Jump to content


Photo

2013 Rules


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#151 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 July 2010 - 19:22

How costly are the telemetry in F1? its a sensor for just about everything in them.

i mean they have guys sitting in Europe watching brake wear in middle east for Christ sake.

what if they limited the telemetry to only vibrations in the wheels?

If we look away from the transfer period would it actually be anything to save on it?


its not like they have one guy either.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Is this why testing is banned? because they can get all the info during practise and race?

Advertisement

#152 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 July 2010 - 07:40

Racecar Engineering's May 2007 issue had a discussion about the future of Grand Prix racing engines. The article described a naturally aspirated 3.0l V12 base engine restricted to a maximum rpm of 12,500 and around 600hp. The engine proposed would have a turbo-compounding unit, en exhaust energy recovery system (EERS), as well as the kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) in an integral unit. The total output with these technologies would be around the 900hp mark.


The restrictions are very severe, particularly the restriction of turbo charging vs turbo compounding. It creates bad packaging and a weight disadvantage. The only advantage would be keeping a traditional N/A sound which is a bit narrow minded IMO. But integrated all wheel KERS (AWKERS) and heat energy recovery (HERS) should be interesting.

It rules out a lot of potential, exciting technologies like Diesel, HCCI, VCR, 2 stroke etc and worst of all, doesn't seem to reward efficiency gains in the way that a fuel-flow limit would.



I agree that direct injection and particularly Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI), variable inlets, variable exhaust, variable valve timing and variable geometry turbos (VGT) would be useful. Diesel I would exclude due to the need for catalytic soot converters and the negative impact on engine noise. You would instantly have massive opposition to quiet engines if you go away from petrol. Two stroke would be a question of emission quality and efficiency as well. A fuel flow limit is inferior to a total fuel or energy cap. I would only support it as an additional measure to total fuel budget.

The prospect of a "World" four-cylinder engine is most depressing despite any financial aspects that may apply.


It would make sense IMO to set the capacity of a turbo engine at the traditional 1.5 or 1.6 L that turbos had in F1. So that would match with the Global Race Engine(GRE) proposal. I would not restrict the other aspects that are part of the GRE proposal though.

Personally i hope pnumatic valves gets banned just so they develop some trick desmo valvetrain with V-tech and all that. its more fuel efficient too, that desmo stuff.


I would totally free all restrictions on valves. Conventional poppet valves, sleeve valves, rotary valves, desmodromics, pneumatic, electro magnetic basically anything goes. Let them pursue the holy grail of zero throttling losses and massively improved gas exchange.

Its a shame if they don`t allow some diversity. if a lot of cylinders is the prefered option give them different engine volumes depending on what cyl numbers they run. 6 Cyl 1.5L , 5cyl 1.6L, 4 cyl 1.7L

I would advocate a set volume as given above, but allow a wide range of cylinder configs. I-4, V4, W4, V6, W6, I-5, flat or whatever they would want to do. Heck, why not even rotary pistons? I'm convinced that I-4 would be the dominant config due to a combination of minimum internal friction, highest fuel efficiency and compact size. But the config would also be impacted by the valve system. So V4 might be an option. The suppliers in favor of GRE would of course use I-4 but I would not restrict it to that. Let them fight it out as long as they stay within the projected restrictive fuel budget and remember the target is down to 80 kg from 160 kg within five years (target 2017).

Edited by WhiteBlue, 05 July 2010 - 07:46.


#153 Spa95

Spa95
  • Member

  • 861 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 02 September 2010 - 14:13

According to Motorsport-Total (http://www.motorspor...o_10090209.html), the working group headed by Rory Byrne, Patrick Head (Chassis) and Gilles Simon (Engine) made the following proposals to the teams during the summer break.

- 1,6-Liter four-cylinder Turbo with 650 horsepower and 3 bar boost

- KERS for 30 seconds for an extra 150 horsepower

- Fuel flow to the engine will be limited via a 'Fuel-Flow-Meter'

- An Increase of wheel rim dimension from 13 to 15-18 inches

- There is talk of increasing the amount of downforce generated by the diffuser. This will in effect be like a ground-force car.

- Sidepods will be moved further forward

- Cars may have to use KERS when in the pitlane (to increase awareness of the technology).

- Bigger brake discs


Edited by Spa95, 02 September 2010 - 14:14.


