Jump to content


Photo

2013 Rules


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#251 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,209 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 10 November 2010 - 00:12

When one takes the sports blinders off and looks through the entertainment goggles instead, entire new worlds come into view.

Advertisement

#252 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,815 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 November 2010 - 05:35

Such as sponsored giving of laps back.

#253 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 18 November 2010 - 02:00

The fear for a spending war isn't that justified. Even in the 2000s having the biggest budget was a guarantee for success. Honda and Toyota were the big spenders and their combined success was one lucky win (Hungary 2006). Renault had a far smaller budget and won both championships in 2005 and 2006.

The one thing that I agree with Ferrari about it is the lack of power train technology development. It is not good to extend the engine freeze beyond 2012 and keep the V8s IMO. We need more power train development and less aero development IMO. The teams need to accept that it belongs to F1 like chassis development. Not every team can afford to commission it's own drive train development but the five top teams certainly can. Red Bull and McLaren should be doing their own engine, HERS and KERS and there should also be Cosworth. The problem is how to limit resources, determine the transfer price of the drive train and the rules for a duty of supply to balance it all out.

Above 600 hp or so, most of the power is only being used to push increasingly draggy aero through the air, for the sake of a few kilos of DF more than the next guy.

Make that 400 HP and it would be about right.

If one is going down the proposed path of an all but in name spec engine such as being proposed, it would make massively better sense to have a single supplier and spec than to waste money having parallel development and manufacturing programs of essentially the same design.

Not such a good idea. If you already know what is right one should not do the wrong thing because it looks easier to do. Better find a solution to get it right.

How much innovation is there really in F1? Apply that to almost any industry, we are primarily in an era now of refinement. That's not to say there aren't big breakthroughs ahead, but they won't come from the automotive sector. Certainly not the racing world.

If F1 focusses on the great new technologies that make engines more efficient there is plenty of innovation.
  • Direct fuel injection.
  • Turbo charging and compounding for HERS.
  • AWKERS with electrically driven front wheels.
  • True dual torque instead of boost buttons.

I am fascinated by innovation, but yesterday my only interest was whether Webber was going to catch Vettel, and whether Hamilton was going to catch Alonso.

Sure, but without innovation and constant change the season would be totally boring. F1 needs a technology race as well for the constructor contest to work.


#254 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,475 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 November 2010 - 04:22

:up:

#255 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 18 November 2010 - 10:35

Sure, but without innovation and constant change the season would be totally boring. F1 needs a technology race as well for the constructor contest to work.

But is that what the FIA want? Do they really care about innovation? Whatever happens, the rules will be so tightly written that we will end up with what we have now as far as competition goes, possibly slower, probably sounding a lot worse. What about taking the air-restrictors and silencers off F3 cars, see what that is like. ;)

#256 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 18 November 2010 - 10:48

An interesting experiment would be to take a grid of GP2 cars and re spray them in the F1 team colours and run them in a GP about three months after a two week testing window ( to allow the F1 engineers their chance at optimisation of set up and a few new parts).

Then don't tell anybody of the substitution and see who notices the difference. If the crowds/TV audience don't notice/mind/care or if the racing turns out better then a very large F1 budget saving would be available for evetybody to share.

#257 Paolo

Paolo
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 18 November 2010 - 13:19

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.


NO.
F1 is (should be) a Sport showing the skills of best drivers in the world.
Current production cars are aimed at wimpy sissies incapable of controlling a throttle pedal and keeping the car straight without the aid of ESP TC ABS and various electronic Viagras.

No. No. Never. No.


#258 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 720 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 November 2010 - 13:55

NO.
F1 is (should be) a Sport showing the skills of best drivers in the world.
Current production cars are aimed at wimpy sissies incapable of controlling a throttle pedal and keeping the car straight without the aid of ESP TC ABS and various electronic Viagras.

No. No. Never. No.


Best post of the day. :clap: :clap: :clap:

#259 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 18 November 2010 - 14:50

But is that what the FIA want? Do they really care about innovation? Whatever happens, the rules will be so tightly written that we will end up with what we have now as far as competition goes, possibly slower, probably sounding a lot worse. What about taking the air-restrictors and silencers off F3 cars, see what that is like.;)

I don't think that the FiA has much concern how the teams solve this problem. They want a series that is reasonably safe, affordable to thirteen teams, is an interesting sporting competition, shows some road relevance to attract manufacturers and is seen to support the energy conservation issue. Beyond that they would be happy if the teams can sort the rule making out for themselves. The problem is that the teams have been largely unable to do that over the past decade.

The FiA has left it almost entirely to the F1 commission and the FOTA to do the rule changes. Some issues got resolved like the RRA which deals with the cost containment for chassis constructors and the team competition mainly. The fundamental problem how to define a drive train formula that enables at least four or fife top teams to compete with each other over a period of time, supports innovation, is more fuel efficient and not bust the the smaller teams is still unsolved. The teams have been discussing this for more than fifteen months and they are not closer to a solution. Lately they have proposed to simply give up and leave the old formula largely in force for lack of ideas.

The things that are needed are obvious.
  • The small teams need transfer prices for engines that exclude the development cost. The engines must be priced at a fixed price which is given by the pure manufacturing and service cost + X%.
  • The auto manufacturers who have independent engine companies need to be restricted in the way they can gain competitive advantages by a spending race.
  • The teams with in house engine departments like Ferrari need to be resource restricted.
  • Independent engine manufacturers like Cosworth must be given enough customers that they can exist as a counter balance to the manufacturers.
  • Supply duty rules must balance the supply between all engine makers for the whole grid.
  • Basic drive train rules and spec needs to remain relative static over some years but there must be certain areas that are liberated to competitive development each year to balance cost and technical freedom.


Advertisement

#260 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 19 November 2010 - 00:05

  • The small teams need transfer prices for engines that exclude the development cost. The engines must be priced at a fixed price which is given by the pure manufacturing and service cost + X%.


I thought that was already sorted, with a fixed price for engine supply of $5m per season (which is to be reduced in teh near future).


#261 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 19 November 2010 - 00:06

If F1 focusses on the great new technologies that make engines more efficient there is plenty of innovation.

  • Direct fuel injection.
  • Turbo charging and compounding for HERS.
  • AWKERS with electrically driven front wheels.
  • True dual torque instead of boost buttons.


Surely most of that could be achieved using the current engines as the base unit?


#262 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 04:28

I thought that was already sorted, with a fixed price for engine supply of $5m per season (which is to be reduced in teh near future).

All prices so far were discussed for the engine alone. The engine is one of the smallest issues. With 30% or more fuel reduction as the FiA want it the engine will not be the big competitive advantage. One of the biggest potential power boosters will be turbo compounding. Imagine an engine that has effectively only 550 hp because there is no fuel to drive it with more power. The nominal top power may be 650 hp but you cannot run it due to fuel restrictions. But you can generate another 150 hp from extracting the residual power by an exhaust gas turbine. All you need is a good variable drive which uses part of that power for air compression and the other part to augment the drive shaft power. You end up with an engine which again has 650 hp which other teams do not have, or have only partially because their system is not so good. Same goes for clever AWKERS. If you maximize the traction from and to all wheels you may not gain a huge amount of power but your total traction improves massively which helps you in all the slow corners that are abundant in F1.


Surely most of that could be achieved using the current engines as the base unit?

