New engine regs for 2013 [Archive]

MrMetro

4th December 2010, 15:36

What a ****ing joke.

Why was I stupid enough to hope for V10 or V12 when I clicked on the title?

There was a guy down the road from me selling a 4AGE claiming 550hp down the road from me. Why the hell would I or anyone else care?

We want the pinnacle of motor sport, blood thirsty v12 (or v24 :D or something even more diabolical) not some pussy 1.6 4cyl Honda Civic motor.

If we are going that way, lets just use 500cc motorcycle engines instead.

I hope the world does end in 2012.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9255871.stm)http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9255871.stm Care has been taken to ensure the performance of cars will not be affected and total power outputs will remain at current levels - approximately 750bhp. I don't care about the engine size, as long as the cars are still powerful!

jens

4th December 2010, 16:34

It's worth noting that turbo-engines tend to have less cylinders, so we aren't going to see anything extraordinary unless I interpreted something wrongly. Even the big fan of V12 - Enzo Ferrari - used a V6 turbo engine in the 80's.

ioan

4th December 2010, 17:09

What a ****ing joke.

Why was I stupid enough to hope for V10 or V12 when I clicked on the title?

There was a guy down the road from me selling a 4AGE claiming 550hp down the road from me. Why the hell would I or anyone else care?

We want the pinnacle of motor sport, blood thirsty v12 (or v24 :D or something even more diabolical) not some pussy 1.6 4cyl Honda Civic motor.

If we are going that way, lets just use 500cc motorcycle engines instead.

I hope the world does end in 2012.

What exactly is your problem?
V12, V10 and even V8 engines are not at all representative for the automotive industry.
And having fuel limitations is what they should have always done in order to push the research in the right direction.

I can see Ferrari being against this move as they are the only one who has bugger all knowledge of such small engines. Maybe Fiat will do the engine development for them?

maximilian

4th December 2010, 17:19

Koz

4th December 2010, 17:25

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9255871.stm] I don't care about the engine size, as long as the cars are still powerful!

Homebrew 1.6 toyota and hondas are capable of as much power as F1 (although they probably wouldn't last a lap). My unmolested 25 year old car has more torque than current F1 cars anyway.

F1 means different things to different people, and I guess I am the way that I am.
For me KERS is bad enough, this whole "green" images, I don't like it.

I want fast cars, I don't want races without refueling (although I admit this season wasn't anywhere as bad as I expected last year, it was a very good season in fact). I don't want a single tyre manufacturer.

My god, look at the road the WRC has taken... 25 year ago, no one would have thought the WRC would be as big a joke as it is now. But hey, **** happens.

F1 with it's clean green image will be a joke too.

I want the roar of the mighty V10s and V12s, I'm happy with the V8s.

Meh. It's just my opinion.

Dr. Krogshöj

4th December 2010, 17:49

It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.

ioan

4th December 2010, 17:54

It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.

:up:

MrMetro

4th December 2010, 17:59

It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.

Indeed

MrMetro

4th December 2010, 18:04

Koz, don't get me wrong, the V12 engines sounded fantastic, but F1 has to move with the times. Just think, the turbo charged cars in the 80s sounded great (IMO) so why won't the new engines?

DazzlaF1

4th December 2010, 18:06

It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.

Indeed, infact I think this is a very exciting prospect.

UltimateDanGTR

4th December 2010, 18:16

interesting new technologies there which is good. at least these engines are turbo charged! even if it is only 4 cylinders and 1.6 litres;

turbos are back baby!

Now, correct me if im wrong but some teams in the late 80s used 4 cylinder turbos, so this is good news.

ofcourse i would prefer turbo V8s, but thats because I'm a dreamer :)

and another good thing; we will see a return to the classic 'roll over hoop' instead of the 'airbox' designs one would expect, an added bonus.

donKey jote

4th December 2010, 19:30

If we are going that way, lets just use 500cc motorcycle engines instead.

that's for 2015, with the hybrids :p

Sonic

4th December 2010, 20:06

I just hope they sound good.

ShiftingGears

4th December 2010, 21:30

As long as they're enormously powerful and don't have stupid gimmicks like push to pass, I will be happy.

call_me_andrew

5th December 2010, 03:37

I just found this article:

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=396025

This part made me laugh: "We have a very good engine formula."

Only Bernie Eccelstone could look at annoying rev limits and a maximum of 8 engines used in a season and say, "That's very good."

I do think that if they are to use turbocharged engines, 1.6 liters may be too large. A 1.6 liter engine with 1.5 atmospheres of boost has the effective displacement of a 4 liter engine.

Easy Drifter

5th December 2010, 06:17

Seems to me that Ferrari won a F1 world championship with a 1.5 litre engine so contrary to ioan they do have a clue about small engines.

ioan

5th December 2010, 10:37

Seems to me that Ferrari won a F1 world championship with a 1.5 litre engine so contrary to ioan they do have a clue about small engines.

How actual is 30 years old knowledge?
Do you think that Mercedes and Renault build high performance cars with 30 years old technology?
This move will bring other players back into the sport, manufacturers who are producing impressive 4 cylinder turbo engines and IMO the fight will be very intense on track come 2013.

