Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

F1 Engine regulations going forward


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#101 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 09 March 2020 - 15:11

Remember, my goal is to engage the fan as much as possible. Ideally, you'd engage every sense.

 

A 12-cylinder engine sounds better than others.

 

I don't want them limited on energy, that's the 'lots of hydrocarbons', but I'm open to other fuels (methanol, etc). A fuel that makes the fans eyes water a little is a positive. It doesn't have to be exotic, alcohol based fuels do it. I'm not talking about the old spacesuit Elf stuff. Again, just looking to engage another sense.

 

More power than tires. This gets tricky, because T/C becomes a bigger and bigger player, but, basically, you want the cars to have enough power that the 'demon tweak' of the month really doesn't matter. I know a guy who races on dirt that will go weeks and never use full throttle. There's no search for that last 5 HP, because they're meaningless. You'd probably make this happen with more narrow rear tires coupled with plenty of power. It makes putting power to the ground difficult and will encourage passing (similar to racing in the rain).

 

My thoughts on F1 stray fairly far from the pinnacle of technology view. Honestly, I just don't find it very compelling from a race fan's view.

 

I did not propose an energy-limited formula, but it would be a step in the right direction - if many other restrictions would be lifted. 

 

It seems you advocate an open-wheel equivalent of NASCAR, including obsolete, fuel guzzling engines. It is doubtful whether such a formula would maintain itself. NASCAR is losing audience and I fail to see manufacturers willing to be connected to power units being that irrelevant. 



Advertisement

#102 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 March 2020 - 21:51

so the engine needs a supercharger or external compressor air supply to run . . 

Good match for the electric turbocharger as used in F1 currently.



#103 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 March 2020 - 22:11

More power than tires. This gets tricky, because T/C becomes a bigger and bigger player, but, basically, you want the cars to have enough power that the 'demon tweak' of the month really doesn't matter. I know a guy who races on dirt that will go weeks and never use full throttle. There's no search for that last 5 HP, because they're meaningless. You'd probably make this happen with more narrow rear tires coupled with plenty of power. It makes putting power to the ground difficult and will encourage passing (similar to racing in the rain).

Although I was aware of this I had never thought of the limited grip aspect of dirt racing as a "power limit" in the sense of airflow and fuel flow limited formulae. So that makes three:

 

 1. Air limited. Usually a displacement limit (coupled with inherent rpm/breathing limits) but sometimes an intake restrictor (including carburettor size limits) and sometimes a "boost" limit..

 

 2. Fuel limited. Technically a better solution because it drives engine efficiency (as opposed to inefficiency under air limited formulae where a rich mixture is required to extract the maximum power from the limited amount of air)

 

 3. Grip limited. Controls cornering speed and acceleration/braking so only works on tracks where straights are limited. Comes in a few flavours including track surface (dirt, snow, ice), tyres (compound, construction, size, "control tyres"), aero limits (restrictions on wing size, skirts, "moveable aero"). There are also aero rules that impose drag (draggy wings (Indy cars?), open wheel). Maybe that's a fourth category.



#104 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 4,169 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 March 2020 - 23:26

Bombadair now own most of the original two stroke manufacturers - Rotax, Mercury, Evinrude etc. and have done a lot of work to now produce units with less emissions than a four stroke. These are now being used again in Sno mobiles, Jet skis etc. Attached is circa 200hp unit, its a V6. They have created an exhaust system using the "Expansion chamber" principles but within the engine design i.e. no external chambers required

 

Image link

76969687_2894965310537066_4286905895788478464_o.jpg

 

 

Most of the high powered engines are made by Evinrude(now part of Bombardier) and used in power boat racing. They have just announced a Turbo charged design with a system to reduce lag

 

https://www.evinrude...HP-Outboard.pdf

 

 

 

Then there are companies like: http://montyracing.com/ who are getting 600hp from the 3 litre V6's.

With EFI most now use the sliding throttle.

 

 

 

Info from : http://www.uphillrac...ead.php?t=13397


Edited by carlt, 09 March 2020 - 23:27.


#105 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,394 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 10 March 2020 - 05:15

I have this feeling 2-stroke IC engines/hybrids at this point are just a deer path confusingly disappearing into the woods. Fuel/energy limits impose hard thermodynamic discipline that flaky regulators only possess in their imaginations. Or just go with the SBCs, they could be supercharged to suit the tires, and save everyone a big, big, big pile.