The current engines are wrong for thermal efficiency because the bore/stroke ratio is twice of what you need and the rpms are way too high for direct injection to work well. You can reduce rpm but then you still do not have an engine that is dimensioned for turbo charging. It is too weak in some areas and to heavy in others. The engine itself is 20-30 kg too heavy compared to a 1.6L engine. To get anywhere close to what a new 1.6L engine can have in two years you would have to fiddle the V8 over several years and eventually pay more than you pay for a clean sheet design. And efficiency wise a V8 will never come close to a V4 or L4. Too many parts that add friction.


#263 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,475 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 November 2010 - 05:49

The current engines are wrong for thermal efficiency because the bore/stroke ratio is twice of what you need and the rpms are way too high for direct injection to work well. You can reduce rpm but then you still do not have an engine that is dimensioned for turbo charging. It is too weak in some areas and to heavy in others. The engine itself is 20-30 kg too heavy compared to a 1.6L engine. To get anywhere close to what a new 1.6L engine can have in two years you would have to fiddle the V8 over several years and eventually pay more than you pay for a clean sheet design. And efficiency wise a V8 will never come close to a V4 or L4. Too many parts that add friction.

Agree with everything you say here. Should clarify - a V8 will have similar (probably better) efficiency than an identical 4 of half the capacilty. Of course if the capacity is the same, the 4 will be more efficient. (This rule does not hold at higher capacities because the is a limiting cylinder displacement, above which SI engine become less efficient, The opposite is true for Diesels.)

#264 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 15:57

Agree with everything you say here. Should clarify - a V8 will have similar (probably better) efficiency than an identical 4 of half the capacilty. Of course if the capacity is the same, the 4 will be more efficient. (This rule does not hold at higher capacities because the is a limiting cylinder displacement, above which SI engine become less efficient, The opposite is true for Diesels.)

I don't agree with that view. Increasing the cylinder count always hurts the efficiency and improves the smoothness irrespective of the sweep volume. Ferrari in the nineties wasn't competitive with their V12s against V8s and V10s of their competitors.

If you compare a heavy, high revving, super short stroke 2.4L NA or low pressure induced 8 cylinder with port injection and a small, direct injected, high charged 1.6L square ratio 4 cylinder at 10k rpm every one of the aspects improves fuel efficiency.
  • cylinder count through reduced friction
  • bore/stroke ratio through reduced heat losses
  • direct injection through more efficient combustion
  • high turbo charging through better use of exhaust gas waste energy
  • engine weight through reduced accelerated mass

Additionally the new engine will totally avoid throttling losses by variable time and stroke valve trains. Once you have optimized the old V8s for all these engine technologies that F1 needs to catch up to you have spend much more money and you still have a less efficient engine. It would be an incredible waste of time and money. The problem in reality isn't to convince people that the new technologies are so much better technically. It is the problem of balancing out the various vested interests of teams and engine manufacturers and change the game from "How do I get more power with unlimited fuel" to "How do I get more power out of my fixed fuel budget".

The best approach will probably be going to a heavily specified turbo L4 or V4 with geometrical data close to the GRE but lower weight components and total weight that is optimized for F1. For 2013 I would further restrict the scope by specifying a common bi-turbo charger and no option for additional waste energy reclaim through turbines. KERS should be totally unrestricted in 2012 already so that the 2013 rules focus on the basic engine. 2014 I would homologate the engines and liberate the exhaust waste energy recovery. All technologies like hybrid electrical turbocharging, turbo compounding with variable transmission or even Rankine processes will be allowed. By splitting the innovation to three years and homologating the individual results you contain the cost race. Because the most potent development is kept for the last of the three years you give everybody the chance to catch up in the end although KERS and engines are homologated then. After 2014 we would need another mechanism for limited technical development of the drive train again. I hope I have explained how you can have a broad specification or homologation in some terms but allow areas of development after all. That way you get constant innovation and still contain the cost. It is ridiculous to re design engines every year for minute differences if there are other jobs in the drive train that give you better bang for bucks in a fuel limited formula. Obviously you would have to introduce serious fuel caps right from 2012 to make the process work.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 20 November 2010 - 16:23.


#265 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 22 November 2010 - 00:54

I don't agree with that view. Increasing the cylinder count always hurts the efficiency and improves the smoothness irrespective of the sweep volume. Ferrari in the nineties wasn't competitive with their V12s against V8s and V10s of their competitors. [/list]

By the end of their V12 devlopment Ferrari had made it quite competitive. But they had already decided to move to V10s. Much of the deficit Ferrari had was due to the chassis - some of which was no doubt due to the length of the engine. Weight wise I think they were similar to the best V10s of the time.

Surely there must be a point where the size of the piston, combustion chamber, valves, rods, crank will have an adverse effect on weight and efficiency? Do you think a 5l 4 cylinder would be as efficient as a 5l V8?


If you compare a heavy, high revving, super short stroke 2.4L NA or low pressure induced 8 cylinder with port injection and a small, direct injected, high charged 1.6L square ratio 4 cylinder at 10k rpm every one of the aspects improves fuel efficiency.

  • engine weight through reduced accelerated mass


The weight of the V8s is mandated by the regulations. At the end of the V10 era some engines were 80-85kg. The new V8 engine was required to be 95kg minimum. I'm sure that given the freedom to do so the engineers could remove those extra 20kg.

The last time an engine won in F1 with a max rpm of 10k was about 25-30 years ago. The first F1 engine to exceed 10k rpm maximum was made 60 years ago. Not sure that engines limited to 10k are really in the F1 spirit.



[*]high turbo charging through better use of exhaust gas waste energy
[/list]

It was my understanding that efficiencies in modern turbocharged engines was through the use of low boost. Having 3 bar of boost seems to go against that trend.


  • direct injection through more efficient combustion

Why won't DI work with one of the current V8s?


In terms of using the V8s as the core engine for new technologies, I would say that you wouldn't turbocharge the engines at all, but could apply exhaust energy recovery (turbocompounding - don't use a variable speed drive - use a generator to directly power the KERS motor/charge batteries), heat energy recovery - drive a steam turbine or whatever - and have KERS as well.

If efficiency is all that F1 wants to get in the next few years the surely they'll move to turbodiesels? Yuk!

It is my personal opinion that the next generation of F1 engines, if the V8s are to be replaced, should be unique - that is the core engine should not resemble the specification of engines in lower formulae.

A highly efficient 1.6l turbo 4 with all the bells and whistles will not widen the appeal of F1, and may in fact cost fans.

A few years ago the teams threatened to break waya from F1. They identified areas which needed to be maintained as F1's signatures - two of them were sound and high rpms. The proposed 1.6l engine will destroy both of them.

I don't believe fuel caps are the way to go. But if the engine manufacturers are allowed some scope to tinker with their engines I'm sure the fuel usage will improve. With the regulations banning refueling there is a big advantage to being able to start with less fuel. They are already compromising their fuel loads between performance and economy - and most/all teams have filled their cars with less fuel than would be required if they were to run at full power throughout the race.



#266 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,475 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:59

I don't agree with that view. Increasing the cylinder count always hurts the efficiency and improves the smoothness irrespective of the sweep volume. Ferrari in the nineties wasn't competitive with their V12s against V8s and V10s of their competitors.

Perhaps you mis-read my post? A V8 with double the capacity of a 4 cyl will have the same displacement per cylinder. If the cylinders are identical, the two engines will have the same efficiency. In fact the V8 will be slightly more efficient due to lower ancillary power, fewer bearing journals per cylinder etc.

The other point I made is that, for a particular geometry, efficiency does improve as displacement/cylinder increases - up to a point beyond which efficiency will fall due to combustion issues (mainly the long flame path plus end-zone heating issues as engine speed necessarily decreases). Diesels are the opposite with efficiency continuing to increase with displacement.