#154 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 02 September 2010 - 14:24

According to Motorsport-Total (http://www.motorspor...o_10090209.html), the working group headed by Rory Byrne, Patrick Head (Chassis) and Gilles Simon (Engine) made the following proposals to the teams during the summer break.


all that was here first:

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/3018

#155 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 September 2010 - 16:07

- 1,6-Liter four-cylinder Turbo with 650 horsepower and 3 bar boost

Pretty sure they are going to get way more HP with that boost level. Depends on the rpm limit ofc.

It does not say anything about the amount of cylinders. Guessing they are going to dull it down. Hoping they are saying a max limit like 6 or 8 rather than a exact number.

- KERS for 30 seconds for an extra 150 horsepower

fine by me, why not.

- Fuel flow to the engine will be limited via a 'Fuel-Flow-Meter'

Gonna be exciting to se how it works, it also limits the practical rpm limit, so not so cool really.

- There is talk of increasing the amount of downforce generated by the diffuser. This will in effect make it like a ground effect car.
fixed*



As long as the wings are reduced i think it will be nice. personally i would much rather see a lower downforce, bigger tire, less weight combo.

- Sidepods will be moved further forward

How about letting the teams choose at least were the pods should be!?

- Cars may have to use KERS when in the pitlane (to increase awareness of the technology).

sound like trouble. what if he defends hes position with boost and got nothing left for pitlane. I like the idea tho..

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 September 2010 - 16:10.


#156 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 02 September 2010 - 16:16

1,6-Liter four-cylinder Turbo with 650 horsepower and 3 bar boost



It does not say anything about the amount of cylinders.



#157 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 September 2010 - 16:18

How would you use KERS in the pitlane if there's a speed limit?

#158 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 September 2010 - 17:29

aww crap. Was hoping for a straight 5cyl.

#159 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,758 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 September 2010 - 21:10

How would you use KERS in the pitlane if there's a speed limit?


Just to power the car to that speed? In the same way a Prius uses it's electric motor to power it in low-speed conditions...


I can't believe I just used a Prius in an F1 comparison... :drunk:

Advertisement

#160 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 September 2010 - 23:48

- 1,6-Liter four-cylinder Turbo with 650 horsepower and 3 bar boost
Pretty sure they are going to get way more HP with that boost level. Depends on the rpm limit ofc.
Will mostly depend on the fuel-flow-limit.

It does not say anything about the amount of cylinders. Guessing they are going to dull it down. Hoping they are saying a max limit like 6 or 8 rather than a exact number.
The optimum number is what teams will use (if #cyls is free) and that would be 4 or 5.

- Fuel flow to the engine will be limited via a 'Fuel-Flow-Meter'
Gonna be exciting to se how it works, it also limits the practical rpm limit, so not so cool really.
Actually limits the power, teams will decide whether to limit boost or RPM (but probably rpm as you say)

Can someone please reply to this post - and use another font colour?

Edited by gruntguru, 02 September 2010 - 23:48.


#161 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 September 2010 - 08:08

Can someone please reply to this post - and use another font colour?

I hope this will suffice for the moment...

#162 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 03 September 2010 - 14:39

OK.

#163 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 September 2010 - 16:00

It does not say anything about the amount of cylinders. Guessing they are going to dull it down. Hoping they are saying a max limit like 6 or 8 rather than a exact number.
The optimum number is what teams will use (if #cyls is free) and that would be 4 or 5.



was not the case last time. Renault V6, TAG V6, Ferrari V6? bmw S4.

why you think that? If you want to max out the power a V6 surely is the way to go over a S4.

less vibrations, more work cycles, better layout for twin turbo configurations++

Less efficient perhaps but only when you can`t peak the power potential of the spec.


- Fuel flow to the engine will be limited via a 'Fuel-Flow-Meter'
Gonna be exciting to se how it works, it also limits the practical rpm limit, so not so cool really.
Actually limits the power, teams will decide whether to limit boost or RPM (but probably rpm as you say)


Actually when i think about it that will also vary by things like how much turbo lag they get.

Say you could get more power but since you then get so much more turbo lag you would then prefer the high reving responsive motor config over the powerful one.


One thing should improve even more.. qualifers. going to be fun watching those flames they would put out with their response systems.

Edited by MatsNorway, 03 September 2010 - 16:10.


#164 GVera

GVera
  • Member

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 03 September 2010 - 17:00

How would you use KERS in the pitlane if there's a speed limit?


Kill the petrol engine entering pit lane, use Kers for all the pit lane travel, turn on petrol engine after pit exit.
A silent pitlane :eek: :down: :down:

Edited by GVera, 03 September 2010 - 17:01.


