54 replies to this topic

[inox]

Engine manufacturers have stated they don't want major changes to current V6 turbo engine specifications.They would like to maintain energy efficiency and are therefore not so willing to increase fuel flow limit and fuel allowance. But at the moment the engines are just not thrilling enough. Increasing fuel flow and revs would make them more exciting and better sounding. The downsides are increased costs and difficulties to build them to last the required distance. So what is the minimum fuel flow/allowance increase you would feel happy to look forward to?

 

Edited by inox, 31 May 2015 - 06:37.

[inox]

The reason why I voted for 15%, is that it would at least give some edge in revs to other turbo engined series. At least it would beat the 80's F1 turbo engine revs by some margin. I think in those days Renault had the highest revving turbo engine due to their new invention (pneumatic valves), which made possible to reach 13 000 rpm. It is pretty sad that current engines are losing to 80's machinery on revs.

[nosecone]

Not sure the amount of bhp increases linear with the fuel flow per hour

 

 

edit: btw, i voted for +10%. With the current discussion on climate change and so on it seems the best compromise.

Edited by nosecone, 30 May 2015 - 22:16.

[inox]

Not sure the amount of bhp increases linear with the fuel flow per hour

 

 

edit: btw, i voted for +10%. With the current discussion on climate change and so on it seems the best compromise.

 

The power increases pretty linearly with the amount of energy the engine is feed with.

[jee]

Drop the limit, they are limited by total fuel consumption anyway.

[Moctecus]

The reason why I voted for 15%, is that it would at least give some edge in revs to other turbo engined series. At least it would beat the 80's F1 turbo engine revs by some margin. I think in those days Renault had the highest revving turbo engine due to their new invention (pneumatic valves), which made possible to reach 13 000 rpm. It is pretty sad that current engines are losing to 80's machinery on revs.

 

Why is it sad and how are they losing to anything? Revving higher is one way to increase power. Often not the best way and also not the only way.

 

Drop the limit, they are limited by total fuel consumption anyway.

 

Read the last two paragraphs of this article.

 

 

The engines already produce a lot of power and development will increase it further. I don't see the need to change anything. Even seemingly minor changes can make extensive and expensive redesigns of the engines necessary and I don't think a few extra horses and a little bit more noise would justify that. As mentioned by someone before me, just increasing the fuel flow will also not automatically result in notably higher revs. With a turbocharged engine simply increasing the boost is much easier and would probably be the preferred solution. You'd have to force the manufacturers e. g. by making maximum fuel flow available at higher rpm than the current 10500. That sounds very artificial to me. If they were going to do something otherwise unnecessary just for more noise the currently talked about dual-exhaust solution would be better (provided it actually works as planned).

[ninetyzero]

Voted +15% as the cars really should be more powerful than they are, although no doubt somebody will come along and say that increasing the fuel flow limit is 'artificial' in some way...

[Wuzak]

A rev limit is artificial. As is a capacity limit, or a boost limit.

 

I suggest 20%+. Extend the fuel flow formula (0.009*RPM + 5.5) up to 13,000rpm. That will give a maximum fuel flow rate of 122.5kg/h. And should be more than enough to increase power to 1000hp.

 

And then drop the race allowance.

 

The fuel flow limit encourages efficiency. The race fuel allowance encourages fuel saving.

Edited by Wuzak, 31 May 2015 - 00:09.

[FPV GTHO]

What are you basing your numbers on?

Theyre already allowed to rev to 15000, just allow the fuel limit to progress further than 10500 on the same formula that it does now

[chipmcdonald]

Uhm.... why must there be a fuel limit again?

[Brother Fox]

Finally, a thread complaining about the current engines

[Atreiu]

1000hp means nothing.

Anyhow, I suspect the best fuel flow limit is no fuel flow limit.

[viceroy1]

F1 is supposed to be about an INSANE amount of achievement. An average person should never have to look at anything f1 related and say "meh". These current engines kinda leave the average person saying that.

[FPV GTHO]

Uhm.... why must there be a fuel limit again?