#267 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 20:43

By the end of their V12 devlopment Ferrari had made it quite competitive. But they had already decided to move to V10s. Much of the deficit Ferrari had was due to the chassis - some of which was no doubt due to the length of the engine. Weight wise I think they were similar to the best V10s of the time.

Surely there must be a point where the size of the piston, combustion chamber, valves, rods, crank will have an adverse effect on weight and efficiency? Do you think a 5l 4 cylinder would be as efficient as a 5l V8?

The weight of the V8s is mandated by the regulations. At the end of the V10 era some engines were 80-85kg. The new V8 engine was required to be 95kg minimum. I'm sure that given the freedom to do so the engineers could remove those extra 20kg.

The last time an engine won in F1 with a max rpm of 10k was about 25-30 years ago. The first F1 engine to exceed 10k rpm maximum was made 60 years ago. Not sure that engines limited to 10k are really in the F1 spirit.

It was my understanding that efficiencies in modern turbocharged engines was through the use of low boost. Having 3 bar of boost seems to go against that trend.

Why won't DI work with one of the current V8s?

In terms of using the V8s as the core engine for new technologies, I would say that you wouldn't turbocharge the engines at all, but could apply exhaust energy recovery (turbocompounding - don't use a variable speed drive - use a generator to directly power the KERS motor/charge batteries), heat energy recovery - drive a steam turbine or whatever - and have KERS as well.

If efficiency is all that F1 wants to get in the next few years the surely they'll move to turbodiesels? Yuk!

It is my personal opinion that the next generation of F1 engines, if the V8s are to be replaced, should be unique - that is the core engine should not resemble the specification of engines in lower formulae.

A highly efficient 1.6l turbo 4 with all the bells and whistles will not widen the appeal of F1, and may in fact cost fans.

A few years ago the teams threatened to break waya from F1. They identified areas which needed to be maintained as F1's signatures - two of them were sound and high rpms. The proposed 1.6l engine will destroy both of them.

I don't believe fuel caps are the way to go. But if the engine manufacturers are allowed some scope to tinker with their engines I'm sure the fuel usage will improve. With the regulations banning refueling there is a big advantage to being able to start with less fuel. They are already compromising their fuel loads between performance and economy - and most/all teams have filled their cars with less fuel than would be required if they were to run at full power throughout the race.


The choice here is between a new 1.6L turbo four cylinder and an existing 2.4L NA V8. Given similar restrictions regarding the geometries the new engine will have less weight. In the size segment we are looking for all manufacturers are reducing the cylinder count to reduce friction. They are replacing V8 with V6, V6 with L4 and L4 with L3. It is done across the range to improve efficiency. The effect will similarly apply to F1 engines.

The high rpm level of the current F1 engines is only explained by the limitation of the displacement. Traditionally rpms have been free and so the F1 engineers have build extreme short stroke engines in order to have them rev faster and get more power. From an engine efficiency point of view it makes no sense because the wide piston diameters hurt the thermal efficiency. The turbo engines of the eighties were also revving much lower. They were making their power from higher pressure instead of higher rpms.

It makes a lot of sense to drop the current V8 and go to a new format. The top end of the V8 engine isn't suitable to throttle less control due to the lack of variable valve stroke and timing. The bore/stroke ratio is wrong for thermal efficiency and the bearing/conrod design is optimized for high revs and not for turbo charging. The cylinder count is wrong from a frictional point of view. So you can forget the bottom end of the engine as well if you try to improve efficiency. IMO it makes no sense at all to make any gradual changes that bastardize a design which follows a completely different philosophy. A modern race engine should be build with performance and efficiency in mind and adopt all the technologies that were banned when the last formula was specified. Variable valves, direct injection, turbo charging, downsizing.

Direct injected engines have near square bore/stroke ratios, inverted ignition positioning and they inject in the final phase of the compression stroke. The injector is centrally located where the spark plugs are now and the spark plugs are at the outer diameter of the piston. Two reasons why the current V8 are not suitable for direct injection. There is also a speed issue from the injection in the compression stroke. The highest advantage of direct injection is generated by spray guided combustion. This requires super high injection pressure and fast reacting piezo injectors. The process reaches only 9,000 - 10,000 rpm in current high performance engines. Beyond that speed the injection technology isn't fast enough to hit the window of piston movement. The fastest DI methods are currently at 500 ns injection time. Faster methods are not known to be under development. It means that the injection at super high revs will have to go back to the intake stroke or the early compression stroke with lesser efficiency of the combustion of course.

Regarding the use of turbo compounding with current V8 engines I see some difficulties. The engines are not designed for the back pressure that the turbine will generate when you start to extract serious energy from the exhaust gas. The engine is optimized for super high rpm and natural gas breathing, not for pressurized intake and outlet. If you resolve these issues by constructive changes you hit the next problem. The engines give you 750 hp top power and you will probably add another 200 hp by unlimited energy recovery. The cars and tracks are not designed for such a power output. The objective of the new formula is to drop the fuel consumption by more than 30% and keep the performance with slightly less power than we have now. The objectives would not be met by fiddling with the V8s.

I don't think that F1 will even consider turbo diesels. The reason is the quietness of the diesels once you add the necessary catalytic soot converters. Only spark ignition is currently an option for F1. I do not see a reason why the noise of the 1.6L turbo engines was acceptable thirty years ago and should not be acceptable today. People will simply have to adjust to different engine sounds. The fan acceptance and the increase of viewing will not depend of the specific engine noise IMO. The fans also want exciting development and racing. With the new formula the drive train development can be brought back to F1 and the engine development will eventually have a purpose that is useful for the society as a whole. F1 can deliver better and better fuel efficiency methods that can be applied to road cars instead of always running behind as they do now. This would also make a big difference for the acceptance of the sport in the political arena. To promote F1 one should not only look at the petrol heads who go to the races but also at the general TV viewing public and the family friendliness.


Perhaps you mis-read my post? A V8 with double the capacity of a 4 cyl will have the same displacement per cylinder. If the cylinders are identical, the two engines will have the same efficiency. In fact the V8 will be slightly more efficient due to lower ancillary power, fewer bearing journals per cylinder etc.

The other point I made is that, for a particular geometry, efficiency does improve as displacement/cylinder increases - up to a point beyond which efficiency will fall due to combustion issues (mainly the long flame path plus end-zone heating issues as engine speed necessarily decreases). Diesels are the opposite with efficiency continuing to increase with displacement.

It is difficult to understand your position. Perhaps we should simply look at the existing V8 and the proposed 1.6L turbo. Would you agree that the new engine will have lower frictional losses than the old V8s?


#268 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 22 November 2010 - 21:10

It is difficult to understand your position. Perhaps we should simply look at the existing V8 and the proposed 1.6L turbo. Would you agree that the new engine will have lower frictional losses than the old V8s?


What Grunt is saying is that given the same bore/stroke as the 1.6l turbo 4 a 3.2l V8 will be more efficient.



#269 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 22 November 2010 - 21:44

The choice here is between a new 1.6L turbo four cylinder and an existing 2.4L NA V8. Given similar restrictions regarding the geometries the new engine will have less weight. In the size segment we are looking for all manufacturers are reducing the cylinder count to reduce friction. They are replacing V8 with V6, V6 with L4 and L4 with L3. It is done across the range to improve efficiency. The effect will similarly apply to F1 engines.

