139 replies to this topic

[GuyDormehl]

I foresee very nervy times ahead for F1 engine specs. The next set of engine regs will last well into the 1930s to ameliorate development costs - that is if the engine regs from now don't just rolled over indefinitely until we know where we are going.....

 

Despite the astonishing efficiency of the current turbo-hybrid engines, they may become irrelevant as I believe that hybrid road cars will change from being considered EVs (huh?!) to being chucked in with ICE cars (petrol and diesel) and therefore banned in many countries starting around 2030. That ain't far away.. already the sales of hybrids are falling in some markets and quickly as diesels! That didn't take long for customers to realise that hybrids are a daft idea and were conjured up by current car manufacturers to hang onto their ICE technology.

 

As a F1 'petrolhead' for many years (decades even...) AND a green tech supporter/EV fan (I have a BMW i3 and charge it from solar as well as running the house off-grid), I am now bewildered where F1 goes in the foreseeable future wrt power unit. Eventually I suppose F1 will morph into FE Max (fuel-cell; battery; other?) but what happens for the next decade or more?

 

I certainly can see the social/political dangers of staying petrol BUT if F1 went carbon-neutral with all the freight; support vehicles/equipment/factories and  spectators arrive in EVs, the F1 could make a case for staying with petrol engines for a spectacle and sport. The minimal percentage of petrol used for racing may be justifiable....hmmmm? There could be a carbon off-set arrangement (trees?)

 

A return to 1970s Cosworth (plus some others)-style simple, cheap and noisy racers....

 

Obviously this may only be a temporary solution as eventually it would be deemed too anti-social/anti-green (mid 2030-2040?) and wither on the vine...…..Then FE WILL take over as the premier World Championship, like it or not.

 

What suggestions do people/F1 fans have out there that are practical and realistic? No anti-green/anti-Greta/anti-EV rhetoric and tirades - that ain't gonna help. The Jeremy Clarkson brigade can pull their heads in!!

 

[Vielleicht]

There's a long old thread in Racing Comments about this which I reccomend having a read of

 

https://forums.autos...al-aims-merged/

Edited by Vielleicht, 14 February 2020 - 15:02.

[GuyDormehl]

Vielleicht, thanks for that info - hadn't seen that thread. Very interesting.

 

Where is it, how do I find it - not using your link!?

 

Thanks Guy

[Vielleicht]

No worries, admittedly it's a bit of a mess to read as it's two separate threads merged together (the 'Future of F1 ICE' and the 'Carbon Neutral Aims' being the two) but it's got most of the main points there. Feel free to add more I say!
 
The thread is under the Racing Comments section of the Forum, if that at all helps...

 

Absolutely fascinating topic though, in my opinion. I find myself in a similar positon of being a longtime F1 fan and yet also being very interested in an equally enthusiastic about EVs (especially their place in racing). I really don't know what F1 can or should do either - it seems to me that while the future of EV racing is basically a secure bet, the future of racing with ICE (especially with no hybrid) is looking quite shakey indeed.

[scolbourne]

How about hydrogen powered ic engines. That way you get everything including sound , noise, power and zero CO2.

[malbear]

How about hydrogen powered ic engines. That way you get everything including sound , noise, power and zero CO2.

Zero co2 really depends on how it is produced https://afdc.energy....production.html

I personally would prefer ethanol as a fuel for an IC engine 

[Greg Locock]

BMW actually did that once. BMW Hydrogen 7. Crazy stuff.

[scolbourne]

I think the F1 organisers would guarantee their hydrogen was produced from renewable  sources. I agree using hydrogen produced from fossil fuels would be a bit pointless from an environmental point of view.

We could open up the rules later and allow hydrogen powered  ic engines to compete against fuel cells powering electric motors to provide  a comparison, but this should only happen after the hydrogen ic engines have proven themselves.

[scolbourne]

With hydrogen running in the dark would be spectacular with red flames coming from the exausts. Maybe the rules can be designed to maxify the look as with nitro dragsters where the flames are part of the appeal.

[Greg Locock]

Would the electrodes used up in the electrolysis have to be from renewable sources as well?

[Charlieman]

Would the electrodes used up in the electrolysis have to be from renewable sources as well?

And the cement and steel and plastics....