Because there's no boost limit

[K20a]

F1 is supposed to be about an INSANE amount of achievement. An average person should never have to look at anything f1 related and say "meh". These current engines kinda leave the average person saying that.

Which is sad because these engines are incredible pieces of engineering

[inox]

to achieve what you intent, it's not enough to just increase the fuel flow rate per se - IMHO

you would also need to increase the point at which you would have the max. fuel flow available.

Maybe that's what you have in mind anyway, but it's not 100% clear from the way you discribe it.

 

 

That's just how I tried to present it. Having max fuel flow point at the given max power point.

[Rasputin]

What they should do is just to move the maximim flow to 15 000 Rpm, screamers would be back, case closed,

 

But never like this, oh mama;

 

[inox]

The engines already produce a lot of power and development will increase it further. I don't see the need to change anything.

 

I think it will be really hard to increase the power from this point on without adding fuel. It seems the best power units are already quite well optimized. I noticed that cars were only 0.5 second faster in Barcelona compared to last year. That's pretty lame after all the aerodynamic and engine developments. I suspect that Mercedes actually gained only 20-30 bhp from last years Barcelona race and from now on I would be positively surprised if they can increase power more than 10 bhp a year (without increasing fuel flow). And sound issues won't be improved.

 

You will need to give the teams an "incentive" to rev higher, otherwise it doesn't make technical sense to go there with a fuel limited turbo engine without boost limit.

So you either, give them more fuel flow higher up, or you reduce the number of gears ( which is one of the ideas floating around), just raising the flow rate by xx% but keeping the point from which on you can use it (currently 10500 rpm) wont make the rev higher, it would just mean that you have more power at 10500 rpm and above.

 

Although I agree that 6 speed gearbox would increase revs, we would still not see cars hitting 12 000 rpm on higher gears. So, while probably a small improvement, still nothing to cheer for.

[inox]

By the way, what is the highest revving turbo engine ever? I did mention earlier that Renault's F1 engine achieved 13 000 rpm in 1986, but has that been exceeded by any racing engine? Or outside racing?

[Marklar]

Michael Schmidt from AMuS suggested some weeks ago in an series about what he would like to chance in F1 that they should be no fuel flow limit and just an fuel limit (140 litres), so you could be able to have for an short moment 1500 Bhp available. How cool would that been?

[Boing Ball]

By the way, what is the highest revving turbo engine ever? I did mention earlier that Renault's F1 engine achieved 13 000 rpm in 1986, but has that been exceeded by any racing engine? Or outside racing?

 

I highly doubt that. 1986 was the last year of unlimited boost. They started to increase rpms after boost was limited. Therefore, you'd expect that the highest revving F1 turbo engines are from 1988. I think the Honda reached 12500.

 

CART series had turbo charged engines with low boost. They reached over 15 000 rpm, AFAIK.

Edited by Boing Ball, 31 May 2015 - 07:51.

[Wuzak]

Michael Schmidt from AMuS suggested some weeks ago in an series about what he would like to chance in F1 that they should be no fuel flow limit and just an fuel limit (140 litres), so you could be able to have for an short moment 1500 Bhp available. How cool would that been?

 

And produced lots of whining about fuel saving.

[Wuzak]

Uhm.... why must there be a fuel limit again?

 

So they don't have a stupid amount of power.

 

It was set to, basically, match the output of the V8.

 

The V8 was a way, of course, to cut power, as were the 19,000rpm and 18,000rpm limits.

[Wuzak]

1000hp means nothing.

Anyhow, I suspect the best fuel flow limit is no fuel flow limit.

 

There has to be some way to limit power. Of all the methods used over the years, the fuel flow limit is quite possibly the best and most equitable amongst different engine layouts (not that it matters in F1 at the moment).

[GrumpyYoungMan]

There has to be some way to limit power. Of all the methods used over the years, the fuel flow limit is quite possibly the best and most equitable amongst different engine layouts (not that it matters in F1 at the moment).

There is the 100KG race allowance...

[realracer200]

how about removing the fuel flow limit and the rev limit altogether. and also let everybody develop their engines freely without the tokens system...

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Why does nobody want to see the best solution possible?