The high rpm level of the current F1 engines is only explained by the limitation of the displacement. Traditionally rpms have been free and so the F1 engineers have build extreme short stroke engines in order to have them rev faster and get more power. From an engine efficiency point of view it makes no sense because the wide piston diameters hurt the thermal efficiency. The turbo engines of the eighties were also revving much lower. They were making their power from higher pressure instead of higher rpms.

It makes a lot of sense to drop the current V8 and go to a new format. The top end of the V8 engine isn't suitable to throttle less control due to the lack of variable valve stroke and timing. The bore/stroke ratio is wrong for thermal efficiency and the bearing/conrod design is optimized for high revs and not for turbo charging. The cylinder count is wrong from a frictional point of view. So you can forget the bottom end of the engine as well if you try to improve efficiency. IMO it makes no sense at all to make any gradual changes that bastardize a design which follows a completely different philosophy. A modern race engine should be build with performance and efficiency in mind and adopt all the technologies that were banned when the last formula was specified. Variable valves, direct injection, turbo charging, downsizing.

Direct injected engines have near square bore/stroke ratios, inverted ignition positioning and they inject in the final phase of the compression stroke. The injector is centrally located where the spark plugs are now and the spark plugs are at the outer diameter of the piston. Two reasons why the current V8 are not suitable for direct injection. There is also a speed issue from the injection in the compression stroke. The highest advantage of direct injection is generated by spray guided combustion. This requires super high injection pressure and fast reacting piezo injectors. The process reaches only 9,000 - 10,000 rpm in current high performance engines. Beyond that speed the injection technology isn't fast enough to hit the window of piston movement. The fastest DI methods are currently at 500 ns injection time. Faster methods are not known to be under development. It means that the injection at super high revs will have to go back to the intake stroke or the early compression stroke with lesser efficiency of the combustion of course.

Regarding the use of turbo compounding with current V8 engines I see some difficulties. The engines are not designed for the back pressure that the turbine will generate when you start to extract serious energy from the exhaust gas. The engine is optimized for super high rpm and natural gas breathing, not for pressurized intake and outlet. If you resolve these issues by constructive changes you hit the next problem. The engines give you 750 hp top power and you will probably add another 200 hp by unlimited energy recovery. The cars and tracks are not designed for such a power output. The objective of the new formula is to drop the fuel consumption by more than 30% and keep the performance with slightly less power than we have now. The objectives would not be met by fiddling with the V8s.

I don't think that F1 will even consider turbo diesels. The reason is the quietness of the diesels once you add the necessary catalytic soot converters. Only spark ignition is currently an option for F1. I do not see a reason why the noise of the 1.6L turbo engines was acceptable thirty years ago and should not be acceptable today. People will simply have to adjust to different engine sounds. The fan acceptance and the increase of viewing will not depend of the specific engine noise IMO. The fans also want exciting development and racing. With the new formula the drive train development can be brought back to F1 and the engine development will eventually have a purpose that is useful for the society as a whole. F1 can deliver better and better fuel efficiency methods that can be applied to road cars instead of always running behind as they do now. This would also make a big difference for the acceptance of the sport in the political arena. To promote F1 one should not only look at the petrol heads who go to the races but also at the general TV viewing public and the family friendliness.



If F1 wanted to truly reduce the environmental impact of racing it should look elsewhere - the actual racing cars are relatively minor comoared with all the transportation, wind tunnel testing, manufacturing, etc.

If the teams choose to retain the current engine it will be as is, and the only thing which will be developed is KERS. The cost of a new engine has been estimated to cost the manufacturers $100m to design and build.

I don't see how the new engine will benefit the world as a whole, as they will be using existing technologies that are in use already, except turbocompounding if that gets put in. As the formula is likely to be very controlled there will be no development for the core engine, only the ancilliaries. But they will be controlled too. I doubt any manufacturer will enter F1 as an R&D environment - it will remain a marketing decision.

They are replacing V8 with V6

So, specify a V6 with a maximum bore/stroke ratio. Allow variable valve timing and lift, direct injection, low boost turbocharging, turbocompounding, don't restrict rpms. The V6 is a better fit for F1 than the 4, IMO. Make sure that the engine package remains about 800hp (including EERS and HERS), and allow for generous KERS.

btw, early BMW F1 turbos look to have had peak power just below 10k, and red lined at 11,500. Later Renault turbo engines red-lined at 15k and had the pneumatic valve system developed for them.

#270 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 23 November 2010 - 00:45

I know it is, you know it is, apparently mtknot doesn't know it is. I was just responding to his post, is all.


F-ducts are still legal for next year. It's just that they can't be operated by driver movement. So if someone want to use a passive F-duct of the kind that Mercedes used this year it is legal.

All prices so far were discussed for the engine alone. The engine is one of the smallest issues. With 30% or more fuel reduction as the FiA want it the engine will not be the big competitive advantage. One of the biggest potential power boosters will be turbo compounding. Imagine an engine that has effectively only 550 hp because there is no fuel to drive it with more power. The nominal top power may be 650 hp but you cannot run it due to fuel restrictions. But you can generate another 150 hp from extracting the residual power by an exhaust gas turbine. All you need is a good variable drive which uses part of that power for air compression and the other part to augment the drive shaft power. You end up with an engine which again has 650 hp which other teams do not have, or have only partially because their system is not so good. Same goes for clever AWKERS. If you maximize the traction from and to all wheels you may not gain a huge amount of power but your total traction improves massively which helps you in all the slow corners that are abundant in F1.


You are expecting a bit much from turbocompounding. I would suspect that a boost of around 10% would be realistic. Increasing the output of a 550 hp engine to 605 hp.

The turbocompound stage only needs a conventional reduction gear to connect it to the crankshaft.

By the end of their V12 devlopment Ferrari had made it quite competitive. But they had already decided to move to V10s. Much of the deficit Ferrari had was due to the chassis - some of which was no doubt due to the length of the engine. Weight wise I think they were similar to the best V10s of the time.

Surely there must be a point where the size of the piston, combustion chamber, valves, rods, crank will have an adverse effect on weight and efficiency? Do you think a 5l 4 cylinder would be as efficient as a 5l V8?


A 5 litre four cylinder would certainly be more efficient than a 5 litre V8, but the latter would be more powerful.

The weight of the V8s is mandated by the regulations. At the end of the V10 era some engines were 80-85kg. The new V8 engine was required to be 95kg minimum. I'm sure that given the freedom to do so the engineers could remove those extra 20kg.

The last time an engine won in F1 with a max rpm of 10k was about 25-30 years ago. The first F1 engine to exceed 10k rpm maximum was made 60 years ago. Not sure that engines limited to 10k are really in the F1 spirit.


To remove weight from the V8 is probably not that easy given that the extra weight have been important for the longer engine life required today. Increased engine stiffness have also had a positive effect on engine power.

I would think that it is in the spirit of F1 to build an engine that provides the best performance regardless the regulations used. In the eighties the turbocharged F1 engines didn't use extreme engine speeds. The four cylinders ran to just above 10,000 rpm and the V6 engines slightly more.

It was my understanding that efficiencies in modern turbocharged engines was through the use of low boost. Having 3 bar of boost seems to go against that trend.


Among the diesels there are production engines using more than 3 bar boost, while the gasoline engines typically use less. The more boost, the smaller the engine can be, and thus run more efficiently at part load which is what production car manufacturers are looking for.

Why won't DI work with one of the current V8s?


In terms of using the V8s as the core engine for new technologies, I would say that you wouldn't turbocharge the engines at all, but could apply exhaust energy recovery (turbocompounding - don't use a variable speed drive - use a generator to directly power the KERS motor/charge batteries), heat energy recovery - drive a steam turbine or whatever - and have KERS as well.