#106 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 4,169 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 March 2020 - 09:16

I have this feeling 2-stroke IC engines/hybrids at this point are just a deer path confusingly disappearing into the woods. Fuel/energy limits impose hard thermodynamic discipline that flaky regulators only possess in their imaginations. Or just go with the SBCs, they could be supercharged to suit the tires, and save everyone a big, big, big pile.

 

Unlike the imaginations of forum warriors of course 



#107 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,034 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 10 March 2020 - 09:36

This deranged micromanaging the powertrain by unqualified FIA rulemakers/wannabe engine designers only underlines for me that these people should not be allowed anywhere near a design board. If they were qualified to do this, they'd be proposing Small Block Chevys instead.

Care to back up/justify your claim that FIA rule makers are unqualified? I have an open mind...

#108 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 10 March 2020 - 13:50

This deranged micromanaging the powertrain by unqualified FIA rulemakers/wannabe engine designers only underlines for me that these people should not be allowed anywhere near a design board.  If they were qualified to do this, they'd be proposing Small Block Chevys instead. 

Leaving aside the choice of language, I agree with the basic tenet and have always believed that the fewer technical rules the better as it brings variety. If we had had the micromanaging we would never have seen the V16 BRM or the 4½ litre Ferrari GP cars of 1950 or countless bravely experimental cars that in fact led the way.

My simple formula is to give 'em 200 litres of [standard] fuel and a 300 mile race (and cars to modern crashworthiness standards, of course) and a free hand to use the fuel as they like to win the race. By that I mean in any car size or design (let alone engine size or design) and using any race strategy for fuel and tyres (fuel stops allowed within the overall total) .

If someone complains about the huge cost I can say that motor racing is never cheap, but a Golden Rule is that the man with the Gold must still obey the Rules. :p



#109 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 March 2020 - 17:38

I did not propose an energy-limited formula, but it would be a step in the right direction - if many other restrictions would be lifted. 

 

It seems you advocate an open-wheel equivalent of NASCAR, including obsolete, fuel guzzling engines. It is doubtful whether such a formula would maintain itself. NASCAR is losing audience and I fail to see manufacturers willing to be connected to power units being that irrelevant. 

No, I just feel the changes to the formula should be to encourage actual wheel-to-wheel racing.



#110 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 March 2020 - 17:41

Or just go with the SBCs, they could be supercharged to suit the tires, and save everyone a big, big, big pile.

For sure, LMP2 and LMP3 should be some sort of Chevy LS, but I think F1 makes a reasonable argument for a bespoke package.



#111 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 10 March 2020 - 20:40

No, I just feel the changes to the formula should be to encourage actual wheel-to-wheel racing.

 

Both the cornering speeds and the effective cars' length have to be reduced then. Therefore, I proposed to massively reduce downforce and introduce - non-spec! - all-weather tires. This would allow the FIA to abolish restrictions in other areas, such as power-train, minimum weight, the positioning of the fuel tank(s). The end result will be divergence, which is not only a necessity for good racing but will also provide us memorable cars.



#112 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 March 2020 - 12:21

My thoughts on F1 stray fairly far from the pinnacle of technology view. Honestly, I just don't find it very compelling from a race fan's view.

I've been fascinated by hybrid technology but it hasn't improved the spectacle for others who do not share my geeky perspective. F1 technology is hardly mentioned in the promotion of road cars, and MGU-K and MGU-H are amongst the least informative acronyms invented. Was there anybody at the FIA or manufacturers pointing out that new technology needs an exciting name? If manufacturers aren't using it to sell cars, something is wrong, and the manufacturers are wrong in pushing the FIA to retain the current engine model.

 

If we look at the previous F1 rules package -- naturally aspirated engines plus KERS -- it reflected real world developments. It was also relatively open in that two companies could lead development of the engine bundle. Theoretically it was possible to mix and match ICE and KERS elements. The current rules have led to engines which are a long way from real world application. They are highly integrated -- no chance of mix and match -- and, against the odds, engineering teams have put together laboratory concepts in ways that work for thousands of miles. There will be cross over technology that ends up in affordable road cars but we are years away from exhaust pipe energy being used to directly drive wheels. (IIRC, exhaust pipe to wheel energy concepts have been around for a century but are still too impractical for defence applications where buyers have the biggest budgets for ICE-based engines.)