#165 GrpB

GrpB
  • Member

  • 118 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 03 September 2010 - 17:26

F1 rules should force the cars to be EXACTLY representative of what can be applied to production cars. Specifically, the cars should be designed for the specific wants are of the customer, as communicated through the marketing team, with the engineers at the tail end of the process.

Since the 'customers' are the sponsors that fund the effort, and since the representatives of the sponsors (from what I have seen in VIP suites, hospitality tents/trailers, over the years) are typically people of no small ego, I would think the sponsors would not be shy about dictating what the cars should look like. An F1 paradigm shift of letting the customer dictate what the car should be, or anticipating their wants, as per the actual vehicle concept-development-production process, would be excellent for the 'the show'.

Maybe there would be:

- Funny cars with large front tires on gasoline (lots of signage)
- Scaled down NASCAR trucks on E100 (for the South American market)
- Monster trucks that ignore the pavement and just do free form displays in the runoff areas (hey, trucks are big margin and that's what the sponsor wanted)
- Maybe a bicycle tired hyper miler (didn't win the race, but got the best fuel mileage in the field)

Currently sponsors buy into the series and get a car that looks a certain way as a result, that is why we are so worried about costs and parity. Let sponsors buy into the cars, whatever they want to look like, however much they want to spend, and let the series be assembled from the resulting motley collection of market driven (designed) race cars.

#166 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 September 2010 - 17:43

One thing should improve even more.. qualifers. going to be fun watching those flames they would put out with their response systems.



actually... qualifiers could become a bit silly.

Only every 2nd lap would be good as they would load up the KERS for the start straight. depending on track ofc.

#167 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 September 2010 - 22:24

all that was here first:

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/3018



A quote from Dieter Renken in that article.

There are also concerns about the soundtracks of four cylinder units running to just 10,000 rpm - chosen in order to be more road relevant, improve efficiency as a result of lower friction losses and increase durability, thus reducing costs: visitors to 2010 European grands prix have, rather unfortunately, been exposed to the woeful noises produced by GP3 cars, which are, particularly on overrun, reminiscent of water-pumping stationary diesel engines.

The working group has a duty to capture the very essence of F1 – noise, speed, power, spectacle – and one wonders whether the four-bangers will achieve that, regardless of the sophistication of their peripherals.



That is one concern for me. The sound is one of the things that is most associated with F1. If the cars are less than exciting sounding it could be a real turn-off for many viewers.

Also, in 2012 F1 is planning to return to the USA. Not sure that racing turbo 4 cylinders will exactly set fire to that market.

I am also not fond of using a World motorsport engine as a basis for F1. It makes the engines in F1 less than special.

As for road car relevence, not sure that F1 has ever been road car relevent, nor do I think fans want it to be. Manufacturers want it to be, but how can it really?

Also, not every car on the market today has a 4 cylinder turbo, and I'm sure that will be the case into the future.


I'd say make the F1 engine more unique (ie not the world engine) and thus make the engine manufacturers really commit to F1 if they wish to join.

#168 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 September 2010 - 02:07

A quote from Dieter Renken in that article.




That is one concern for me. The sound is one of the things that is most associated with F1. If the cars are less than exciting sounding it could be a real turn-off for many viewers.

Also, in 2012 F1 is planning to return to the USA. Not sure that racing turbo 4 cylinders will exactly set fire to that market.

I am also not fond of using a World motorsport engine as a basis for F1. It makes the engines in F1 less than special.

As for road car relevence, not sure that F1 has ever been road car relevent, nor do I think fans want it to be. Manufacturers want it to be, but how can it really?

Also, not every car on the market today has a 4 cylinder turbo, and I'm sure that will be the case into the future.


I'd say make the F1 engine more unique (ie not the world engine) and thus make the engine manufacturers really commit to F1 if they wish to join.


The sound is the single most important factor in engine regulations to me....and I'm an engineer! If F1 goes 4-pot turbos, I will stop watching. And that's a guarantee.





#169 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 04 September 2010 - 05:07

That's a pretty silly reason to watch F1.

#170 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 September 2010 - 05:12

Also, in 2012 F1 is planning to return to the USA. Not sure that racing turbo 4 cylinders will exactly set fire to that market.

They used to flock to the brickyard to watch Offy's go round.

#171 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 September 2010 - 05:14

Maybe there would be:

- Funny cars with large front tires on gasoline (lots of signage)
- Scaled down NASCAR trucks on E100 (for the South American market)
- Monster trucks that ignore the pavement and just do free form displays in the runoff areas (hey, trucks are big margin and that's what the sponsor wanted)
- Maybe a bicycle tired hyper miler (didn't win the race, but got the best fuel mileage in the field)

- A burnout area right beside the monster trucks.

