F1technical.net

Please, guys, you don't have to talk only about internal combustion engines, you can speculate about turbines or whatever, but could you talk about CARS? Oh, and now I'm talking about it, could you do some research about what FIA thinks?

Rest assured, we know the history of airplanes, we know all about Whittle, Ohain, the Deccan Traps and Mount Tambora.

autogyro wrote:A bit different at Indy, thats like slot car racing.
Prior to the Lotus most indy cars were modified lorries.

Not really. The concept has been tried and was pretty successful. The car also ran at Monza and scored an 8th.

Pingguest wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:It is the nature of an F1 race that only a certain percentage like 40-70% runs on full throttle. It is the other 60-30% were you can save significantly if you employ the best lean running technique. None of the new technologies does improve the efficiency much on full throttle but they help on a partial load. If you set the total fuel load to 90% of what is normally needed you give an incentive to find max fuel saving under partial load conditions. Those teams and manufacturers who manage to find such savings will be able to continue to run with the same max power when it is needed. So by finding those savings they will not loose speed when the amount of fuel gets restricted more and more every year.

In other words: at peak power teams and manufactures will continue to use the same amount of fuel. I agree manufactures should get an incentive to lower fuel consumption at partial load, but fuel consumption should be lowered while going flat-out too. Taking this in consideration, shouldn't Formula 1 have both fuel-flow limits and fuel tank size limits?

No, at peak power a 1,5 L bi-turbo with build in recovery would have a much smaller max fuel flow rate than the current 2,4 L V8 on full song. I expect that engine to be much more torque based than rev based due to the blowers. I still think that it makes no sense to cut off the max performance from an engine because it will hurt the spectacle. If you know that you can race the engine only on 80% average fuel consumption to reach the flag and reach longevity targets you give the engineers so much more incentives and the drivers more options. The engines certainly would not be frozen like today. So engine developers can optimize efficiency all the time.

Pingguest wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:I don't understand what you mean by artificial. It either works or it works not. Current qualifying format is rather complicated but it works well and provides the spectacle. Why should the limited fuel tank not work the same way. It works in Le Mans and I just made a little change for F1.

If Formula 1 chooses for a fuel tank size limit, it should accept all non-artificial consequences including drivers running out of fuel.

You have to address the known issues from the first turbo era when cars ran out of fuel 50 m from the flag. You do not want that to disrupt the show. Fans got really frustrated by this and got disgruntled with F1. A reserve tank with penalty is much more acceptable. Drivers can finish and will loose positions but not all.

WhiteBlue wrote:

Pingguest wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:It is the nature of an F1 race that only a certain percentage like 40-70% runs on full throttle. It is the other 60-30% were you can save significantly if you employ the best lean running technique. None of the new technologies does improve the efficiency much on full throttle but they help on a partial load. If you set the total fuel load to 90% of what is normally needed you give an incentive to find max fuel saving under partial load conditions. Those teams and manufacturers who manage to find such savings will be able to continue to run with the same max power when it is needed. So by finding those savings they will not loose speed when the amount of fuel gets restricted more and more every year.

In other words: at peak power teams and manufactures will continue to use the same amount of fuel. I agree manufactures should get an incentive to lower fuel consumption at partial load, but fuel consumption should be lowered while going flat-out too. Taking this in consideration, shouldn't Formula 1 have both fuel-flow limits and fuel tank size limits?

No, at peak power a 1,5 L bi-turbo with build in recovery would have a much smaller max fuel flow rate than the current 2,4 L V8 on full song. I expect that engine to be much more torque based than rev based due to the blowers. I still think that it makes no sense to cut off the max performance from an engine because it will hurt the spectacle. If you know that you can race the engine only on 80% average fuel consumption to reach the flag and reach longevity targets you give the engineers so much more incentives and the drivers more options. The engines certainly would not be frozen like today. So engine developers can optimize efficiency all the time.

Pingguest wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:I don't understand what you mean by artificial. It either works or it works not. Current qualifying format is rather complicated but it works well and provides the spectacle. Why should the limited fuel tank not work the same way. It works in Le Mans and I just made a little change for F1.

If Formula 1 chooses for a fuel tank size limit, it should accept all non-artificial consequences including drivers running out of fuel.