 

F1 has developed some fascinating technology in recent years, but the FIA should consider whether it matters. I initially thought that the current rules might allow an ICE developer to team up with experts in turbines and electrical power to develop an independent package. The solutions created by Ferrari and Mercedes-Benz quickly erased that idea.

 

The big car manufacturers involved in F1 want rules which exclude outside competition. The current rules demand that an engine builder is big enough to do everything as the major partner -- suppliers are entirely junior. The volume manufacturers plus Ferrari, wealthy enough to develop an integrated engine package, might welcome an intervention from Ford or Toyota because it means those companies are not spending £500 million on production car design or something equally beneficial. Volume car manufacturers do not want to be beaten by an upstart company assembling a package using almost-off-the-shelf elements.

 

Given cultural and environmental concerns, where ICE-based vehicles with KERS will be a minority amongst electric vehicles, I think the MGU-K/MGU-H concept has run its course. It will never be practical in the real world. If volume car manufacturers want 'relevance' as part of F1 engine rules, they'd be demanding ICE/KERS combos with the ICE reducing in size over time, or racing pure electrics versus hybrids. If the FIA appreciated that it is unwise to rely on volume manufacturers for the entertainment, they'd back rules  which reduce the cost of competition.

 

I believe that Formula E has a long term contract to be the only FIA-approved electric powered single seater series. Maybe F1 will have to stick with ICE-based power. Would a 50cc two stroke be enough?

 

Apologies for use of acronyms and tautology (ICE-based engines).



#113 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 March 2020 - 22:25

There will be cross over technology that ends up in affordable road cars but we are years away from exhaust pipe energy being used to directly drive wheels. 

Depends how "direct" you need it to be. A proportion of the turbine energy ends up at the back wheels on any efficient turbo application.

 

The next step will be MGUH style turbochargers (eg Garrett E-Turbo https://www.garrettm...arrett-e-turbo/) which will enable electric turbo-compounding on hybrid drivetrains. This technology is essentially available now - waiting for an OEM to run with it. The only thing more "direct" would be a mechanical link from turbine to transmission.



#114 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 March 2020 - 22:44

I think the problem with energy recovery from the exhaust for road cars is that anything upstream of the cat will delay cat light-up  in the emissions test, and downstream of the cat the temperatures are getting a bit pathetic. BMW have occasionally spruiked devices that went nowhere, peltier or steam generation from memory. In a world without catalysts an exhaust turbine driving an alternator has been around since at least 1987, when I worked on one. More generally, using a piston engine as the first stage of expansion, followed by a turbine, in a heat engine has been around for a century.


Edited by Greg Locock, 11 March 2020 - 22:57.


#115 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 11 March 2020 - 23:39

Is that 'sprooked' or 'sproyk'd'?



#116 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 13 March 2020 - 14:59

I've been fascinated by hybrid technology but it hasn't improved the spectacle for others who do not share my geeky perspective. F1 technology is hardly mentioned in the promotion of road cars, and MGU-K and MGU-H are amongst the least informative acronyms invented. Was there anybody at the FIA or manufacturers pointing out that new technology needs an exciting name? If manufacturers aren't using it to sell cars, something is wrong, and the manufacturers are wrong in pushing the FIA to retain the current engine model.

 

If we look at the previous F1 rules package -- naturally aspirated engines plus KERS -- it reflected real world developments. It was also relatively open in that two companies could lead development of the engine bundle. Theoretically it was possible to mix and match ICE and KERS elements. The current rules have led to engines which are a long way from real world application. They are highly integrated -- no chance of mix and match -- and, against the odds, engineering teams have put together laboratory concepts in ways that work for thousands of miles. There will be cross over technology that ends up in affordable road cars but we are years away from exhaust pipe energy being used to directly drive wheels. (IIRC, exhaust pipe to wheel energy concepts have been around for a century but are still too impractical for defence applications where buyers have the biggest budgets for ICE-based engines.)

 

F1 has developed some fascinating technology in recent years, but the FIA should consider whether it matters. I initially thought that the current rules might allow an ICE developer to team up with experts in turbines and electrical power to develop an independent package. The solutions created by Ferrari and Mercedes-Benz quickly erased that idea.