#172 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 04 September 2010 - 06:37

- A burnout area right beside the monster trucks.

Built-in barbeques in the stands.

#173 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 September 2010 - 22:26

was not the case last time. Renault V6, TAG V6, Ferrari V6? bmw S4.

why you think that? If you want to max out the power a V6 surely is the way to go over a S4.

less vibrations, more work cycles, better layout for twin turbo configurations++

Less efficient perhaps but only when you can`t peak the power potential of the spec.




Actually when i think about it that will also vary by things like how much turbo lag they get.

Say you could get more power but since you then get so much more turbo lag you would then prefer the high reving responsive motor config over the powerful one.


One thing should improve even more.. qualifers. going to be fun watching those flames they would put out with their response systems.


Since four cylinders are mandated, it's sort of a pointless argument.

In any case, most of those V6 engines were designed before the fuel restrictions came into place. If you design one with the fuel restrictions in mind, the inline four would probably been a better choice.

A quote from Dieter Renken in that article.




That is one concern for me. The sound is one of the things that is most associated with F1. If the cars are less than exciting sounding it could be a real turn-off for many viewers.

Also, in 2012 F1 is planning to return to the USA. Not sure that racing turbo 4 cylinders will exactly set fire to that market.

I am also not fond of using a World motorsport engine as a basis for F1. It makes the engines in F1 less than special.

As for road car relevence, not sure that F1 has ever been road car relevent, nor do I think fans want it to be. Manufacturers want it to be, but how can it really?

Also, not every car on the market today has a 4 cylinder turbo, and I'm sure that will be the case into the future.


I'd say make the F1 engine more unique (ie not the world engine) and thus make the engine manufacturers really commit to F1 if they wish to join.


As the four cylinder engine is the most common engine configuration, and a configuration more and more car manufacturers are trying to sell in turbocharged form in place of larger six and eight cylinder engines this have to be a perfect fit for marketing purposes for the car manufacturers. I mean, it sort of tells the average customer that "if a 1.6 litre turbocharged inline four is good enough for F1 it is good eough for me too".

#174 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 September 2010 - 22:34

As the four cylinder engine is the most common engine configuration, and a configuration more and more car manufacturers are trying to sell in turbocharged form in place of larger six and eight cylinder engines this have to be a perfect fit for marketing purposes for the car manufacturers. I mean, it sort of tells the average customer that "if a 1.6 litre turbocharged inline four is good enough for F1 it is good eough for me too".

. . . . and then, just around the corner is electric.


Sorry J. couldn't help myself.

#175 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 September 2010 - 02:05

rotary engines!

#176 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:15

rotary engines!

Rotary engines what?

#177 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,728 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:42

Gnome rotary engines. :drunk:

#178 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 September 2010 - 04:23

Gnome rotary engines. :drunk:

Ahhhh - garden variety rotary engines. :) .

#179 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 September 2010 - 06:47

Rotary engines what?

Rotate...

Advertisement

#180 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 634 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 05 September 2010 - 07:45

Kill the petrol engine entering pit lane, use Kers for all the pit lane travel, turn on petrol engine after pit exit.
A silent pitlane :eek: :down: :down:



in fact, I saw exactly that done by hybrid porsche on this year's 24hr Nurburgring race.. It was one of the most awesome sights ever... but I agree the novelty would soon wear off.. :)

#181 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 September 2010 - 09:09

hello what about qualifiers with KERS as i mentioned.

Regarding the sound i think that DI and allowance of some exotic materials would make things a lill bit more spesial than modern 4cyl turbos but again i think it will rely mostly on rpm.



but it will never beat a V10 or v12 anyway.


Edited by MatsNorway, 05 September 2010 - 09:29.


#182 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,064 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 September 2010 - 10:10

hello what about qualifiers with KERS as i mentioned.



Didn't read what you said , were you suggesting one lap qually. with KERS only ?
That would be quite interesting - A silent sprint - standing start to flying finish using KERS only
at least it would mean some half way useful KERS development

#183 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 September 2010 - 10:25

actually... qualifiers could become a bit silly.

Only every 2nd lap would be good as they would load up the KERS for the start straight. depending on track ofc.