You have to address the known issues from the first turbo era when cars ran out of fuel 50 m from the flag. You do not want that to disrupt the show. Fans got really frustrated by this and got disgruntled with F1. A reserve tank with penalty is much more acceptable. Drivers can finish and will loose positions but not all.

virgin can calculate their race pace to make the finish with too small a tank and surge trouble on top of this ...so I´d say the poor devils back then had not much
in terms of repeatability of fuel consumption figures to work a fuel limit on the marginal side.. but of course it is not racing to see cars coasting and shortshifting to make the finish.I´m sure every team could design a reserve functionality into their fuelsystem giving them a warning when those last 5 litres start to get consumed..

marcush. wrote: it is not racing to see cars coasting and shortshifting to make the finish.

I guess there are different driver mentalities out there. Some can drive with a fuel budget and engineers can leave it to them to to stay on the fuel curve. Other drivers may need to have fuel saving maps pre set by the engineers to make the fuel strategy work.

WhiteBlue wrote:

Pingguest wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:It is the nature of an F1 race that only a certain percentage like 40-70% runs on full throttle. It is the other 60-30% were you can save significantly if you employ the best lean running technique. None of the new technologies does improve the efficiency much on full throttle but they help on a partial load. If you set the total fuel load to 90% of what is normally needed you give an incentive to find max fuel saving under partial load conditions. Those teams and manufacturers who manage to find such savings will be able to continue to run with the same max power when it is needed. So by finding those savings they will not loose speed when the amount of fuel gets restricted more and more every year.

In other words: at peak power teams and manufactures will continue to use the same amount of fuel. I agree manufactures should get an incentive to lower fuel consumption at partial load, but fuel consumption should be lowered while going flat-out too. Taking this in consideration, shouldn't Formula 1 have both fuel-flow limits and fuel tank size limits?

No, at peak power a 1,5 L bi-turbo with build in recovery would have a much smaller max fuel flow rate than the current 2,4 L V8 on full song. I expect that engine to be much more torque based than rev based due to the blowers. I still think that it makes no sense to cut off the max performance from an engine because it will hurt the spectacle. If you know that you can race the engine only on 80% average fuel consumption to reach the flag and reach longevity targets you give the engineers so much more incentives and the drivers more options. The engines certainly would not be frozen like today. So engine developers can optimize efficiency all the time.

And hence a fuel consumption limit will ceteris paribus only create economical challenges. But fuel consumption at peak power shouldn't only be reduced as a consequence of the new engine configuration, but as a consequence of on-going development too.

I hate this move to eco-friendly engines, it really bothers me that f1 is being criticized for not being green enough.
I honestly think that limiting fuel flow is silly, the teams would already have to do that if you told them you get this much fuel to finish the race, plus there's no incentive on saving fuel right now except for the fact that you have to make it to the end of the race. Points should be given for the amount of fuel that wasn't used. Also i firmly believe that if given a certain amount of fuel for the race, then manufactures should be able to choose what kind of engine they want to run, think of all the increase in competition given the advantages and disadvantages of certain engine types, i think this would be great!

Green is overrated and boring

hecti wrote:I hate this move to eco-friendly engines, it really bothers me that f1 is being criticized for not being green enough... Green is overrated and boring.

I say your position is probably unreflected or you would not expend all that negative emotion. F1 should show that they are in sync with the rest of the world and support fuel efficiency. As long as the objective of exciting racing with cutting edge machinery is held up it should not bother fans if better propulsion technology is used. No reason green F1 should be boring.

hecti wrote: Points should be given for the amount of fuel that wasn't used.

Not such a clever idea in my view. Racing is about finishing first or ahead of the other guy. Nothing else should be rewarded.

hecti wrote: I firmly believe that if given a certain amount of fuel for the race, then manufactures should be able to choose what kind of engine they want to run, think of all the increase in competition given the advantages and disadvantages of certain engine types, i think this would be great!

The manufacturers want affordable engines that utilize technologies currently under development for their core business. Unlimited technical freedom hasn't existed in F1 from day one. Competition increases when F1 meets the manufacturer's objective and not when crazy amounts of money are spend for little success.