 

The big car manufacturers involved in F1 want rules which exclude outside competition. The current rules demand that an engine builder is big enough to do everything as the major partner -- suppliers are entirely junior. The volume manufacturers plus Ferrari, wealthy enough to develop an integrated engine package, might welcome an intervention from Ford or Toyota because it means those companies are not spending £500 million on production car design or something equally beneficial. Volume car manufacturers do not want to be beaten by an upstart company assembling a package using almost-off-the-shelf elements.

 

Given cultural and environmental concerns, where ICE-based vehicles with KERS will be a minority amongst electric vehicles, I think the MGU-K/MGU-H concept has run its course. It will never be practical in the real world. If volume car manufacturers want 'relevance' as part of F1 engine rules, they'd be demanding ICE/KERS combos with the ICE reducing in size over time, or racing pure electrics versus hybrids. If the FIA appreciated that it is unwise to rely on volume manufacturers for the entertainment, they'd back rules  which reduce the cost of competition.

 

I believe that Formula E has a long term contract to be the only FIA-approved electric powered single seater series. Maybe F1 will have to stick with ICE-based power. Would a 50cc two stroke be enough?

 

Apologies for use of acronyms and tautology (ICE-based engines).

 

As far as I know, the KERS and the MGU-K are principally the same technology. Having said that, one might argue the current MGU-K (KERS) configuration is not relevant for the automotive industry. The current configuration does not enable Formula One cars to have an electric drive, as the the motor-generator unit is connected to the crankshaft. I can only think of one road car with this kind of configuration: the coming Koenisgsegg Gemera. 



#117 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 March 2020 - 17:01

As far as I know, the KERS and the MGU-K are principally the same technology. Having said that, one might argue the current MGU-K (KERS) configuration is not relevant for the automotive industry. The current configuration does not enable Formula One cars to have an electric drive, as the the motor-generator unit is connected to the crankshaft. I can only think of one road car with this kind of configuration: the coming Koenisgsegg Gemera. 

Thanks, ta for the correction. "As far as I know", describing somebody who is interested in automotive technology, don't you think the rule makers ought to feel embarrassed that you have fundamental questions about it?   



#118 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 March 2020 - 21:44

As far as I know, the KERS and the MGU-K are principally the same technology. Having said that, one might argue the current MGU-K (KERS) configuration is not relevant for the automotive industry. The current configuration does not enable Formula One cars to have an electric drive, as the the motor-generator unit is connected to the crankshaft. I can only think of one road car with this kind of configuration: the coming Koenisgsegg Gemera. 

I think "mild hybrid" cars (and there are lots of them) are unable to operate with electric power only.



#119 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,353 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 March 2020 - 22:25

Ross - TYLT

 

 

verb
INFORMALAUSTRALIAN
 
  1. speak in public, especially to advertise a show.
    "men who spruik outside striptease joints"
    • promote or publicize.
      "the company forked out $15 million to spruik its digital revolution"


Advertisement

#120 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 13 March 2020 - 22:45

Thanks, ta for the correction. "As far as I know", describing somebody who is interested in automotive technology, don't you think the rule makers ought to feel embarrassed that you have fundamental questions about it?   

 

The phrase "[a]s far as I know" was meant ironically. However, KERS and MGU-K are in principal the same technology.



#121 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 13 March 2020 - 22:49

I think "mild hybrid" cars (and there are lots of them) are unable to operate with electric power only.

 

The current breed of Formula One cars are hybrid.

 

The so-called "micro hybrid" cars are quite widespread, but I do not really know many "mild hybrid" cars.



#122 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 March 2020 - 23:14

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Mild_hybrid

 

Scroll down for (non exhaustive) list.



#123 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,394 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 17 March 2020 - 04:34

Care to back up/justify your claim that FIA rule makers are unqualified? I have an open mind...

The manifest irrationality of the proposal is sufficient evidence in itself. Mandating two stroke opposed piston ICs and greenwashing it with Hydrogen fuel theater? Insane, frankly. It's obviously someone's quixotic, ill-considered vanity project. 



#124 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,034 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 18 March 2020 - 16:57

The manifest irrationality of the proposal is sufficient evidence in itself. Mandating two stroke opposed piston ICs and greenwashing it with Hydrogen fuel theater? Insane, frankly. It's obviously someone's quixotic, ill-considered vanity project. 

That 'someone' is Pat Symmonds, who is currently Formula One's chief technical officer. As far as I know he only briefly mentioned it at the MIA Energy Efficiency conference in January and I would agree that it is his own personal project/idea more than it is a consensus-backed, coherent proposal from FOM. I have about as dim a view of it as you do to be honest. 