Didn't see this first time - good point. Doesn't the previous incarnation of KERS also allow this possibility? (getting one slingshot immediately prior to the qualy lap and another during the lap)

Limiting the frequency of KERS operation is the problem and represents a distortion anyway. The system should be limited in power and energy storage only. Then it can become a genuine substitute for fuel usage.

Edited by gruntguru, 05 September 2010 - 10:25.


#184 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 05 September 2010 - 15:53

Why should it be limited in use or storage capacity? I'm actually not seeing any good logic in so doing. In the real world there are no such arbitrary limits.

#185 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 September 2010 - 18:32

In teory i agree with desmo.

But in practical terms it might end up beeing brawn GP all over again. One team takes it all.

When it comes to rule development i believe in evolution not revolution.
Revolution ends up being boring races. evolution is what we have this season when there has been little rule chances from last year and most of the top teams are able to take home a win.

By evolution you also get easier control over loopholes in the rulebook. Mclaren however showed that its still possible. (f-duct)

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 September 2010 - 18:35.


#186 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 September 2010 - 22:57

Why should it be limited in use or storage capacity? I'm actually not seeing any good logic in so doing. In the real world there are no such arbitrary limits.

Same reason we have capacity limits etc . . .

#187 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 05 September 2010 - 23:46

Capacity (displacement) limits have similar shortcomings- firstly they don't reflect the real world save some equally arbitrary tax rules, and secondly they by themselves don't really achieve their presumed intention of limiting power outputs. Displacement limits are a relatively silly way to control engine outputs.

If you'd like we can look at hypothetical scenarios where the cars are given unlimited KERS capacity. I don't think anything dire will result from any of them. Whatever upside there is for having a large capacity will likely be more than offset over race distance by having to haul around heavy batteries to store that capacity. If you want a store of handy energy, beyond whatever presumptive incremental gain in efficiency is to be had from regenerative braking, hydrocarbon fuels are massively more attractive than batteries for racing.

#188 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 September 2010 - 00:32

Capacity (displacement) limits have similar shortcomings- firstly they don't reflect the real world save some equally arbitrary tax rules, and secondly they by themselves don't really achieve their presumed intention of limiting power outputs. Displacement limits are a relatively silly way to control engine outputs.

If you'd like we can look at hypothetical scenarios where the cars are given unlimited KERS capacity. I don't think anything dire will result from any of them. Whatever upside there is for having a large capacity will likely be more than offset over race distance by having to haul around heavy batteries to store that capacity. If you want a store of handy energy, beyond whatever presumptive incremental gain in efficiency is to be had from regenerative braking, hydrocarbon fuels are massively more attractive than batteries for racing.

Sorry, I misread your post. I agree on storage capacity. I was thinking power limit.

#189 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,403 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 September 2010 - 18:42

On the KERS issue.

The Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf are both cars which primarily use their electric engines to primarily propel the car. The petrol engine only kicks in when the car is struggling or when the batteries run out.

So here's my point. Instead of mandating the usage of KERS as some sort of push to pass device, why not mandate that KERS be the primary source of power to the car.

Mandate that KERS be used first by the car for power, with the petrol engine adding to the mix once the differential which controls where the power comes from decides it is needed.


On this basis, 650bhp from the engine would be plenty. Obviously, for this to work KERS would be given completely unlimited usage. The only limit may be put on the capacity of the batteries themselves. Charging the batteries not only from braking but also from exhaust heat could also be done.




#190 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 September 2010 - 21:01

On the KERS issue.

The Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf are both cars which primarily use their electric engines to primarily propel the car. The petrol engine only kicks in when the car is struggling or when the batteries run out.

So here's my point. Instead of mandating the usage of KERS as some sort of push to pass device, why not mandate that KERS be the primary source of power to the car.

Mandate that KERS be used first by the car for power, with the petrol engine adding to the mix once the differential which controls where the power comes from decides it is needed.


On this basis, 650bhp from the engine would be plenty. Obviously, for this to work KERS would be given completely unlimited usage. The only limit may be put on the capacity of the batteries themselves. Charging the batteries not only from braking but also from exhaust heat could also be done.



In the Volt, at least, the ICE is not connected to the driving wheels mechanically. The ICE is used to generate electricity to drive the electric motor when the battery is low while also rechaging the battery.

#191 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 September 2010 - 15:53



Hear! hear!

3min out from button, talking about what rules he would have chanced if he could.

#192 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 September 2010 - 16:08

Not that I would mind driving and F1 inspried vehicle to work, but I doubt I could pay for it...or on the flip side, a dumbed down version of an F1 car to meet the needs of the commutting public in general? But somehow, I don't think you were serious...



