58 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

Putting aside the electric (hybrid) component, and the extent of electric (perhaps it will be 100% electric by 2040), which is a whole 'nother debate...

 

Which internal combustion engine configured do you prefer in F1?

 

 Naturally aspirated (as in ICE intake air at close to ambient pressure, with some "ram" effect at most) or turbocharged (i.e., turbosupercharged, as in intake air pressured at well above atmospheric pressure by one or more compressor wheels coupled to one or more turbines which recover energy from the ICE exhaust gases).

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 20 July 2017 - 09:44.

[RaikkonenFan96]

I'm okay with both, as long as turbo whistle ain't too dominative. If have to choice, naturally aspirated for me.

[Marklar]

Can you add a 'I dont care' option?

[RedBaron]

Where's the option for no engines at all, they're too dangerous.

[kpastri]

Turbocharged

[MadYarpen]

And maybe supercharger? I think it would be better for the noise and would improve fuel efficiency over naturally aspirated engine?

I also like the idea of electro - charged engine, where the compressor is powered by electricity from energy recovery system.

[Lennat]

Where's the option for no engines at all, they're too dangerous.

 

+1

 

And also, there could be legal issues if we had an accident that engine free cars would have prevented.

[johnmhinds]

Can you add a 'I dont care' option?

^This. I couldn’t care less what is in the back/front of a racing car as long as the field is competitive.

I’ve watched students racing solar powered cars at 5-10mph and it still got my adrenaline pumping.

[V8 Fireworks]

Where's the option for no engines at all, they're too dangerous.

 

 

Can you add a 'I dont care' option?

 

 

Amended.    It is certainly true that internal combustion engines are old-fashioned polluting tech and electric, wind (land sailing), solar, gravity potential (logue/downhill skiing/ski jumping) and/or human-powered vehicles (bicycle racing) are the way of the future in racing. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 20 July 2017 - 09:47.

[Lennat]

Why are competition bikes not enclosed yet? The organizers must be sued for every accident!

[Pingguest]

Just keep things free.

[ArrowsLivery]

What is faster, cheaper, and more spectacular?

[OO7]

I say supercharge that sucker (not a poll option unfortunately)!  You get noise and lovely combustion tech, the only downside is it being a little less efficient (compared to turbocharging).

[Lennat]

I say supercharge that sucker (not a poll option unfortunately)!  You get noise and lovely combustion tech, the only downside is it being a little less efficient (compared to turbocharging).

 

Quite a bit less effective I guess, but would be super kewl!

[ionutf1fan]

Electric.

[maximilian]

The visceral scream of the suckers is something special that's truly missed.

[kevinracefan]

whatever a team wants to run..

 

give choices.. 

 

even from week to week, track specific..

[NixxxoN]

I dont know about this, both have pros and cons. N/A are less efficient and overall an older tech, and are less relevant, but have louder and better sound thereofre theyre cooler to watch... its difficult to choose one

[BuddyHolly]

NA for me.

[Cliff]

Fix the sound and make them mega fast. Don't care the how or what.

[Cliff]

Fix the sound and make them mega fast. Don't care about the how or what.

Edited by Cliff, 20 July 2017 - 15:11.

[superden]

Naturally aspirated, with double the cylinders, preferably.

[Wingcommander]

Couldn't care less.

[johnmhinds]

Fix the sound and make them mega fast. Don't care the how or what.

 

Electric cars with speakers it is then.

[Paco]

Y not both turbos and supercharged lol. Idk, I like the concept of naturally aspirated but seems like too old of an approach. I do think it should be a v8.. Perhaps v8 supercharged.

[icecream]

Why limit the poll to only internal combustion options?  Perhaps if F1 wants a robust future, it should look to the past. 

[CharlesWinstone]

Turbocharged is fine. But please 5 cilinders. They sound fantastic.
And stop with the electro sh*t so Renault and Honda get a chance again.

[Szoelloe]

Don't care. Doesn't really add anything to the (non-existent) sporting side of F1.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

whatever a team wants to run..

give choices..

even from week to week, track specific..

That would cost more than it does now...

[V8 Fireworks]

Why limit the poll to only internal combustion options?  Perhaps if F1 wants a robust future, it should look to the past. 

 External combustion = rocket engines?

 

Jet turbines are turbochargers, turbine compresses the air, compressor recovers energy to drive the turbine, so they go under the turbocharger category if you prefer jet turbine engines.   Perhaps steam engine should also be added, however, if that's what you mean.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 20 July 2017 - 20:15.

[crooky369]

Let the turbo cars run their course first, it's going to be great to see just how fast these cars get in qualifying. But when the FIA decide to start slowing the cars down again it'd be good for the cars to sound much better once more. 

Edited by crooky369, 20 July 2017 - 20:43.

[Burtros]

n/a so we get the revs and the sound back.

[DeKnyff]

As a motor racing fan, I'd like to have naturally aspirated engines of at least eight cylinders and at least a displacement of three liters. For the sound and the tradition and their relative simplicity.  But then, the left side of my brain tells me it's a technology of the past and those engines will never come back. Very sad..., but true. For the sake of efficiency, future is hybrid and turbocharged, like it or not. It's the price motorsport has to pay for being accepted by environmentalists.