 

- 605kg minimum weight

- 80kg minimum driver weight

- free engine configuration

- free fuel flow and total race consumption(fuel weight penalty will ensure nobody uses too much)

- free energy recovery(not mandatory)

- 2, 4 or n stroke allowed

- standard pump fuel(road relevance )

- maybe an emission test, eg Euro 4 or 5

[Bleu]

Even if fuel limits are dropped it won't necessarily stop fuel saving. Just an comparison example.

 

* Driver A puts 100 kg of fuel, drives flat out 75% of the race and saves fuel for 25%.

* Driver B puts 110 kg of fuel, drives flat out all race

 

However, driver A gets advantage as he drivers much of the race with lighter car than driver B. Safety cars would obviously change the situation that either driver gets advantage.

[inox]

I highly doubt that. 1986 was the last year of unlimited boost. They started to increase rpms after boost was limited. Therefore, you'd expect that the highest revving F1 turbo engines are from 1988. I think the Honda reached 12500.

 

CART series had turbo charged engines with low boost. They reached over 15 000 rpm, AFAIK.

 

1986 is correct. Renault introduced pneumatic valves and was running higher revs than others. Honda could not surpass that in 1988 due to significantly lower fuel limit.

 

In which year the CART series had so high rpm's?

Edited by inox, 31 May 2015 - 10:54.

[Wuzak]

There is the 100KG race allowance...

 

That doesn't limit power.

 

Only how often the power can be used.

[Boing Ball]

1986 is correct. Renault introduced pneumatic valves and was running higher revs than others. Honda could not surpass that in 1988 due to significantly lower fuel limit.

 

In which year the CART series had so high rpm's?

 

The fuel limit was only for races. Boost was limited to 2.5 bars. That's why their only option was to seek for more rpm. 

 

See e.g. http://www.motorspor...led-at-fontana/

 

 

 

The new XF is two inches shorter and 18 percent lighter than the XD, and revs at a range approaching 16,000 rpm. 

Edited by Boing Ball, 31 May 2015 - 11:17.

[Scotracer]

There's no reason the revs would increase like you said. They could just fuel more at current revs.

[OO7]

Even if fuel limits are dropped it won't necessarily stop fuel saving. Just an comparison example.

 

* Driver A puts 100 kg of fuel, drives flat out 75% of the race and saves fuel for 25%.

* Driver B puts 110 kg of fuel, drives flat out all race

 

However, driver A gets advantage as he drivers much of the race with lighter car than driver B. Safety cars would obviously change the situation that either driver gets advantage.

There has always been fuel saving of some degree in F1, however excluding the turbo years, it has never been as extreme as we see today.  If the cars were wearing 2010 Bridgestone tyres, we'd all be echoing Montezemolo's comment of taxi cab driving.

[jee]

Read the last two paragraphs of this article.

They are just looking for excuses to run into a competition where some strategies are going to fail.

 

There is no point in using in one 200% more fuel, the other lap will just be so slow that it is simply not worth it. It will all be in a range of maybe 20% which is even less in lap time. They would totally stress the tires by doing what they are afraid of which could lead to more stops than they want to do. This would just bring back a situation as in the first half season of Pirelli where the teams simply did not understood the tires correctly and could fail with their race strategy.

[OO7]

One of he many problems with F1, is how it is marketed.  We hear a lot of talk about fuel saving for instance and how contemporary F1 cars now use 1/3 less fuel to cover a race distance.  Well F1 cars could complete a race distance on 50kg of fuel as well, so what!  Increasing the maximum race fuel allocation to 150kg wouldn't automatically make the current PUs less efficient.  The engineers will always strive to make the power trains as efficient as possible, because greater efficiency means greater power.

Increasing the fuel allocation would 'send the wrong message' one could argue.  F1 should really be marketing efficiency (extracting for power and energy from fuel) and not fuel saving.

[tmekt]

The industry trend is more or less into more fuel efficient cars so having F1 cars that they can market as "hybrids" etc. is essential to keep the manufacturers happy (that's the road relevance they need). But there's also the question of keeping the sport interesting for the viewers and if louder engines are genuinely what people want then that's what they should do, but it shouldn't come with the expense of possibly losing Renault, Mercedes and the prospect of future entries (Audi/VW, BMW, etc.). They need to be careful.