F1 rules should force the cars to be EXACTLY representative of what can be applied to production cars. Specifically, the cars should be designed for the specific wants are of the customer, as communicated through the marketing team, with the engineers at the tail end of the process.

Since the 'customers' are the sponsors that fund the effort, and since the representatives of the sponsors (from what I have seen in VIP suites, hospitality tents/trailers, over the years) are typically people of no small ego, I would think the sponsors would not be shy about dictating what the cars should look like. An F1 paradigm shift of letting the customer dictate what the car should be, or anticipating their wants, as per the actual vehicle concept-development-production process, would be excellent for the 'the show'.

Maybe there would be:

- Funny cars with large front tires on gasoline (lots of signage)
- Scaled down NASCAR trucks on E100 (for the South American market)
- Monster trucks that ignore the pavement and just do free form displays in the runoff areas (hey, trucks are big margin and that's what the sponsor wanted)
- Maybe a bicycle tired hyper miler (didn't win the race, but got the best fuel mileage in the field)

Currently sponsors buy into the series and get a car that looks a certain way as a result, that is why we are so worried about costs and parity. Let sponsors buy into the cars, whatever they want to look like, however much they want to spend, and let the series be assembled from the resulting motley collection of market driven (designed) race cars.


Edited by meb58, 10 September 2010 - 16:08.


#193 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 10 September 2010 - 18:00

That's a pretty silly reason to watch F1.



Everyone has their reason. If I wanted to watch the best racing available, I would stick to BTCC, V8 Supercars and MotoGP alone.



#194 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,367 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 September 2010 - 03:44


Hear! hear!
3min out from button, talking about what rules he would have chanced if he could.

Summarising Button's comments:
- More power (900-1000hp)
- less wing
- more GE
- more front tyre

What would he know? :lol:

#195 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 11 September 2010 - 03:53

It's a sad day when the drivers are smarter than the custodians of the sport.

#196 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:06

The custodians have a very different and in some ways more difficult job though. It's one thing to design the dream rule book, but you have to safeguard to make sure it creates a sustainable situation. Both competitively and economically.

#197 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 September 2010 - 13:22

Summarising Button's comments:
- More power (900-1000hp)
- less wing
- more GE
- more front tyre

What would he know? :lol:



Well, it looks like he will get two of those (more GE and less wing) for 2013 - that is if he doesn't retire because his team gave him a team order in the mean time.

#198 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,073 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 11 September 2010 - 15:14

The custodians have a very different and in some ways more difficult job though. It's one thing to design the dream rule book, but you have to safeguard to make sure it creates a sustainable situation. Both competitively and economically.


Very true.

What I don't see is how any of the following:

- More power (900-1000hp)
- less wing
- more GE
- more front tyre

would be any more difficult for the teams or the sport to implement compared to the proposed alternative or create an unsustainable situation in any sense.


#199 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 September 2010 - 12:11

As reported in the thread Using an inline engine as a stressed member Ferrari were in favour of adopting a V6 partially based on the current V8 unit. Part of the reason is to reduce the amount of changes to the chassis structure.

In hist latest article The future shape of F1 engines (subscription) Dieter Rencken discusses some of the reasons why Ferrari wanted to go that route, but also reveals that the proposal was voted down.

It also reveals that Audi, as a prospective engine supplier, have been part of the meetings. Surely F1 should gain a commitment for their entry into F1 before taking their opinions?

I also would prefer the V6 layout over the in-line 4.

Other detaisl revealed is that the turbos may be arranged in a two stage system (Renken called it compound, but I associate that with using turbines to returning power to the crank by mechanical drive), turbines in exhaust to drive accesories, and a possible future steam turbine heat recovery system. Also the KERS recovery system will now likely be based on 4 wheels, rather than the 2 in the current rules.

Advertisement

#200 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,069 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 16 September 2010 - 14:54

Other detaisl revealed is that the turbos may be arranged in a two stage system (Renken called it compound, but I associate that with using turbines to returning power to the crank by mechanical drive), turbines in exhaust to drive accesories, and a possible future steam turbine heat recovery system. Also the KERS recovery system will now likely be based on 4 wheels, rather than the 2 in the current rules.


They do two staging in tractor pulling. im not sure how its done tho.

But i have imagined it was something like this:
http://www.turbos.bw...oducts/r2s.aspx

Actually i imagined that they had the turbos exhaust sides in a true serial way.

Edited by MatsNorway, 16 September 2010 - 14:56.