F1technical.net

Here is my proposal. 100kg of fuel for the race and the manufacturer can choose any engine configuration they desire. Inline, V or boxer 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines of whatever size they choose. Multi valve or pushrod.

carisi2k wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 04:17

Here is my proposal. 100kg of fuel for the race and the manufacturer can choose any engine configuration they desire. Inline, V or boxer 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines of whatever size they choose. Multi valve or pushrod.

My counter-proposal is 100kg/h fuel flow rate, no race fuel limits, any engine configuration desired - Inline, V, W, radial or boxer 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 cylinder, multi-rotor Wankel rotary, gas turbine, steam engine, swing piston, 4 stroke, 2 stroke, 5 stroke, of any capacity they like. Can be supercharged or turbocharged, or both, or non-supercharged.

Let me be the devils advocate.
Why do we neet to change the rules every x years.

They are complaining that a manufacturer is being to overpowered with current rules. Changing the rules does not make any difference as it will just be another manufacturer which will be overpowered.

I don't have any issues with keeping the current setting, we clearly can see at least Ferrari catching up so it's not a only Mercedes championship. Who can guarantee else then we don't end up with x years of only team Y winning after changing the rules again.

Maybe add some standard components where possible

A switch to a low cost 'Indy Car' chassis/enige does not seem possible. It does have his advantages

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

20 Sep 2017, 13:17

that would be Mercedes that part-owns 'independent' Renault
both being in the EU and part-owned by the taxpayer

turbine recovery looks good on the testbench but is useless to the road car owner

Or Mercedes offers their Turbo solution to Renault to keep it

wuzak wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 04:35

carisi2k wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 04:17

Here is my proposal. 100kg of fuel for the race and the manufacturer can choose any engine configuration they desire. Inline, V or boxer 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines of whatever size they choose. Multi valve or pushrod.

My counter-proposal is 100kg/h fuel flow rate, no race fuel limits, any engine configuration desired - Inline, V, W, radial or boxer 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 cylinder, multi-rotor Wankel rotary, gas turbine, steam engine, swing piston, 4 stroke, 2 stroke, 5 stroke, of any capacity they like. Can be supercharged or turbocharged, or both, or non-supercharged.

I would agree to that if a priviso of using E85 fuel is stipulated. Just to make F1 a little more environmentally friendly. Plus e85 makes a nice smell when burnt.

carisi2k wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 01:35

wuzak wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 04:35

carisi2k wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 04:17

Here is my proposal. 100kg of fuel for the race and the manufacturer can choose any engine configuration they desire. Inline, V or boxer 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines of whatever size they choose. Multi valve or pushrod.

My counter-proposal is 100kg/h fuel flow rate, no race fuel limits, any engine configuration desired - Inline, V, W, radial or boxer 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 cylinder, multi-rotor Wankel rotary, gas turbine, steam engine, swing piston, 4 stroke, 2 stroke, 5 stroke, of any capacity they like. Can be supercharged or turbocharged, or both, or non-supercharged.

I would agree to that if a priviso of using E85 fuel is stipulated. Just to make F1 a little more environmentally friendly. Plus e85 makes a nice smell when burnt.

E85 is much lower in energy density than petrol. Would require much higher fuel flow rates and large fuel tanks. Or refueling.

I don't think E85 is worth using.

PS: F1 fuel already has a biofuel requirement. And CO2 generated by F1 racing has been offset since the late 1990s.