[scolbourne]

Would the electrodes used up in the electrolysis have to be from renewable sources as well?

 

Is this a problem. I thought electrodes would have a long life. There are other ways of making hydrogen from water without the use of electricity. You can use solar reflectors to heat water till it breaks down. "Thermochemical water splitting processes use high-temperature heat (500°–2,000°C) to drive a series of chemical reactions that produce hydrogen. The chemicals used in the process are reused within each cycle, creating a closed loop that consumes only water and produces hydrogen and oxygen.".

[Greg Locock]

Yes, erosion of expensive electrodes is a big deal. thermochemical is a 'long-term' technology, like fusion.

[gruntguru]

With hydrogen running in the dark would be spectacular with red flames coming from the exausts. Maybe the rules can be designed to maxify the look as with nitro dragsters where the flames are part of the appeal.

I doubt that would happen. The flames from top-fuel dragsters are the result of waste hydrogen burning in the atmosphere - very inefficient.

[Ben1445]

If you ask me the realistic solution is increasing reliance on electrical storage/energy recovery and redeployment all the while decreasing reliance on the ICE. 

[Kelpiecross]

 The only proper solution is totally electric-only F1 cars.    Using only nice "green"  electrons.   

 

 Regulations must insist on drivers with a 50/50  split of genders with also a specified  regulated  amount of LGBTI+  (and others) drivers.

 

 All drivers to be certified  believers in Climate Change.  

 

 Before the start of the race  there must be a ceremony thanking  the indigenous owners of the land the race track is on.  

 

 Every driver - finishing or not - to be awarded an  equal prize.    

Edited by Kelpiecross, 25 February 2020 - 04:40.

[desmo]

I don't think engine regs are even necessary in F1. Limit the energy content and quantity of the fuel and/or charge the batteries the cars can carry at the starting line and leave it to the teams to decide how to make it fast/last. One approach or another will quickly become orthodox. 

[Fat Boy]

 The only proper solution is totally electric-only F1 cars.    Using only nice "green"  electrons.   

 

 Regulations must insist on drivers with a 50/50  split of genders with also a specified  regulated  amount of LGBTI+  (and others) drivers.

 

 All drivers to be certified  believers in Climate Change.  

 

 Before the start of the race  there must be a ceremony thanking  the indigenous owners of the land the race track is on.  

 

 Every driver - finishing or not - to be awarded an  equal prize.    

C'mon, KC, this isn't helping.

[Fat Boy]

I don't think engine regs are even necessary in F1. Limit the energy content and quantity of the fuel and/or charge the batteries the cars can carry at the starting line and leave it to the teams to decide how to make it fast/last. One approach or another will quickly become orthodox. 

That's fine for a DARPA engineering project, but it is not compelling entertainment.

 

12 cylinder (or more) engines, lots of hydrocarbons and more power than tires. Accept that we are ultimately a medium for entertainment.

[malbear]

the best green fuel would be methane liquified or ethylene alcohol or methanol sourced from agriculture waste or sewage and we have plenty of that  . by utilising methane we would stop it entering the atmosphere raw and becoming part of the natural carbon cycle not the artificial petroleum source. so the spectacle and glorious noise can add to the entertainment , A silent wirr just does not cut it    

[scolbourne]

the best green fuel would be methane liquified or ethylene alcohol or methanol sourced from agriculture waste or sewage and we have plenty of that  . by utilising methane we would stop it entering the atmosphere raw and becoming part of the natural carbon cycle not the artificial petroleum source. so the spectacle and glorious noise can add to the entertainment , A silent wirr just does not cut it    

 

We can have the best of both worlds and use hydrogen (sourced renewably) in an ic engine. No carbon to worry about , so no need for max fuel capacities. Let the engines be as spectacular as they can (ban turbos but allow super chargers).

[desmo]

To be green, H combustion must be super lean, you would need huge engines by F1 standards to be able to overpower F1 gumballs. Maybe that could be a plus- 16 cylinder, 8 liter F1 engines!

[Kelpiecross]

  I really can't see hydrogen as being practical for racing - a typical H2 tank is  about 10,000psi  -  a pretty effective bomb in itself let alone the H2 from a ruptured tank  being also very explosive.  