 

But he is not FIA, so I do not really consider it to back up your point. 



#125 GuyDormehl

GuyDormehl
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: February 20

Posted 18 March 2020 - 17:17

The more I think about the options, the more problems arise...

 

I’d love to see innovation in F1 like the very old days (pre-1990s?) but we won’t get close racing as well because someone will come up with a cleverer idea than the others. If we want closer F1 then we need such restrictive regulations that it almost becomes a one make series. Like now.....

The cars are so similar that the lap times are very close - Mercedes is just consistently doing a marginally better job than the others. Cars designed by computer may not look pretty- pure functionality. Compare an ugly but stunningly effective modern fighter plane versus, say, a Spitfire - pure beauty! Can we ever phrase the rule book to ensure pretty cars? I doubt it....

 

But I’d sacrifice closer racing for fascinating cars although I suspect that computers will push even very loose rules towards homogeneity. Sad but inevitable.



#126 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 March 2020 - 23:04

The more I think about the options, the more problems arise...

 

I’d love to see innovation in F1 like the very old days (pre-1990s?) but we won’t get close racing as well because someone will come up with a cleverer idea than the others. If we want closer F1 then we need such restrictive regulations that it almost becomes a one make series. Like now.....

The cars are so similar that the lap times are very close - Mercedes is just consistently doing a marginally better job than the others. Cars designed by computer may not look pretty- pure functionality. Compare an ugly but stunningly effective modern fighter plane versus, say, a Spitfire - pure beauty! Can we ever phrase the rule book to ensure pretty cars? I doubt it....

 

But I’d sacrifice closer racing for fascinating cars although I suspect that computers will push even very loose rules towards homogeneity. Sad but inevitable.

 

I disagree. The freer the regulations are, the more variables we end up with. The more variables we have, the less cars will tend to converge. 



#127 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 19 March 2020 - 09:23

I disagree. The freer the regulations are, the more variables we end up with. The more variables we have, the less cars will tend to converge. 

That's exactly the point some of us older folk are making. If you want close racing at all costs there are one-make races which, when they are on the TV, seem to exist to show that close racing can only be won by bumping and boring.

In the "old days" we did not have the close racing the young folk seem to want, but we had interesting racing with interesting cars. What's more we can remember some of those interesting races half a century later (e.g. the 1957 German GP) even if we were not there and rely on Jenks' race report in Motor Sport!



#128 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 19 March 2020 - 15:15

That's exactly the point some of us older folk are making. If you want close racing at all costs there are one-make races which, when they are on the TV, seem to exist to show that close racing can only be won by bumping and boring.

In the "old days" we did not have the close racing the young folk seem to want, but we had interesting racing with interesting cars. What's more we can remember some of those interesting races half a century later (e.g. the 1957 German GP) even if we were not there and rely on Jenks' race report in Motor Sport!

 

I disagree to a certain extent, but in a very positive way. :cool:

Divergence does not make close racing impossible. It is quite the opposite. Divergence allow cars to have a different pace from track to track or during various stages of the race or even during a single lap. Such a situation was achieved by accident during the early-1980's. And the drivers truly hated the cars during that very era, they produced arguably the best racing we have seen in Formula One's history.


Edited by Pingguest, 19 March 2020 - 15:19.


#129 SGM

SGM
  • New Member

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 25 March 2020 - 10:00

My solution would be 500cc engines of free design and free fuel load. I would limit forced induction to a single cylinder of 250cc or so but other designs could have as many cylinders as they like. The lack of power would negate aero to a large degree and rather than looking for downforce, drag would become a bigger issue. Reducing the power would also bring back passing. F1 cars have outgrown almost every circuit they go to and smaller cars with less hp would make every circuit seem "bigger". Safer, with more passing and less emissions.
 
I'm more than happy for F1 engines to have no correlation to road cars, in fact I think it would be a bonus. Grand Prix motorcycles lost their magic to me when they went to glorified road bike engines (read four strokes) instead of bespoke racing engines. The problem is perception. Even though these 500cc engines would be highly efficient in terms of hp output to materials and fuel used, if the rest of the world is going electric I don't think F1 will have any chance but to follow suit.

Edited by SGM, 25 March 2020 - 10:04.


#130 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 March 2020 - 17:00

Grand Prix motorcycles lost their magic to me when they went to glorified road bike engines (read four strokes) instead of bespoke racing engines. 