Edited by tmekt, 31 May 2015 - 17:34.

[KingTiger]

Fuel flow limit exists for technical reasons. Without it the racing would be stupid. They'd rev the engines real hard at the beginning of each straight then coast to the next corner. It saves the most fuel but it would make the race a farce, controlled by computers and engineers. 

[OO7]

Fuel flow limit exists for technical reasons. Without it the racing would be stupid. They'd rev the engines real hard at the beginning of each straight then coast to the next corner. It saves the most fuel but it would make the race a farce, controlled by computers and engineers. 

Fuel flow limits are fine in my book as are the race fuel allocation limits.  I just believe both should increase.

[chipmcdonald]

Which is sad because these engines are incredible pieces of engineering

 

I just bought one of these:

 

 

... for an insane amount of money, but also an incredible piece of engineering. 

 

I am not interested in seeing it race.

[chipmcdonald]

There has to be some way to limit power.

 

To what end? For safety?

 

Because, that is NOT the cheapest way to that end.

[Pingguest]

There is the 100KG race allowance...

 

A fuel consumption limit reduces engine power on average but not at any given time.

[chipmcdonald]

 

Increasing the fuel allocation would 'send the wrong message' one could argue.  F1 should really be marketing efficiency (extracting for power and energy from fuel) and not fuel saving.

 

No, they should be marketing CAR RACING.  You can't see fuel efficiency.

 

On the other hand, what wins a 0-60 race, a 2015 F1 car or a Tesla P85D in Insane Mode? An actual real road car, with zero internal combustion engines in sight? 

 

The F1 car beats it by half a second.  A Tesla P85D isn't cheap, but compared to an F1 car? And it's a *road car*. The Tesla gets a relative 95+ MPG.

 

 

Which one represents "modern technology" more...?

 

F1 regs are a sham, they're not road relevant, they're not modern, and they're not that impressive anymore.  

 

Here's a real challenge to F1:

 

Keep the Rube Goldberg mediocre machines next year.  BUT -

 

... does Formula 1 dare allow someone to enter an FIA-approved safe chassis that is all electric, *with no engineering regulations*?

 

THAT is where Formula 1 should be if it is actually serious about "road relevance" and putting money into something that will have a real, pragmatic environmental pay off.   Because, I bet, someone could field an all-electric car that could compete with these 2015 spec cars on half of Sauber's budget....

 

... if they were actually allowed to..!

 

 

Otherwise, cut the "energy saving", "green", "fuel economy" ROAD CAR RELEVANT bs.  It's a lie.  I bet Elon Musk would love to enter an all electric Tesla F1 car, if he were allowed to actually do it right... Give him a couple of 2014 RBR or Williams chassis, and let him have his way...

 

 

/ V10's are "old technology", pffft.

[Mekola]

The higher, the better.

[inox]

The fuel limit was only for races. Boost was limited to 2.5 bars. That's why their only option was to seek for more rpm. 

 

 

You are probably correct that fuel limit was not the reason holding back Honda's revs in 1988. I found this interesting and detailed article about Honda's 1988 engine (sadly you can view only 5 free articles on that site, so choose carefully)

http://www.motorspor...ss-honda-ra168e

 

Few picks from the article:

"In valve design Honda also took a conservative approach. Indeed, in this area this engine is less innovative than any earlier Honda Grand Prix engine; every one of its main features can be found on its first Grand Prix unit or those deployed soon thereafter. Moreover, valve design differs little from that used on rival engines. There are no desmodromic actions, no torsion bars nor pneumatic springs; four valves per cylinder are used with each valve being closed in the familiar manner by a pair of concentric springs. The cams act upon finger followers, a mechanism that Honda used on the RA302E in 1968 and seems to prefer to the more common inverted bucket type tappets used in most racing engines. Finger followers can reduce inertia loadings and thereby allow an engine to rev higher. This mechanism certainly works on the RA168E for the engine would run safely at 13,500 rpm."