[malbear]

  I really can't see hydrogen as being practical for racing - a typical H2 tank is  about 10,000psi  -  a pretty effective bomb in itself let alone the H2 from a ruptured tank  being also very explosive.  

 yes hydrogen in liquid form as in CH4

[Greg Locock]

Ah, the great hydrogen bogeyman. If (and it is a big if) CSIRO manage to make their pV+H2O=H2 +stuff process viable then we might have decent shot at a hydrogen economy. I see Team Nutcase are suggesting direct underground processing of fossil fuel reserves, and vaguely hoping the CO2 remains underground.

[malbear]

That's fine for a DARPA engineering project, but it is not compelling entertainment.

 

12 cylinder (or more) engines, lots of hydrocarbons and more power than tires. Accept that we are ultimately a medium for entertainment.

 A 60 degree V12 with a bore of 89.2mm stroke of 40mm  upper pistons bore 50mm stroke of 35mm 4 plugs / cylinder     

Edited by malbear, 28 February 2020 - 16:51.

[Kelpiecross]

 A 60 degree V12 with a bore of 89.2mm stroke of 40mm  upper pistons bore 50mm stroke of 35mm 4 plugs / cylinder     

 

  4 plugs - spark plugs?   Bit excessive - why 4 plugs? 

[malbear]

  4 plugs - spark plugs?   Bit excessive - why 4 plugs? 

We are talking about F1 pushing the limits of power and efficiency. with a stroke of 40mm and a cylinder head with no valves to bounce  20K+ revs  for efficiency you need the burn to be as fast as possible

[Kelpiecross]

That's fine for a DARPA engineering project, but it is not compelling entertainment.

 

12 cylinder (or more) engines, lots of hydrocarbons and more power than tires. Accept that we are ultimately a medium for entertainment.

 

 I would have to agree.

 

 It's not going to happen  but being interested in engine technology  I would like to see very "free"   engine rules:

 

  Any number of cylinders  (maybe 16 limit).   No super or turbo  charging (?).  No batteries/ electric motors / energy recovery etc.    {Why did F1 ever have this - it doesn't  really relate to anything on the road?)

   

 No rev. limit   (or maybe  20.000rpm) 

 

 No (or not many) restrictions on engine technology  -  any type of variable valve timing   (mechanical/electric/hydraulic etc.).  And rotary valves.  Any type of engine electronics.  2-stroke?  Wankel? (would have to be reduced capacity compared to 4-stroke).  

 

 Maybe 2.5l   - might seem a bit small - but probably end up being 1000BHP anyhow  - any more capacity maybe a bit dangerous? 

 

 Maybe a small capacity (1 litre ?)   turbo. 

 

 Petrol or maybe ethanol fuel. 

 

 I think you get the general idea  - most of these things could finally end up in road cars too.   Which I think is an important point  - none of the electric/battery gubbins  were ever going to be on the road.

 

 Chassis-wise?   Pretty good the way it is.   I would  keep  the DRS - it seems unfair to unduly hold up a clearly faster car.     

Edited by Kelpiecross, 29 February 2020 - 11:20.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Just watch MotoGP. 

[gruntguru]

We are talking about F1 pushing the limits of power and efficiency. with a stroke of 40mm and a cylinder head with no valves to bounce  20K+ revs  for efficiency you need the burn to be as fast as possible

TJI as used in the current F1. Faster than 4 plugs.

 

 I would have to agree.

 

 It's not going to happen  but being interested in engine technology  I would like to see very "free"   engine rules:

 

  Any number of cylinders  (maybe 16 limit).   No super or turbo  charging (?).  No batteries/ electric motors / energy recovery etc.    {Why did F1 ever have this - it doesn't  really relate to anything on the road?)

   

 No rev. limit   (or maybe  20.000rpm) 

 

 No (or not many) restrictions on engine technology  -  any type of variable valve timing   (mechanical/electric/hydraulic etc.).  And rotary valves.  Any type of engine electronics.  2-stroke?  Wankel? (would have to be reduced capacity compared to 4-stroke).  

 

 Maybe 2.5l   - might seem a bit small - but probably end up being 1000BHP anyhow  - any more capacity maybe a bit dangerous? 

 

 Maybe a small capacity (1 litre ?)   turbo. 

 

 Petrol or maybe ethanol fuel. 