If efficiency is all that F1 wants to get in the next few years the surely they'll move to turbodiesels? Yuk!

It is my personal opinion that the next generation of F1 engines, if the V8s are to be replaced, should be unique - that is the core engine should not resemble the specification of engines in lower formulae.

A highly efficient 1.6l turbo 4 with all the bells and whistles will not widen the appeal of F1, and may in fact cost fans.

A few years ago the teams threatened to break waya from F1. They identified areas which needed to be maintained as F1's signatures - two of them were sound and high rpms. The proposed 1.6l engine will destroy both of them.


Direct injection would work with the current V8 engines, but it would be like like putting lipstick on a pig. If you really want to take a big step forward a new engine is needed.

With turbocompound you just use a conventional reduction gear to connect the turbine to the crankshaft. Steam turbines are hardly an option given the weight and the cooling need.

Turbodiesels would be interresting, although I suspect it would be very difficult to make a 600 hp diesel engine with a weight below 100 kg. Essentially we are talking of a weight reduction of about 50% compared to the Le Mans diesels. Would most likely not be possible using aluminum in the block and cylinder head.

Fuel efficient four and six cylinder engines have been used in the past, and they didn't cost fans.

I don't believe fuel caps are the way to go. But if the engine manufacturers are allowed some scope to tinker with their engines I'm sure the fuel usage will improve. With the regulations banning refueling there is a big advantage to being able to start with less fuel. They are already compromising their fuel loads between performance and economy - and most/all teams have filled their cars with less fuel than would be required if they were to run at full power throughout the race.


I think fuel flow restrictions will be part of the future engine regulation.

What Grunt is saying is that given the same bore/stroke as the 1.6l turbo 4 a 3.2l V8 will be more efficient.


The 3.2 litre engine will have higher frictional losses than a 1.6 litre engine assuming they are otherwise identical.

#271 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 23 November 2010 - 05:57

F-ducts are still legal for next year.


My bad - I took too much notice of Legard on BBC.

#272 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 23 November 2010 - 06:30

If F1 wanted to truly reduce the environmental impact of racing it should look elsewhere - the actual racing cars are relatively minor comoared with all the transportation, wind tunnel testing, manufacturing, etc.

If the teams choose to retain the current engine it will be as is, and the only thing which will be developed is KERS. The cost of a new engine has been estimated to cost the manufacturers $100m to design and build.

I don't see how the new engine will benefit the world as a whole, as they will be using existing technologies that are in use already, except turbocompounding if that gets put in. As the formula is likely to be very controlled there will be no development for the core engine, only the ancilliaries. But they will be controlled too. I doubt any manufacturer will enter F1 as an R&D environment - it will remain a marketing decision.


So, specify a V6 with a maximum bore/stroke ratio. Allow variable valve timing and lift, direct injection, low boost turbocharging, turbocompounding, don't restrict rpms. The V6 is a better fit for F1 than the 4, IMO. Make sure that the engine package remains about 800hp (including EERS and HERS), and allow for generous KERS.

btw, early BMW F1 turbos look to have had peak power just below 10k, and red lined at 11,500. Later Renault turbo engines red-lined at 15k and had the pneumatic valve system developed for them.


The point about the cars not using much energy is irrelevant in my view. The championship showcases driver talent and race car engineering and not wind tunnels or computer farms. Fota can go and save 30% of their carbon footprint and nobody will even take any notice. But if F1 eventually manages to get to the edge of efficiency development it will have massive impact.

All the technologies developed by and for Audi's Le mans cars have already made a big difference to road car technologies. It is not only the diesels they did but also the petrol driven early V8s. They triggered the development of high pressure direct fuel injection by Bosch which later was picked up by Mercedes. It shows that motor sport can take a technological lead which is beneficial if the objectives of the industry and the sport are aligned properly.

I don't think that anybody will pick a V6 for a 1.6L engine now. It would not be competitive with a V4 in terms of efficiency and packaging. F1 would be really dumb if they miss the boat on the new engines. The target for the new engines is 650 hp as confirmed several times by participants of the engine working group. The rest of the 100 hp that would be missing on current engines will be made up by energy recovery technologies.


#273 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 23 November 2010 - 07:26

I don't think that anybody will pick a V6 for a 1.6L engine now.


Thats where they all ended up before and unless they are going to have true flat bottom race cars thats what they will use again.


#274 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 November 2010 - 08:59

Thats where they all ended up before and unless they are going to have true flat bottom race cars thats what they will use again.


They won't if it is required to be a 1.6l in-line 4.

#275 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 November 2010 - 09:06

I don't think that anybody will pick a V6 for a 1.6L engine now. It would not be competitive with a V4 in terms of efficiency and packaging. F1 would be really dumb if they miss the boat on the new engines. The target for the new engines is 650 hp as confirmed several times by participants of the engine working group. The rest of the 100 hp that would be missing on current engines will be made up by energy recovery technologies.


I suggested a larger capacity for a V6 - 2.5l - but using less boost.

Indy car is going for a 2.4l twin turbo V6, tuned for 600-700hp depending on circuit. Of course they won't be using other energy recovery systems. I would prefer a 700hp V6 turbo with an extra 100hp from energy recovery systems, plus KERS (which is already at 80hp).



#276 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 November 2010 - 09:09

All the technologies developed by and for Audi's Le mans cars have already made a big difference to road car technologies. It is not only the diesels they did but also the petrol driven early V8s. They triggered the development of high pressure direct fuel injection by Bosch which later was picked up by Mercedes. It shows that motor sport can take a technological lead which is beneficial if the objectives of the industry and the sport are aligned properly.


Recent history shows that the engine units will be subject to a freeze, or at least a homologation process. And with the limit of 5 engines per car per season there will be little chance to add development to engines each year anyway.


#277 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 November 2010 - 09:12

A 5 litre four cylinder would certainly be more efficient than a 5 litre V8, but the latter would be more powerful.


Well then, since we are after better efficiency why don't we specify a single cylinder engine with lots of boost?



I would think that it is in the spirit of F1 to build an engine that provides the best performance regardless the regulations used. In the eighties the turbocharged F1 engines didn't use extreme engine speeds. The four cylinders ran to just above 10,000 rpm and the V6 engines slightly more.


The engine speeds were much the same as the V8s and V12s of that era.



#278 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 23 November 2010 - 10:51

Thats where they all ended up before and unless they are going to have true flat bottom race cars thats what they will use again.

Disagree. The old turbo engines were optimized for max power. The new engines will be maximized for fuel efficiency. The PTB don't want to them to compete for power. Ideally all engines are to have the same power and competitive advantages will come from better efficiency. It should be achievable if they specify displacement, rpm and boost pressure, as already published.

They won't if it is required to be a 1.6l in-line 4.


An L4 was never required by the working group. It could be a V4 which would probably provide a better packaging compromise.

I suggested a larger capacity for a V6 - 2.5l - but using less boost. Indy car is going for a 2.4l twin turbo V6, tuned for 600-700hp depending on circuit. Of course they won't be using other energy recovery systems. I would prefer a 700hp V6 turbo with an extra 100hp from energy recovery systems, plus KERS (which is already at 80hp).

Such an engine would not come close to F1 objectives. Too big, too heavy and far away from optimum efficiency.

Recent history shows that the engine units will be subject to a freeze, or at least a homologation process. And with the limit of 5 engines per car per season there will be little chance to add development to engines each year anyway.

There are enough options for development in the drive train to give the engines a break of development when they have done the new format. The big competitive advantages are not supposed to come from the engines but from the HERS and KERS systems. This is where the money should go. IMO it is good enough if they open the rules every three years for engine development in some designated areas.