The v8 supercars use e85 and they sound awesome and put out amazing flame to boot. Plus you can tell greenies that the fuel is mostly renewable with a low carbon output and it shuts them up immediately.

afaik the carbon credentials of ethanol are poor eg relative to biodiesel and 'advanced' SI biofuels eg biobutanol feedstock
Australian ethanol made from sorghum would seem to be quite poor carbonwise
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/art ... lances-and
ethanol has eg a 4% greater heating value than gasoline at any given AFR relative to stoichiometric AFR

and could ethanol be burned leaner than gasoline ?
(no or not much is my guess)
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... 000123.pdf
https://www.mathesongas.com/pdfs/produc ... imits-.pdf

One thing i can't understand is what are they waiting for to finalize the rules for 2021?? Then everyone is going to say that they didn't have enough time to develop! What i think we are going to end up with is a simplified version of today's V6T...maybe twin-turbo with no MGU-H and more KERS!
Hybrids are going to be the name of the game until oil disappears so no need to go full electric or atmospheric V8-10-12s (although i would love V10-12s)...and that's the reason why i think the MGU-H in particular is going to play a big role in the road car industry since pretty much all the engines are turbocharged nowadays and it's a great way to recover energy! But it has cost F1 engine manufacturers way to much to develop and is pretty unreliable i think...and the way Le Mans is going i don't see it being used anywhere in motorsport for now! So maybe F1 should think of a simple more economic way to keep it (maybe with some standard parts) so that even small engine manufaturers like Cosworth can enter!
This is a huge opportunity for F1 to bring in big manufacturers like Porshce...please don't mess up this time!! [-o<

Why, do we think, is the development of a good MGU-h so difficult and/ or costly?

hurril wrote: ↑

25 Sep 2017, 12:29

Why, do we think, is the development of a good MGU-h so difficult and/ or costly?

Nothing's cheap in F1

One has to remember it is not only about MGU-H. It is also power electronics, energy storage, etc. Power of these machines, their speed and usual F1 "make it as small and light as possible" (their power can be described as mind-blowing) make it challenging. Just imagine switches able to handle close to 100kW and few tens of kHz, and that's just one of the many examples.

Add to this complexity of the PU and energy flow. Developing strategies allowing extracting as much performance as possible with very high efficiency and really impressive reliability takes a lot of efforts (read: time and money). Engines are running on the dynos day and night, much more hardware is being consumed by testing than the racing itself.

noname wrote: ↑

25 Sep 2017, 15:00

hurril wrote: ↑

25 Sep 2017, 12:29

Why, do we think, is the development of a good MGU-h so difficult and/ or costly?

Nothing's cheap in F1

One has to remember it is not only about MGU-H. It is also power electronics, energy storage, etc. Power of these machines, their speed and usual F1 "make it as small and light as possible" (their power can be described as mind-blowing) make it challenging. Just imagine switches able to handle close to 100kW and few tens of kHz, and that's just one of the many examples.

Add to this complexity of the PU and energy flow. Developing strategies allowing extracting as much performance as possible with very high efficiency and really impressive reliability takes a lot of efforts (read: time and money). Engines are running on the dynos day and night, much more hardware is being consumed by testing than the racing itself.

I was specifically thinking about the MGU-h here because it gets mentioned a lot. And sure: I can appreciate the delicacy of getting something fullfil power, a small weight and reliability.

the H runs at c. 100000 rpm but the K runs at 'only' c. 35000 rpm

so maybe the H needs technology (in its 'drive' electronics) that's particularly difficult - and road-irrelevant
likewise the need to design around and manage the mechanical factors of super-high rpm operation

most references envisage machines of somewhat modest capability compared to F1's
eg http://www.highspeedgenerator.com/

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

25 Sep 2017, 15:35

the H runs at c. 100000 rpm but the K runs at 'only' c. 35000 rpm

so maybe the H needs technology (in its 'drive' electronics) that's particularly difficult - and road-irrelevant
likewise the need to design around and manage the mechanical factors of super-high rpm operation

this below envisages machines of somewhat modest capability compared to F1's
http://www.highspeedgenerator.com/

Probably not as road relevant as a plain turbo would be, but for hybrids, trucks, busses and most of all: huge ships, this is highly relevant and used.

the established technology is relevant and used
F1's technology goes to a rpm/power capability an order of magnitude greater than anything apparently yet used or published

please feel free to find evidence otherwise