 

 I think you get the general idea  - most of these things could finally end up in road cars too.   Which I think is an important point  - none of the electric/battery gubbins  were ever going to be on the road.

 

 Chassis-wise?   Pretty good the way it is.   I would  keep  the DRS - it seems unfair to unduly hold up a clearly faster car.     

When did you write this - 30 years ago? Time for an edit.

[malbear]

TJI as used in the current F1. Faster than 4 plugs.

cannot be asserted that TJI is or is not faster as my concept has not been tried yet in F1. ok twin JTi but naturally aspirated sounds good with a small air pump

[Kelpiecross]

TJI as used in the current F1. Faster than 4 plugs.

 

When did you write this - 30 years ago? Time for an edit.

 

  I may be a little old fashioned - but it is what I would like to see -  I did say that it is not going to happen.

 

 I am sure I am not the only one who leans in this general direction.  

 

  I notice you have not made  a comment on this subject  - I wager that if you ever do  it will involve batteries etc.    Dear Oh  Dear!    

[Ben1445]

 

 

No batteries/ electric motors / energy recovery etc.    {Why did F1 ever have this - it doesn't  really relate to anything on the road?)

 

 

 

 I think you get the general idea  - most of these things could finally end up in road cars too.   Which I think is an important point  - none of the electric/battery gubbins  were ever going to be on the road.

I... what..? 

 

When was the last time you visited a car manufacturers website and looked at available models? 

 

Because you are literally incorrect. 

[gruntguru]

  I notice you have not made  a comment on this subject  - I wager that if you ever do  it will involve batteries etc.    Dear Oh  Dear!    

Time for you to re-visit Grand Prix Racing (they call it "Formula 1" now). Perhaps watch some You Tube (that's a video channel here on the internet)

 

Formula 1 has used batteries for propulsion for 11 years now.

Edited by gruntguru, 01 March 2020 - 22:18.

[Fat Boy]

Time for you to re-visit Grand Prix Racing (they call it "Formula 1" now). Perhaps watch some You Tube (that's a video channel here on the internet)

 

Formula 1 has used batteries for propulsion for 11 years now.

That's about the same amount of time it's been since I've watched F1.

[Kelpiecross]

  Hybrids are about 1% of cars on the road and getting less -  why should F1 be hybrid?  

Edited by Kelpiecross, 02 March 2020 - 04:52.

[Ben1445]

Hybrids are about 1% of cars on the road and getting less -  why should F1 be hybrid?

Please provide a source for that statistic. 
 
In the meantime, here's a selection of (VERY non exhaustive) links: 

Electric and hybrid car sales jump to 10 per cent of UK total: https://www.ft.com/c...59-e49b2a136b8d
 
In some markets a decline in Plug-In Hybrid sales has been recorded, however this can also be explained by a rise in battery electric sales and/or by people extending the life of current vehicle fleets as a stop gap whilst waiting for the announced new hybrid/electric models announced by manufacturers for this decade (see below). 

BMW expects electrified cars to make up half of all sales by 2030: https://www.bmwblog....-sales-by-2030/

 

Toyota's percentage of electrified vehicles sales is very high, even in markets such as the US. 

Toyota’s Red-Hot Hybrid Sales Prove That Tesla Is Not The Only Green Option For U.S. Car Buyers: https://www.forbes.c...s/#43f9fbf35396
 
The overwhelming industry position moving forwards is that more electric and hybrid options will be on the market, not fewer. The sheer levels of industry investment into electrification technology backs that up. The reality also shows that your statements about hybrid/electric not relating to anything on the road, present or future, is demonstrably false. 
 
Does that explain why F1 has to be hybrid? Not really, as in reality F1 can be whatever it wants to be but breaking away from the general trends in the automotive industry is thought to be a risky game as it F1's image is that it is perceived to be at the absolute cutting edge of automotive technology. It would require a bit of a rebrand and change in business model to return to pure ICE. 

Edited by Ben1445, 02 March 2020 - 08:43.

[Kelpiecross]

 What an absolute load of nonsense.   

 

 First link unavailable.

 

 Second - "expect  by 2030"   - a bit like  "net zero carbon etc. etc. by 2050"   - "give me a break",  as they say.    

 

 Rest of your statements - meaningless crap. 

Edited by Kelpiecross, 02 March 2020 - 09:42.