There is no point in designing a new engine with microscopic refinements each year for insane costs if the improvement from HERS and KERS are potentially much greater and the industry is focussing the money there as well. What they need to do is things as electric front wheel drive, true dual torque, electric turbocharging, better and lighter batteries, MGUs and turbo compounding with CVT. Those are the drive train issues that get massive research in the industry. When F1 have truly caught up with the pace of development or taken a lead the additional power after some years might be big enough to justify another round of engine development for an even smaller engine.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 23 November 2010 - 11:00.


#279 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 November 2010 - 11:02

Surely powertrain development should head towards full electric drive with battery storage and onboard generator. The generator can then be optomised for a certain rpm and will use things like turbocompounding more effectively (tc is better at constant rpm, I understand). The ICE will not then need to be 650hp, but somewhere around the average power used on a lap. The ICE will also not need variable valve timing and lift because it will run at constant rpm.

Advertisement

#280 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,475 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 November 2010 - 11:14

The 3.2 litre engine will have higher frictional losses than a 1.6 litre engine assuming they are otherwise identical.

Total frictional loss would of course be higher - about double, but FMEP would be the same or slightly lower.

#281 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 23 November 2010 - 11:24

Surely powertrain development should head towards full electric drive with battery storage and onboard generator. The generator can then be optomised for a certain rpm and will use things like turbocompounding more effectively (tc is better at constant rpm, I understand). The ICE will not then need to be 650hp, but somewhere around the average power used on a lap. The ICE will also not need variable valve timing and lift because it will run at constant rpm.

Full electric drive with the ICE as power source is not an option efficiency wise. The mechanical energy gets converted into electrical energy and back into mechanical energy. You loose way too much energy for heat during all these conversions.

Plus these cars would be highly automated and would not showcase the driver talent. Not a very desirable perspective.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 23 November 2010 - 11:27.


#282 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 23 November 2010 - 23:25

Thats where they all ended up before and unless they are going to have true flat bottom race cars thats what they will use again.


The V6 engines used during the eighties were designed before the fuel restrictions came into effect, with a clean sheet design for the 1988 regulations, I think fewer cylinders would have been a benefit.

Inline fours had some success early in the eighties, but the boost limitations introduced later, made it difficult for them to compete with higher speed V6 engines.

Today the F1 cars use a flat bottom between the front and rear axle, but if they change the regulations I suspect they will look at introducing some sort of venturi tunnel instead as they are less sensitive to dirty air.

I suggested a larger capacity for a V6 - 2.5l - but using less boost.

Indy car is going for a 2.4l twin turbo V6, tuned for 600-700hp depending on circuit. Of course they won't be using other energy recovery systems. I would prefer a 700hp V6 turbo with an extra 100hp from energy recovery systems, plus KERS (which is already at 80hp).


Indycar allows a choice between four and six cylinders. So far it's only Honda that have decided to use a V6 and currently it looks like they are the only ones who are interrested in supplying indycar engines.

The reason Honda decided to go with a V6 was that it suited the american market well, where V6 engines are common. For the same reason I think a larger displacement V6 engine is unsuitable for F1.

Well then, since we are after better efficiency why don't we specify a single cylinder engine with lots of boost?


A single cylinder will be a little shaky.

The engine speeds were much the same as the V8s and V12s of that era.


The four cylinder turbos, with same capacity per cylinder compared to the V8's, ran to 9500 vs. 10500 for the V8.

Total frictional loss would of course be higher - about double, but FMEP would be the same or slightly lower.


Depends if the four cylinder engine is turbocharged with the same power or naturally aspiranted with half the power. With half the power FMEP should be half. The turbocharged version with the same power output will on the other hand have a higher fmep, but lower overall friction loss than the V8.

#283 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 November 2010 - 04:03

Indycar allows a choice between four and six cylinders. So far it's only Honda that have decided to use a V6 and currently it looks like they are the only ones who are interrested in supplying indycar engines.


Chevrolet and Lotus have announced engines for Indycar, and the Chev will be a V6 - no news on what configuration the Lotus will take.



The reason Honda decided to go with a V6 was that it suited the american market well, where V6 engines are common. For the same reason I think a larger displacement V6 engine is unsuitable for F1.


So they sacrificed the better choice on grounds of marketing? Or is it a better compromise within the rules for power and economy?

Can't see why a 4 cylinder engine is more suitable for F1. In fact I see it as opposite. It may be the more common engine in Europe, but most manufacturers still sell executive models and the like with V6s. Using a 4 cylinder engine common (in basic specs) with other racing series and similar in configuration with engines in low rent cars than the comman man can buy?

With the trends in Europe being the way they are, a turbodiesel 4 would be a better fit if you are thinking along thse lines?



A single cylinder will be a little shaky.


So?


The V6 engines used during the eighties were designed before the fuel restrictions came into effect, with a clean sheet design for the 1988 regulations, I think fewer cylinders would have been a benefit.

Inline fours had some success early in the eighties, but the boost limitations introduced later, made it difficult for them to compete with higher speed V6 engines.

Today the F1 cars use a flat bottom between the front and rear axle, but if they change the regulations I suspect they will look at introducing some sort of venturi tunnel instead as they are less sensitive to dirty air.


Surely a V6 engine is as suitable for venturi tunnels as a 4?

Fuel restrictions were made prior to 1988. IIRC 1986 was the first year with boost and fuel restrictions, both of which were reduced in 1987 and 1988.

The boost for the proposed engines is expected to be more (3 bar) than for 1988 (2.5 bar). Fuel restriction for 1988 was, IIRC, 195 litres.




Depends if the four cylinder engine is turbocharged with the same power or naturally aspiranted with half the power. With half the power FMEP should be half. The turbocharged version with the same power output will on the other hand have a higher fmep, but lower overall friction loss than the V8.


Surely if two engines make the same power, but one has lower overall friction then it will have lower FMEP too?




#284 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 412 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 November 2010 - 11:43

Fuel restrictions were made prior to 1988. IIRC 1986 was the first year with boost and fuel restrictions, both of which were reduced in 1987 and 1988.


In 1984 the first fuel consumption limits were introduced by the ban on mid-race refuelling and the maximum fuel tank size. The maximum fuel tank size was altered in 1986, 1987 and 1988. The boost limit was introduced in 1987 and altered for 1988.

#285 Spoofski

Spoofski
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 November 2010 - 12:39

Oops, talking sh1te.

Edited by Spoofski, 25 November 2010 - 09:46.


#286 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 November 2010 - 01:18

My bad - I took too much notice of Legard on BBC.


The F duct issue is getting confusing, I have it now that they are legal but can not be driver operated?

I mean drivers need 2 hands on the wheel at all times, imagine what would happen if they had to do something like use a stick with a knob to change gears with, that would be unheard of ...

#287 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 November 2010 - 02:52

So they sacrificed the better choice on grounds of marketing? Or is it a better compromise within the rules for power and economy?

Can't see why a 4 cylinder engine is more suitable for F1. In fact I see it as opposite. It may be the more common engine in Europe, but most manufacturers still sell executive models and the like with V6s. Using a 4 cylinder engine common (in basic specs) with other racing series and similar in configuration with engines in low rent cars than the comman man can buy?

With the trends in Europe being the way they are, a turbodiesel 4 would be a better fit if you are thinking along thse lines?