Two strokes, when they abruptly stop, toss riders all over the place and riders get hurt. I love the sound and I'll enjoy watching classic racing, but I have become accustomed to the new noises too.



#131 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,394 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 26 March 2020 - 05:10

If you don't jet them too lean, they don't ordinarily stick.



#132 GuyDormehl

GuyDormehl
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: February 20

Posted 28 March 2020 - 13:55

OK here's a suggestion that may be widely appealing.

 

Either a free capacity racing ICE engine with restricted fuel OR a spec racing ICE engine but both spec'ed to only produce, say, around 400-450hp. Standard issue rock solid 6 speed gearbox. Maybe not even turbo'ed and, if turbo'ed, NO bloody MGU-H..........

 

Seriously restricted aero as 95% of F1 racing fans have zero interest in aerodynamics which is expensive; ugly and spoils the racing.

 

Reduced minimum weight - back to 600-something kgs with the safety paraphenalia.

 

So we have lighter, simpler cars with noise and brimstone.............

 

Then the rules allow free electrical components (only with restrictions on certain materials to keep costs manageable). Front wheel energy reclaim - 4 wheel drive; electrical motors and batteries/capacitors free to choose (batteries would be self-limiting due to weight impacts but heavier and more powerful cars would make an interesting comparison) The power of the electric motors would be limited by the ICE engine/battery capacity/ regen efficiency.

 

This would push on EV efficiency through regen; motor design; software; balance of all the various components.

 

Maybe the ICE motor would be better used as a generator......

 

This would be road relevant again in a roundabout way. And drive battery design.

 

Maybe fuel cells could be introduced somehow too? Hydrogen allowance instead of petrol for the ICE?

 

The cars would certainly be divergent in design (at least initially) and interesting engineering ideas would appear. BUT the racing may not be so close. Swings and roundabouts.



#133 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 28 March 2020 - 21:43

If you don't jet them too lean, they don't ordinarily stick.

Honestly, if you're racing a 2 stroke, you're going to stick them from time to time. That's was clutches are for.



#134 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 12,034 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 30 March 2020 - 11:10

OK here's a suggestion that may be widely appealing.

 

Either a free capacity racing ICE engine with restricted fuel OR a spec racing ICE engine but both spec'ed to only produce, say, around 400-450hp. Standard issue rock solid 6 speed gearbox. Maybe not even turbo'ed and, if turbo'ed, NO bloody MGU-H..........

Yep, I'm pretty close to agreeing on this. I'd say that F1 could tender an official ICE from someone independent like Cosworth for privateers to use for an agreeably low price. My plan would then be that manufacturers are then obliged to bring their own ICE based on a production block, also capped to the same power output. 

 

Seriously restricted aero as 95% of F1 racing fans have zero interest in aerodynamics which is expensive; ugly and spoils the racing.

 

I think restricting aero would be a good idea, but would need to be robust enough to stop teams getting around the restrictions but ideally not too tight to make the cars all spec. I don't have a specific proposal for how best to achieve that. 

 

Then the rules allow free electrical components (only with restrictions on certain materials to keep costs manageable). Front wheel energy reclaim - 4 wheel drive; electrical motors and batteries/capacitors free to choose (batteries would be self-limiting due to weight impacts but heavier and more powerful cars would make an interesting comparison) The power of the electric motors would be limited by the ICE engine/battery capacity/ regen efficiency.

 

This would push on EV efficiency through regen; motor design; software; balance of all the various components.

 

Yes. All the yes. Make it so. 



#135 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,394 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 30 March 2020 - 15:02

I've thought about restricting aero. You could strictly limit the plan area outside the wheelbase, limit wings, if allowed, to one or two simple non-3D elements, or mandate spec wings and brake cooling. Maybe specify minimum allowable radii in bodywork, disallowing all the fins, turning vanes, bargeboards, diffusers etc., all the useless (from the average spectator's POV) aero bric-a-brac teams flush tens of millions into developing. IOW make any DF have to stem from a restricted underbody similar to the current one or the basic mandated river rock smoothed shape you'd get from minimum bodywork radii. Almost nobody cares about or understands all the cubic tons of money dumped into all this fussy, ugly aero stuff. It makes racing boring and expensive to no good purpose.   If that makes the cars too slow, simple, allow big fire-breathing, supercharged 18 cylinder engines — just like any of us are allowed to buy and use on the street. 