Easy Drifter

5th December 2010, 14:19

Acually it was 50 years ago but you didn't put a time frame on it.
I am sure somehow Ferrari can manage to figure out how to build a relatively small turbo engine, just like everyone else.

Wasted Talent

5th December 2010, 14:35

It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.

Yes, agree with this as well.

WT

wedge

5th December 2010, 15:41

It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.

Turbo's were used in the late 1970s so F1 is still a dinosaur in that regard.

If you want to talk about dinosaurs then it should be NASCAR who stuck with pushrod V8s for decades which have no bearing on current engines; whereas in F1 the engine building technology has been transferred onto their road cars.

I just found this article:

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=396025

This part made me laugh: "We have a very good engine formula."

Only Bernie Eccelstone could look at annoying rev limits and a maximum of 8 engines used in a season and say, "That's very good."

I do think that if they are to use turbocharged engines, 1.6 liters may be too large. A 1.6 liter engine with 1.5 atmospheres of boost has the effective displacement of a 4 liter engine.

I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Giuseppe F1

5th December 2010, 16:26

ioan

5th December 2010, 16:36

Acually it was 50 years ago but you didn't put a time frame on it.
I am sure somehow Ferrari can manage to figure out how to build a relatively small turbo engine, just like everyone else.

Sure they will, the question is how much time and money they will need to catch up with those who produce up to date 4 cylinder performance engines.

Easy Drifter

5th December 2010, 18:22

No more or less than any other manufacturer of engines for F1. Nobody is going to adapt a street engine to produce the power and reliability a F1 engine will require.
To comment on the taxi cabs not only are they using pushrod V8's they are just considering, note considering, using fuel injection instead of carbs.

Malbec

5th December 2010, 18:30

The question is, does it make sense to change the engine formula and all that cost to develop the new engines? What exactly are the supposed advantages of changing it, besides for change's sake, and the apparent "environmental" angle, which is iffy at best? Is it expected that this angle will attract more manufacturers interested in high performance/low fuel consumption engine research for their road cars?

All it takes is a brief visit to a current car show to see that car makers really don't give a flying toss about F1 anymore. Its all about green tech and future alternative modes of propulsion.

Now you might argue that F1 doesn't need car makers anymore but you may have noticed that money is tight, very tight. So much so that even teams like Renault will only accept a second driver who brings his own sponsorship.

The carmakers brought loads of money and sponsors into F1 and they've taken them out with them when they withdrew. For F1 to revive again the sport needs to be more relevant to what carmakers are looking for. These engine regs are exactly whats required to make that happen IMO. Already VW and Honda are making noises about entering F1 as engine suppliers IF the engine regs are 'right' ie environmentally friendly. That won't happen if we stay with current engines.

UltimateDanGTR

5th December 2010, 19:57

Silly question......if we do indeed go to Turbo engines, will this mean no need for an airbox on top of the drivers helmet, and will we simply have a roll-hoop?

I love the look of the airbox set up of current F1 cars and so imagineing if now no need whether the new gen of F1 cars will look a bit like the old CART cars in this area?

As far as i understand it, engine covers are for normally aspirated engines, and the roll hoop style designs are for turbo charged engines. This does come from someone on another forum, but it makes sense.

In the great 80s turbo era we didnt see any airbox cars on turbocharged machines. this was after such a thing was invented in the 70s. It all changed in 1989, when turbos were banned....

Thus I'd expect a change to roll hoop designs. I quite like the thought of this. The sleeker F1 cars are the better, and the thought of them being slightly more CART like in such a manner entices me :D

SGWilko

5th December 2010, 21:10

As far as i understand it, engine covers are for normally aspirated engines, and the roll hoop style designs are for turbo charged engines. This does come from someone on another forum, but it makes sense.

In the great 80s turbo era we didnt see any airbox cars on turbocharged machines. this was after such a thing was invented in the 70s. It all changed in 1989, when turbos were banned....

Thus I'd expect a change to roll hoop designs. I quite like the thought of this. The sleeker F1 cars are the better, and the thought of them being slightly more CART like in such a manner entices me :D

The purpose of the airbox on non turbo cars is to create positive pressure in order to force as much air as possible into combustion chamber.

On turbo cars, the air inlet is generally close to the turbo (exhaust, the gas from which drives the turbo) and is is drawn in rather than pushed in. If the blown rear diffuser prevails, there will need to be some clever positioning of the turbo and intricate routing of air intake in order to keep the bodywork lines clean.

UltimateDanGTR

5th December 2010, 21:19

The purpose of the airbox on non turbo cars is to create positive pressure in order to force as much air as possible into combustion chamber.

On turbo cars, the air inlet is generally close to the turbo (exhaust, the gas from which drives the turbo) and is is drawn in rather than pushed in. If the blown rear diffuser prevails, there will need to be some clever positioning of the turbo and intricate routing of air intake in order to keep the bodywork lines clean.