America has been extremely slow to embrace turbo engines although they are one of the best ways to improve efficiency. Half of Europe drives turbo cars - mainly diesels - but the trend is for the other petrol half to change to turbos as well. Turbo charged petrol engines are lighter, more powerful and have higher efficiencies due to the use of exhaust waste gas energy. Modern turbos are very drivable and have no turbo lag problem at all. This message simply hasn't arrived in the US market where capacity is the only god they worship. IMO it is silly but the marketing men have to consider it. You can only change the pre conceptions of people at a certain rate. Not everybody is an engineer and understands why a turbo charged engine with the same max torque but also a flat torque curve is even better than a big gas guzzler.

This V6 vs L4 thinking is emotional and not rational. For packaging and rigidity one can use a V4 instead of the L4. It is a bit more expensive due to more parts and the packaging advantages would have to justify the increased weight and cost.

I thought we had discussed the reasons why diesels will not appear in F1. They are further up and IMO need no repetition.


#288 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 November 2010 - 03:39

America has been extremely slow to embrace turbo engines although they are one of the best ways to improve efficiency. Half of Europe drives turbo cars - mainly diesels - but the trend is for the other petrol half to change to turbos as well. Turbo charged petrol engines are lighter, more powerful and have higher efficiencies due to the use of exhaust waste gas energy. Modern turbos are very drivable and have no turbo lag problem at all. This message simply hasn't arrived in the US market where capacity is the only god they worship. IMO it is silly but the marketing men have to consider it. You can only change the pre conceptions of people at a certain rate. Not everybody is an engineer and understands why a turbo charged engine with the same max torque but also a flat torque curve is even better than a big gas guzzler.

They are further up and IMO need no repetition.


Orrstralians and Americans have differing power needs to Europeans and small turbo's don't work for many situations and your seeming insinuation that we/they are igg-nar-rent because thats what we tend towards because thats what we need could be construed as ignorance on your part. Thats besides the fuel costs in Europe compared to Oz and the US that forces Euros towards small packages and diesels.

By the way a 2 litre turbo with all systems including intercooler is not lighter than a 3.6 GM V6 and I doubt it is more economical either.

Also FWIW, the American 4 cylinder GM Ecotech LNF turbo is quite a serious weapon in every aspect and by any World standard.


#289 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 November 2010 - 07:20

I thought we had discussed the reasons why diesels will not appear in F1. They are further up and IMO need no repetition.


I know they won't appear in F1.

But if the idea that 4 cylinder turbo engines is good for F1 because that's what Europeans drive is valid then so is the idea that turbodiesels would be good for F1.


#290 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 November 2010 - 07:27

This V6 vs L4 thinking is emotional and not rational. For packaging and rigidity one can use a V4 instead of the L4. It is a bit more expensive due to more parts and the packaging advantages would have to justify the increased weight and cost.


My impression of the EWG's proposal was that the engine will be an L4.

This is because it is the GRE, manufacturers make L4s and really only bike manufacturers have V4s now, and because Ferrari suggested a V6, part based on the V8s, to maintain similar chassis mounting systems - an L4 would have different requirements.

A V4 would be better to me only because it is not the GRE.

Of course the L4 vs V6 is emotional. One of the reasons you said the turbodiesel would not be used is that theý are quiet. There must be some concern that turbo 4s will not sound all that good either.

#291 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 November 2010 - 07:29

A question about turbocharging...

Is there a limit of boost where turbocharging ceases to be more efficient?

If not, why wouldn't they go for an even smaller engine - say 1l?

#292 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 November 2010 - 13:37

Orrstralians and Americans have differing power needs to Europeans and small turbo's don't work for many situations and your seeming insinuation that we/they are igg-nar-rent because thats what we tend towards because thats what we need could be construed as ignorance on your part. Thats besides the fuel costs in Europe compared to Oz and the US that forces Euros towards small packages and diesels.

kW and Nm are the same in Australia, Germany and the United States. Downsized turbo petrol engines are lighter than their naturally aspired competitors which has been shown many times in the last three years. For instance BMW is pushing a huge project through to replace their 4 cyl engines with 3 cyl. The top models will all have turbo charging. In many ways turbo petrol engines are superior to bigger NA engines. They build the torque at lower rpm and get better drivability that way. A good example of a state of the art engine can be found in the McLaren MP4-12C. The engine has 600 hp and 600 Nm torque at only 3.8L displacement. Instead of a V10 it only uses 8 cylinders. It will be the most fuel efficient engine of it's field and I bet also the lightest. Spec here

I don't think that Americans are necessarily more ignorant but they have their own ideas and need a bit more convincing by experience. If you do not believe me your should read this report.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 25 November 2010 - 13:39.


#293 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 November 2010 - 13:44

A question about turbocharging...

Is there a limit of boost where turbocharging ceases to be more efficient?

If not, why wouldn't they go for an even smaller engine - say 1l?

The higher the pressure the less efficient the compressor becomes and the more back pressure you start putting back to the exhaust. It is also an issue of the temperatures a turbocharger is exposed to.


#294 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 November 2010 - 17:26

kW and Nm are the same in Australia, Germany and the United States.


Thats not what I said. You are comparing own with own and I am comparing culture to culture.

A 3.6 GM alloytech is comparable in every way to a 2 litre turbo except it will live longer and be easier to drive and while the 2 litre T may downsize to 1.6 T the 3.6 will go down to 3.2 etc. - status quo will remain. I know which one I would choose in a heartbeat to tow my fishing boat and pull it out of the water though.

Here, the worlds biggest car market, there is very few turbos on sale and even less diesels (thank goodness).

Downsized turbo petrol engines are lighter than their naturally aspired competitors which has been shown many times in the last three years.


No, some engines are just simply getting lighter, have been for many years thanks to materials and computers (FEA, CFD etc).

Show me some of those "last 3 years" thanks ...?

Edited by cheapracer, 25 November 2010 - 17:27.


#295 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 November 2010 - 18:37

Thats not what I said. You are comparing own with own and I am comparing culture to culture.
A 3.6 GM alloytech is comparable in every way to a 2 litre turbo except it will live longer and be easier to drive and while the 2 litre T may downsize to 1.6 T the 3.6 will go down to 3.2 etc. - status quo will remain. I know which one I would choose in a heartbeat to tow my fishing boat and pull it out of the water though.
Here, the worlds biggest car market, there is very few turbos on sale and even less diesels (thank goodness).
No, some engines are just simply getting lighter, have been for many years thanks to materials and computers (FEA, CFD etc).
Show me some of those "last 3 years" thanks ...?

A man convinced against his will..... No thank you. It will all happen by itself. The world's biggest car market keeps buying those cars in Europe and Asia.


#296 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 25 November 2010 - 18:44

Saab had or has one of the most durable engines you can get. they just goes and goes. excellent for tuning as well.

b202 etc. 500 000km in the north is pretty good with all those cold starts.

worth mention Saab has always had chain drive on cams. no rubber belts (what you call it? bands?)

bad oil can cause issues tho because of a suction filter in the oil pan. at least on b202 and i think b204.

Merc diesels can go for long too. the 300 wagons are legends.

Problem is not engine if you buy a proper car, rust is. at least here.

#297 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 November 2010 - 20:31

Chevrolet and Lotus have announced engines for Indycar, and the Chev will be a V6 - no news on what configuration the Lotus will take.


When they were interviewed at HPD in October they didn't know if they were going to be the only engine supplier or not.

So they sacrificed the better choice on grounds of marketing? Or is it a better compromise within the rules for power and economy?

Can't see why a 4 cylinder engine is more suitable for F1. In fact I see it as opposite. It may be the more common engine in Europe, but most manufacturers still sell executive models and the like with V6s. Using a 4 cylinder engine common (in basic specs) with other racing series and similar in configuration with engines in low rent cars than the comman man can buy?