 

"By the end of the season the RA168E was producing 685 (metric) bhp @ 12,500."

 

 

So Honda's engine probably revved to 13,500 rpm, possibly eclipsing Renault after all. I tried to look from my bookshelf and all over the internet when other manufacturers adopted pneumatic valve gears, but did not find definitive information. It seems that other manufacturers started adopting them during naturally aspirated era, so Renault had an advantage there for several years.

[inox]

See e.g. http://www.motorspor...led-at-fontana/

 

That Cosworth XF Cart engine was a beast for turbo engine indeed. Here is a good link to specs:

http://www.cosworth....ines/xf-series/

 

It states max revs of 16 250 rpm. The calculation below shows that it was running almost with double frequency compared to current F1 turbo engines.

 

16250 rpm * 8 cylinders / 2 = 65 000 explosions/minute

12000 rpm * 6 cylinders / 2 = 36 000 explosions/minute

 

To make a similar sound with V6 you would need to rev it to about 21700 rpm. This is depressing...

[Pingguest]

Engine manufacturers have stated they don't want major changes to current V6 turbo engine specifications.They would like to maintain energy efficiency and are therefore not so willing to increase fuel flow limit and fuel allowance. But at the moment the engines are just not thrilling enough. Increasing fuel flow and revs would make them more exciting and better sounding. The downsides are increased costs and difficulties to build them to last the required distance. So what is the minimum fuel flow/allowance increase you would feel happy to look forward to?

 

What constitutes an engine that is 'thrilling enough', especially in connection with the fuel-flow limit? The LMP1-engines have, depending on their 'ERS option', a fuel-flow limit that is equally or even more limited than the current breed of Formula One engines. However, the LMP1-engines are generally hailed.

Edited by Pingguest, 31 May 2015 - 21:22.

[ViMaMo]

Apart from being "1000", I don't know how it would bring better racing.

[Lazy]

Apart from being "1000", I don't know how it would bring better racing.

In a superficial world superficiality is king. 

 

1000 hp  

It's loud  

It's pretty 

 

These things will do nothing for the long term health of the sport. It's completely missing the point.

[Clatter]

No, they should be marketing CAR RACING. You can't see fuel efficiency.

On the other hand, what wins a 0-60 race, a 2015 F1 car or a Tesla P85D in Insane Mode? An actual real road car, with zero internal combustion engines in sight?

The F1 car beats it by half a second. A Tesla P85D isn't cheap, but compared to an F1 car? And it's a *road car*. The Tesla gets a relative 95+ MPG.


Which one represents "modern technology" more...?

F1 regs are a sham, they're not road relevant, they're not modern, and they're not that impressive anymore.

Here's a real challenge to F1:

Keep the Rube Goldberg mediocre machines next year. BUT -

... does Formula 1 dare allow someone to enter an FIA-approved safe chassis that is all electric, *with no engineering regulations*?

THAT is where Formula 1 should be if it is actually serious about "road relevance" and putting money into something that will have a real, pragmatic environmental pay off. Because, I bet, someone could field an all-electric car that could compete with these 2015 spec cars on half of Sauber's budget....

... if they were actually allowed to..!


Otherwise, cut the "energy saving", "green", "fuel economy" ROAD CAR RELEVANT bs. It's a lie. I bet Elon Musk would love to enter an all electric Tesla F1 car, if he were allowed to actually do it right... Give him a couple of 2014 RBR or Williams chassis, and let him have his way...


/ V10's are "old technology", pffft.

Really they couldn't compete. Formula E shows where the technology is at the moment.

[Lennat]

Why does nobody want to see the best solution possible?

 

- 605kg minimum weight

- 80kg minimum driver weight

- free engine configuration

- free fuel flow and total race consumption(fuel weight penalty will ensure nobody uses too much)

- free energy recovery(not mandatory)

- 2, 4 or n stroke allowed

- standard pump fuel(road relevance )

- maybe an emission test, eg Euro 4 or 5

 

I would keep the fuel flow limit (but increase it by 20% or so) and FORCE them to start the race with something like 130 kilos of fuel. No more boring fuel saving.