[Burtros]

As a motor racing fan, I'd like to have naturally aspirated engines of at least eight cylinders and at least a displacement of three liters. For the sound and the tradition and their relative simplicity. But then, the left side of my brain tells me it's a technology of the past and those engines will never come back. Very sad..., but true. For the sake of efficiency, future is hybrid and turbocharged, like it or not. It's the price motorsport has to pay for being accepted by environmentalists.

I'm not saying it should stick its fingers up at environmental consideration with the following, it's a good point there and it has to be included. Equally though, it shouldn't allow it to dominate every aspect of its future even to its detriment and it shouldn't be scared to have the debate and fight its corner.

Surely the argument against needs to be to look at the carbon footprint a sport leaves overall if you want to argue about its environmental impact? Think of football and all the flights that happen all over the world, week in week out as teams travel to fixtures. Arsenal (London) flew to Norwich for an away game a year or so ago!

The argument quickly boils down to symbolisim for the manufacturers and campaigners.

I hear cosworth are interested in the new engine formula!

[Fademan]

instead of drs, let the cars have NOS, and make the flames out the back match the team colors.

[MikeV1987]

Could not care less tbh.

[Fatgadget]

First of all,I would like to know which of the 2 modes of unduction is the most efficient. Then I will make an informed decision!...Any thermo engineers out there?

[V8 Fireworks]

First of all,I would like to know which of the 2 modes of unduction is the most efficient. Then I will make an informed decision!...Any thermo engineers out there?

 

Turbocharged engines are, by definition, more efficient as they recover what would be wasted energy and reuse it (to compress the intake air), thereby improving efficiency.

[icecream]

   Perhaps steam engine should also be added, however, if that's what you mean.

 

Yep, steam ftw!     Someone should do a steampunk f1 concept. 

[Wuzak]

Yep, steam ftw!     Someone should do a steampunk f1 concept. 

 

Wonder how a small steam turbine with a generator would go. The generator to drive the wheels via electric motors. 

 

Though small steam turbines are lower in efficiency.

[Collombin]

Yep, steam ftw! Someone should do a steampunk f1 concept.

Google Lear Steam Indycar 1969. Looked great, but hardly a success.

For the question asked, I don't think I mind.

From some of the earlier posts, is turbocharging not considered a type of supercharging anymore? Ie does the term supercharging now exclude turbocharging?

[Wuzak]

Google Lear Steam Indycar 1969. Looked great, but hardly a success.

 

Had to look that up!

 

Found this article by Sports Illustrated from early 1969.

 

https://www.si.com/v...-there-be-steam

 

Other sites say the engine didn't actually work.

[tomjol]

I'm not saying it should stick its fingers up at environmental consideration with the following, it's a good point there and it has to be included. Equally though, it shouldn't allow it to dominate every aspect of its future even to its detriment and it shouldn't be scared to have the debate and fight its corner.

Surely the argument against needs to be to look at the carbon footprint a sport leaves overall if you want to argue about its environmental impact? Think of football and all the flights that happen all over the world, week in week out as teams travel to fixtures. Arsenal (London) flew to Norwich for an away game a year or so ago!

The argument quickly boils down to symbolisim for the manufacturers and campaigners.

I hear cosworth are interested in the new engine formula!

 

Yes, it does boil down to symbolism. It's that symbolism which attracts manufacturers.

 

This is just the commercial reality in which F1 exists. It cannot bury its head and demand things return to the past, fashionable though that may be in Western society of late (with increasingly disastrous results).

Edited by tomjol, 21 July 2017 - 06:57.

[7MGTEsup]

For me the rule should be you have 100kg of fuel to finish the race how you choose to use that fuel is up to you.

 

If you want real innovation that is the only way to go.

[OO7]

For me the rule should be you have 100kg of fuel to finish the race how you choose to use that fuel is up to you.

 

If you want real innovation that is the only way to go.

I'd rather have a power cap then allow manufacturers to design whatever power unit they desire around it.

[Lennat]

I'd rather have a power cap then allow manufacturers to design whatever power unit they desire around it.

 

I guess that would be something like a V4 with more powerful ERS than today?

[Ivanhoe]

Google Lear Steam Indycar 1969. Looked great, but hardly a success.

Mwa

From some of the earlier posts, is turbocharging not considered a type of supercharging anymore? Ie does the term supercharging now exclude turbocharging?

I'd say both are forced induction systems, but the difference being that a supercharger is powered by the engine and a turbo by the exhaust gasses.

[4444]

I'd say turboshaft engine. They don't have reciprocating parts so they would last for an entire season. If the exhausts are directed upward then there are no need for wings, so dirty air wouldn't be a problem.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Turboshaft

[4444]

For me the rule should be you have 100kg of fuel to finish the race how you choose to use that fuel is up to you.

 

Highly enriched uranium and anti matter power F1 cars?

[V8 Fireworks]

 Ie does the term supercharging now exclude turbocharging?

 

Turbocharging short for turbosupercharging is certainly a form of supercharging, as always.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 21 July 2017 - 08:54.