With the trends in Europe being the way they are, a turbodiesel 4 would be a better fit if you are thinking along thse lines?


The regulations for indycar are still not finalized so it would be impossible to say which configuration is the most suitable.

About half of the sales in europe are still gasoline engines. Mostly four cylinder engines and several manufacturers are today making turbocharged 1.4-2.5 liter engines in place of larger naturally aspiranted engines. Some are even using even smaller two and three cylinder engines. For 2012 european car manufacturers may not have a corporate average higher than 130 gCO2/km to avoid fines. For 2020, the yet not finalized limit is probably going to be to be 95 gCO2/km.

So with car manufacturer looking to market these small displacement, fuel efficient engines to the public, using a similar engine in F1 would suit their need well.

So?


To have an engine that produces a lot of vibrations and is difficult to package isn't not exactly what the chassis designers want even if it offers the lowest fuel consumption.

Surely a V6 engine is as suitable for venturi tunnels as a 4?


Depends on the V angle and how big tunnels you want to fit. But a V6 will never be as narrow as an inline four.

Fuel restrictions were made prior to 1988. IIRC 1986 was the first year with boost and fuel restrictions, both of which were reduced in 1987 and 1988.

The boost for the proposed engines is expected to be more (3 bar) than for 1988 (2.5 bar). Fuel restriction for 1988 was, IIRC, 195 litres.


Fuel restrictions came into effect in 1985 with a limit of 220 liters. This was reduced for 1986 to 195 liters. In 1987 a boost limit of 4.0 bar was introduced. Then in 1988 the boost limit was reduced to 2.5 bar and the fuel limit to 150 liters.

If we take the Honda RA168E which was used to win the 1988 championship it was a development of the RA163E introduced in 1983 before there were any limits. That was essentially the case for all engines, they were designed before the fuel restrictions came into effect.

If they are allowed more boost than in 1988 they will run to a slightly lower engine speed than they did back then. Probably about 20% less, which should translate into a peak power at about 10,000 rpm.

Surely if two engines make the same power, but one has lower overall friction then it will have lower FMEP too?


Only if they have the same displacement. If one engine have a smaller displacement it can have a higher FMEP (a result of using higher cylinder pressures) but still a lower overall friction.

Orrstralians and Americans have differing power needs to Europeans and small turbo's don't work for many situations and your seeming insinuation that we/they are igg-nar-rent because thats what we tend towards because thats what we need could be construed as ignorance on your part. Thats besides the fuel costs in Europe compared to Oz and the US that forces Euros towards small packages and diesels.

By the way a 2 litre turbo with all systems including intercooler is not lighter than a 3.6 GM V6 and I doubt it is more economical either.

Also FWIW, the American 4 cylinder GM Ecotech LNF turbo is quite a serious weapon in every aspect and by any World standard.


GM tested downsized turboengines already in the seventies and concluded they offered better fuel consumption, less weight and better performance. The only significant downside today is increased cost up front.

If we compare GM's high feature V6 with the L850 (Ecotec - originally an Opel brandname for some of their engines), neither the weight difference or the fuel consumption difference is insignificant. For fuel consumption I would say the V6 consume about 10-25% more and the weight is around 20% higher. But I don't have the exact weight for the V6.

An intercooler and the pressure piping needed weigh next to nothing - after all, it's just some plastic and aluminum.

L850 is a british (Lotus Engineering), german (Opel), american (GM) and swedish (Saab) development. It doesn't contain all the latest technology tough. The direct fuel injection isn't the latest generation, the valvelifts are fixed (only variable phasing), the oil and coolant pumps are conventional (not variable and/or electric), it doesn't have an electric thermostat to control coolant temperature and it doesn't have stop/start with regenerative braking.

#298 Cotchin

Cotchin
  • Member

  • 69 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 November 2010 - 22:53

Thats not what I said. You are comparing own with own and I am comparing culture to culture.

A 3.6 GM alloytech is comparable in every way to a 2 litre turbo except it will live longer and be easier to drive and while the 2 litre T may downsize to 1.6 T the 3.6 will go down to 3.2 etc. - status quo will remain. I know which one I would choose in a heartbeat to tow my fishing boat and pull it out of the water though.

Here, the worlds biggest car market, there is very few turbos on sale and even less diesels (thank goodness).



No, some engines are just simply getting lighter, have been for many years thanks to materials and computers (FEA, CFD etc).

Show me some of those "last 3 years" thanks ...?


Cheap (I mean that lovingly), I suspect you might be arguing with someone who's a troll or who can't help breath through their mouth when looking up at the sky.

See the thread in 'Racing Comments' for their insurmountable views on 2 wheels traction!


'At low speed the motoGP can cope but at higher speed the F1 would pull away because it gets more traction from the downforce.'

Mike

#299 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 November 2010 - 05:26

This is the technical forum, so we should really argue technical points. Perhaps one can shed some light by looking at the Porsche Cayenne S and Turbo engines. Both are 4.8L V8 DFI with 120 bar fuel injection pressure, so they obviously have the same injection system and basic engine except for the turbo charging. They have variable valve timing and lift. Bore × stroke: 96.00 mm × 83.00 mm

1.S-version:
Power: 294 kW @ 6,500 rpm
Torque: 500 Nm
Compression: 12.5:1
Fuel: 10.5L/100km


Posted Image

2. Turbo-version:
Power: 368 kW @ 6,000 rpm
Torque: 700 Nm
Compression: 10.5:1
Fuel: 11.5L/100km

Posted Image

In the same engine with turbo charging you see that the torque curve comes up to a maximum much earlier. The drivability is much enhanced vs the naturally aspired engine. American, Australian or European ownership of the engine will not make difference to the fact that the turbo powered engine is stronger, more drivable, more efficient and has a better power/weight ratio.

Porsche have obviously not used the option to downsize the V8 to V6 and turbo charge it to the power of the V8. So it gives a good idea what is possible with the V8 in both NA and turbo version. While the fuel consumption goes up by 9.5% the power increases by 25% and the torque goes up by 40% when the turbo is added.

I have used this example because it shows the naked effect of turbo charging. The benefits are very obvious. You only have to look at the 25% power increase and you see that you can downsize this engine to a 3.6L V6 of 75% and still have a better engine in every regard.

3. Theoretical 3.6L V6 S-version:
Power: 220.5 kW @ 6,500 rpm
Torque: 375 Nm
Compression: 12.5:1
Fuel: 7.56L/100km


4. Downsized 3.6L V6 Turbo-version:
Power: 292 kW @ 6,350 rpm
Torque: 525 Nm
Compression: 10.5:1
Fuel: 8.3L/100km


The V6 version #4 compared to the NA V8 #1 is a very modern downsized engine. With regard to direct injection it may not be 100% state of the art but it is way better than anything naturally aspired. It has 21% better fuel efficiency. Probably 15% less weight. A better torque curve and drivability and the same power.

Don't get fooled by the size of the engine. You can apply this effect to the F1 engine as well and you will get roughly the same benefits form downsizing and adding modern technologies. Keeping the old V8 NA engines will be a big mistake. It will mean stagnation and not being in harmony with the direction of the industry.

Advertisement

#300 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 November 2010 - 07:06

Keeping the old V8 NA engines will be a big mistake. It will mean stagnation and not being in harmony with the direction of the industry.


Not being in harmony with the industry has not been a problem for F1 in 60 years, why would it now?

Going to a fuel efficiency formula may not be the cleverest thinking either.