[Ben1445]

Unless you can logically back and evidence your ‘rebuttal’ (or whatever that was) then that response it totally inadequate in furthering your argument.

I suspect you cannot.

[Kelpiecross]

https://qz.com/10294...es-are-hybrids/

 

 This was 2017 -  the answer was 2%.  Down from 3.1%   in 2013 - presumably  it is now lower still.  By any standards - a very low percentage.  Bugger-all in fact, maybe even 2/3 of bugger-all. 

 

 I don't disagree philosophically with hybrids -  the idea of energy recovery  is a sound one.  The problem seems to be that  most people don't get any really worthwhile  savings from hybrids - so sales are falling - people aren't stupid.

 

 So why should F1 reflect  a type of car on the road  that is less than 2%?   Why not represent  the 97/98%? 

 

 I think we both know why.  

[Ben1445]

Even that article you just used confirms my point that some of the decrease in hybrid sales over recent years had been because battery electric sales have risen and cut into the market. That completely flies in the face of what you said about battery/motor technology not being at all relevant and your claims that my statements were ‘nonsense’ and ‘meaningless crap’.

Thank you for proving my point basically!

[Ben1445]

If I may drill right down the paradox within your posts, we start here: 
 

I think you get the general idea  - most of these things could finally end up in road cars too.   Which I think is an important point -

This is expressing a wish for open regulations with scope for novel and cutting-edge development. The theory being that F1 engines can then be the proverbial test lab for future road technology that it has been to varying degrees throughout its existence. Practically by definition, these technologies you wish to see developed and raced in a future F1 engine formula will not currently applied to a vast majority of road cars (if indeed any at all) at present but, crucially, could be in the future. 
 
Fine, ok. No problem here. 
 
Then we get this in relation to hybrids: 

So why should F1 reflect  a type of car on the road  that is less than 2%?   Why not represent  the 97/98%?

Well now this isn't exactly consistent with what you were saying before, is it? Suddenly only making up a small proportion of sales today is a reason to not adopt a certain technology. 
 
I suspect a sensible response to this challenge might go something like 'well that's different because F1 has made hybrids mandatory and I want open PU regulations' which I would genuinely struggle to take issue with... but no, you apparently don't want that as going back to the previous post: 

No batteries/ electric motors / energy recovery etc.    {Why did F1 ever have this - it doesn't  really relate to anything on the road?)

This tells us that you want to stop/disallow/ban electrification from racing because 'it's not relevant enough' - completely at odds with what you want from racing ICE tech. 
 
You can't even be clinging to the argument that hybrid sales have seen a dip and so is a 'past technology' as you state that you would consider Wankel engines to be permitted. Tell me - what proportion of cars sold in 2019 made use of a Wankel engine compared to that technologies heyday? In fact, just looking at how Mazda's recent work on Wankel engines has been studying their use as a hybrid or as a range extender option for a battery electric vehicle brings me right back to the beginning...

 

Electrification is the direction that automotive manufacturers have largely chosen to take and are investing their money into pursuing. If you want racing to have cutting-edge engineering with relevance/transference to road vehicles then hybrids cannot be ruled out of the equation. In fact, at the end of the day a hybrid still has an ICE in it so is actually still relevant both to all pure ICE and all hybrids on sale. But then I suspect your reasons for wishing to arbitrarily exclude them are not actually based on their 'relevance' at all, are they?

Edited by Ben1445, 02 March 2020 - 17:51.

[Pingguest]

Time for you to re-visit Grand Prix Racing (they call it "Formula 1" now). Perhaps watch some You Tube (that's a video channel here on the internet)

 

Formula 1 has used batteries for propulsion for 11 years now.

 

I do not remember Formula One having an electric drive. The motor-generator units are 'only' to support the international combustion engine; the MGU-H is connected to the turbocharger and the MGU-Kis connected to the crankshaft, as was the case with the former 'KERS'.

[gruntguru]

Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks.

[Kelpiecross]

Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks.

 

 I  (and I think , everyone)  am/is  still awaiting  your suggestions with  bated breath  - I am almost wetting myself with anticipatory  excitement.    (Oh Dear - a little more than "almost" I'm afraid.) 