The current plan for four cylinder 1,5 L twin turbos with integrated regeneration, modern combustion technologies 670 bhp power (including regen) looks like a step in the right direction. All they need to do now is increase mechanical grip, get rid of most of the aero and use non sticky tyres. Tyres must be so hard that very little rubber goes on the racing line and no marbles are off the line. Then the cars are over powered again and racing will be much more fun.

WhiteBlue wrote:The manufacturers want affordable engines that utilize technologies currently under development for their core business. Unlimited technical freedom hasn't existed in F1 from day one. Competition increases when F1 meets the manufacturer's objective and not when crazy amounts of money are spend for little success.

The current plan for four cylinder 1,5 L twin turbos with integrated regeneration, modern combustion technologies 670 bhp power (including regen) looks like a step in the right direction. All they need to do now is increase mechanical grip, get rid of most of the aero and use non sticky tyres. Tyres must be so hard that very little rubber goes on the racing line and no marbles are off the line. Then the cars are over powered again and racing will be much more fun.

That sounds like a very sad future for F1. It sounds more like an Abarth racing series, which is perfectly fine for that specific case, but not for the "pinnacle of motorsports". Miniscule engines, little DF, and nongrippy tires, seriously? That sounds like sh*t and barely appeals to me more than any other junior formulae, which is not so much.

I don't see how you can call a 670 bhp engine miniscule. To meet the objective of keeping lap times the speed on the straights and in slower corners would get higher but adhesion in fast corners would be reduced so that they become a spectacle again. Today a toddler can take Eau Rouge flat out in an F1 car. That may be a turn on the first time but essentially the skill to run high speed corners is gone from F1 if everybody can do it. The only requirement is a bit of a workout for the neck to enable you to hold your head up at 5G. I would gladly see cornering reduced to 2.5 G if I can have proper racing for that.



This is how a sensible F1 car should look tyre wise. I think it is ridiculous that drivers cannot see their front wings any more. I think they need to mandate that the driver must see the whole front wing from his normal driving position. It is nonsense that the feet are higher than the shoulders in a race car.

WhiteBlue wrote:To meet the objective of .......

Saying that Daewoo Lacetti 1.8 has as much power as Porsche 550 RS Spyder won't make it more interesting!

Agreed about the DF in fast corners though. Less corners should allow going flat out.

So what is this pinnacle of motor sport?
It used to be the ultimate search for higher performance (almost a religion if I remember) but this has long gone.
It is easy to build cars that go faster and corner faster than current F1 cars and it is the regulations that prevent it being done.
The only area of real development is aero downforce and this has completely covered up all the other factors that made F1 what it used to be, like a damp blanket.
Drivers will of course simply aspire to any formula' that are placed in front of them and will compete in any formula called F1, the best will win as they do.
When F1 started it reflected the development of motor vehicles in general where there was a defined target, to improve 'performance'.
Today this target has changed, no longer is 'performance' the watch word, it is now 'efficiency'.
F1 has got to change its own 'performance' target to one of 'efficiency' if it wants to survive.

autogyro wrote:So what is this pinnacle of motor sport?
It used to be the ultimate search for higher performance (almost a religion if I remember) but this has long gone.
It is easy to build cars that go faster and corner faster than current F1 cars and it is the regulations that prevent it being done.
The only area of real development is aero downforce and this has completely covered up all the other factors that made F1 what it used to be, like a damp blanket.
Drivers will of course simply aspire to any formula' that are placed in front of them and will compete in any formula called F1, the best will win as they do.
When F1 started it reflected the development of motor vehicles in general where there was a defined target, to improve 'performance'.
Today this target has changed, no longer is 'performance' the watch word, it is now 'efficiency'.
F1 has got to change its own 'performance' target to one of 'efficiency' if it wants to survive.

Efficiency? No thanks. I think part of the problem is drivers nursing engines so that they last 3 or 4 races. Personnaly, I want to see drivers pushing themselves and the equipment to the limit (and beyond in some cases) not economy runs. It's F1, not a greenpeace meeting!

If F1 is to survive, the dependance on aero has to the sacrificed for mechanical grip.

Does anyone know what FIA is concidering transmissionwise?? Will doubleclutch gearboxes be allowed?? i think they should as many carmanufactures are using them and they run more miles per gallon than conventional manual gearboxes.