#136 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 March 2020 - 15:33

I've thought about restricting aero. You could strictly limit the plan area outside the wheelbase, limit wings, if allowed, to one or two simple non-3D elements, or mandate spec wings and brake cooling. Maybe specify minimum allowable radii in bodywork, disallowing all the fins, turning vanes, bargeboards, diffusers etc., all the useless (from the average spectator's POV) aero bric-a-brac teams flush tens of millions into developing. IOW make any DF have to stem from a restricted underbody similar to the current one or the basic mandated river rock smoothed shape you'd get from minimum bodywork radii. Almost nobody cares about or understands all the cubic tons of money dumped into all this fussy, ugly aero stuff. It makes racing boring and expensive to no good purpose.   If that makes the cars too slow, simple, allow big fire-breathing, supercharged 18 cylinder engines — just like any of us are allowed to buy and use on the street. 

 

The latter may be good for the pace in terms of lap times, but how would one react on cars having very slow cornering speeds?

 

Do not get me wrong: I believe downforce is the bane of Formula One. 



#137 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,637 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 March 2020 - 21:36

Any aero rules should equally consider effects on a following car. For best racing you need:

 a) A decent "tow" when slipstreaming.

 b) Minimal detriment to the downforce of the following vehicle.



#138 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 April 2020 - 21:07



Any aero rules should equally consider effects on a following car. For best racing you need:

 a) A decent "tow" when slipstreaming.

 b) Minimal detriment to the downforce of the following vehicle.

 

Last week, I read the 2007 report titled "Formula One 2011: Chassis Regulation Framework" again. The report contains an illustration of what being in a wake does to the lap times. In NASCAR, Formula Ford and Formula One prior 1968 lap times improved while in a wake, hence cars tend(ed) to naturally close up. In Formula One the opposite happens: lap times deteriorate in wake and, hence, cars tend to separate.

I think Formula One should try to be as close as possible to neutral point, meaning that being in a wake does not or very little affect lap times. A little deterioration might be acceptable, as it requires a passing driver to be genuinely faster than the one ahead of him.



#139 Jops14

Jops14
  • Member

  • 510 posts
  • Joined: August 16

Posted 07 April 2020 - 19:25

Yep, I'm pretty close to agreeing on this. I'd say that F1 could tender an official ICE from someone independent like Cosworth for privateers to use for an agreeably low price. My plan would then be that manufacturers are then obliged to bring their own ICE based on a production block, also capped to the same power output. 

 

I think restricting aero would be a good idea, but would need to be robust enough to stop teams getting around the restrictions but ideally not too 

Isn't that basically what the BTCC do? You can buy a stock engine block and rebadge it if you so desire.



Advertisement

#140 GuyDormehl

GuyDormehl
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: February 20

Posted 13 April 2020 - 10:59

There are always discussions about cornering speeds if aero is limited. Does it really matter if the racing is fantastic with the extended braking distances and edgy cars?

 

For me the best way to address a number of related issues is to increase cornering speeds by increasing the rear wheels in width and height (22" rims?) - not sure how one balances the front wheels for handling but in the 1970s massive rear wheels and small front ones seem to work OK!

 

Also vastly increase the rear wing but keep it simple - 2 or 3 elements and simple end plates.

 

This would pull down the top speeds and increase the cornering speeds AND create a huge slipstream to suck along any car behind - maybe even improving the lap time of the car behind and easing overtaking.

 

If this wasn't enough the bodywork could have restrictions on 'shrink-wrapping' the engine bay to add to the bluff rear end. This would occur in any event if ground effect tunnels rose up high at the back - just look at the rear of 1980s F1s.....

 

Then all we need is simpler front ends - simple front wings; no barge boards and my dream, no raised noses (ugly and aero sensitive - they all end up looking the same as well)

 

Finally lighter/smaller F1 cars - minimum size needed to comply with safety requirements (I'm sure the halo could be slimmed down a lot with minimal reduction in function). They are always blaming the weight on the current turbo engines. So going back to my previous thoughts, lets return to a simpler small and light racing engine augmented by free KERS and batteries/capacitors.

 

The basic car would then be small and light and get incrementally heavier/bigger (?) as larger KERS/Batteries  were used BUT the minimum regulated weight would stay low so teams had the option of a more powerful/complex car with a weight penalty.

 

What do you think?