 

 

 One of GD's original statements  (sort of): -

    

"A return to  1970s  Cosworth (and some others ) - style racing  -  fast,  cheap(ish),   noisy etc."    -    not a bad idea at all.    

Edited by Kelpiecross, 03 March 2020 - 04:43.

[gruntguru]

 I  (and I think , everyone)  am/is  still awaiting  your suggestions with  bated breath  - I am almost wetting myself with anticipatory  excitement.    (Oh Dear - a little more than "almost" I'm afraid.) 

 

 

 One of GD's original statements  (sort of): -

    

"A return to  1970s  Cosworth (and some others ) - style racing  -  fast,  cheap(ish),   noisy etc."    -    not a bad idea at all.    

I must admit I like that style of racing myself - but aren't there already any number of racing series around that do exactly that?

 

I Googled your other problem and found this. https://confidencecl...ant=32174925899

[Kelpiecross]

  I am slightly sensitive about my "problem"  you know - I am only human (sort of )  after all. 

[Charlieman]

The FIA has to decide what it wants F1 to be. There are two championships, remember, for drivers and constructors. Is F1 intended to be a spectacle, with the top drivers (the five or so at their best that year out of a strong field!) playing the strengths and limitations of their cars over the season? How does the sport balance this with the desire of volume car manufacturers (companies that build a million cars) to show off their technical brilliance, potentially with two championship prizes?

 

Reliance on volume manufacturers is a risk for the FIA. As happened 10 years ago during the global financial crisis, manufacturers back off from F1 when money is tight. It is naively considered as frivolous by some investors and company executives, but the marketing aspect always comes back: Mercedes-Benz, Renault and Honda have built a strong association with F1 and it is a significant part of their brands.

 

I think we all have a sceptical view about how much F1 technology ends up in consumer road cars. But F1 tech appeals to young engineers, and F1 is a training ground for bright young people who later might contribute to the stuff that makes money.

 

A second downside of volume car manufacturer involvement is that they all have their own solutions for a petrol-free car future, long term and short term marketing strategies for promoting them, so manufacturer input into the regulation process becomes a bit of a mush. And they all have a bias towards maintaining the status quo or throwing everything into the air, depending on how well they are performing. Which may or may not coincide with their tech or marketing plans.

 

I think the FIA has to determine how much volume car manufacturer influence it is willing to accept in the F1 rules process -- after deciding what F1 is about. If F1 can attract the best drivers and the best two hour events -- that the championship is perceived to be the peak of single seater road racing -- then the FIA can come up with any package of engine and aero regs that match its needs (exciting racing for spectators and TV viewers). Volume manufacturers ought to like it or lump it. Whatever decisions the FIA makes about F1, the series will be more diverse than the immediate possibilities for Formula E.

 

Personal thoughts about the current engine regs, ignoring whether other people like them: I'm fascinated by the non-cheating technology which brings together lots of laboratory ideas from 40 years ago. 50% utilisation of the energy put into an internal combustion engine, even when using tech that is years away from practical implementation, is a great achievement, so I think that for once F1 has made a real world contribution. On 50% energy utilisation, that means 1,000 bhp in the form of low grade heat goes up the spout, several hundred bhp down the exhaust pipe. If F1 engineers can't create an exciting engine noise, albeit fake, from that much power they don't deserve their job description.

[Pingguest]

I don't think engine regs are even necessary in F1. Limit the energy content and quantity of the fuel and/or charge the batteries the cars can carry at the starting line and leave it to the teams to decide how to make it fast/last. One approach or another will quickly become orthodox. 

 

Limiting the battery charge is the opposite of what manufacturers are looking for.

 

Any limit on energy consumption and/or energy flow should not be needed. Currently, both fuel consumption and fuel-flow are limited to keep the output from the power units in check. Without those limits, teams would have cars generating above all even more than the current, already ridiculous amount of downforce.

 

To make sport more relevant, the focus should be shifted from aerodynamics. Let the cars' amount of downforce be little to none, introduce - non-spec (!) - all-weather tires, abolish the minimum weight - not the one for drivers - and entire drive-train could be left unregulated, as power is nothing without control. Within this framework, teams would have to focus even more on energy-efficiency and reducing energy consumption without the legislator forcing them into one and the same direction. Reducing weight, drag, rolling resistance, using hybrid technologies, improving the internal combustion engine - all should be allowed.