... but it should not be limited in the number of cylinders allowed. if the regulations for 2013 says it has to be a 4 cylinder then it sucks!
really hope there will be no limit on cylinders.

a 1.5ltr twin-turbo v6 would be brilliant!