Thanks for the technical insight there :)

rah

5th December 2010, 21:39

Why do they have to have engine restrictions at all? Just tell the teams how much petrol they have for the race and let them deal with it. Just reduce it every year to make it more green. It would be great to have some diversity back in F1.

Easy Drifter

6th December 2010, 02:20

rah: What are you ? Some kind of reactionary?
My (pick your own diety) thinking outside the box!
The F1 Gods have decreed the rules must be as complicated and have as many grey areas as possible to promote contraversy.
The FIA have decreed costs must come down and then promptly tweak the rules just enough so everyone has to produce a completely new car every year instead of developing what they have with tweaks.
There was a time when the same basic car could race for several years. Updated yes. But the rules were static.
Now I am an old f*rt but I remember going through the infamous 'Yellow Book' every year to see if they had corrected the loophole we had found. Then reading all sections pretaining to formula racing plus general racing rules to see if I could find a loophole. It took an evening.
I doubt if I could read the F1 rules in an evening let alone study them!
My suggestion, which will never happen because the powere that be cannot think that way, would be to take the entire F1 regulations and seal them in a time capsule to opened in a 1000 years and start with a clean sheet of paper.
Give them to a mechanic to develop. Not an engineer or designer. And keep the lawyers at bay with a greener (sawed off 10 gauge shotgun).
Make then simple and concise. The less rules the better. And anyone who does not think mechanics are smart just consider Steve Matchett, Chad Knaus (NASCAR) or Ron Dennis.
Will never happen.

mstillhere

6th December 2010, 03:12

that's for 2015, with the hybrids :p

Any word on F1 diesel engines?

AJP

6th December 2010, 06:29

I have always preferred the naturally aspirated engined over forced induction.
I am trying to like the idea of the 1.6 litre turbos, but can't quite come around.
I will sit on the fence until I hear one in Melbourne 2013.
or maybe not. ;)

Easy Drifter

6th December 2010, 07:43

Has anyone on here ever actually built an engine from the ground up?
When I was a race mechanic it was a standing joke I didn't do engines.
Actually I could and with my driver/mechanic we built race winning engines.
We just kept it quiet that we did it together. I just liked to keep it quiet that I knew how to assemble a race engine.
But we just assembled existing engines with good parts very carefully.
We never actually designed and built an engine.
We did design and build a fuel injection system but that was it.
So back to the beginning has anyone any experience in designing an engine?

Retro Formula 1

6th December 2010, 10:21

Any word on F1 diesel engines?

You know, the same though went through my mind.

Forget the 1.5L screamers of the 70's. These "tame" turbo engines will be strangled to 10k revs.

The show will go on but the days of roaring, ear splitting power will be replaced by the lean, clean, green, bubble-wrapped F1 that the FIA is detirmined to create.

ShiftingGears

6th December 2010, 10:32

The FIA would feel less of a need for gimmicks like push to pass if their other regulations like the engine freeze and the rev limit didn't limit overtaking opportunities!

The engine freeze is a joke. So is the rev limit.

If they want to limit the amount that an engine is modified they could always try something like force the teams to openly display their design modifications to the other teams/public should they want to modify their engine.

But restricting the amount of modification a team can do to an engine just means that the teams will be looking to modify the aerodynamics instead. Which means less possibility to overtake. Which it seems for the FIA, requires more gimmicks like Push to Pass.

I really hope that the engines are more powerful than current engines. Neither the drivers nor fans want to see cars with less power and more grip. They want to see drivers feathering the throttle in corners like Eau Rouge, they want to see the cars visibly on the limit and breaking traction.

SGWilko

6th December 2010, 10:32

You know, the same though went through my mind.

Forget the 1.5L screamers of the 70's. These "tame" turbo engines will be strangled to 10k revs.

The show will go on but the days of roaring, ear splitting power will be replaced by the lean, clean, green, bubble-wrapped F1 that the FIA is detirmined to create.

I feel your pain, but we do really have to get 'real'.

Like it or not, Oil will, one day, become a scarce commodity. More and more influential figures are beginning to talk about 'peak' oild production. We will have to be weened off its use (and face it folks, there is not a lot we rely on every day that is not made with the use directly or indirectly of oil sourced products).

Why should our beloved sport not become the breeding ground for technologies and solutions that will help us find ways of ensuring we have effective and practical transport modes for decades to come.....?

Sonic

6th December 2010, 11:54

I feel your pain, but we do really have to get 'real'.

Like it or not, Oil will, one day, become a scarce commodity. More and more influential figures are beginning to talk about 'peak' oild production. We will have to be weened off its use (and face it folks, there is not a lot we rely on every day that is not made with the use directly or indirectly of oil sourced products).

Why should our beloved sport not become the breeding ground for technologies and solutions that will help us find ways of ensuring we have effective and practical transport modes for decades to come.....?

or......

Just accept we're screwed and we are heading back to the stone age so may as well have fun whilst we can by burning the last of the black gold on V24's spinning at 30,000rpm producing 2,500bhp! ;)

Mark

6th December 2010, 12:17

The most important question - Are they going to get rid of the silly engine freeze and let teams develop their engines?

As for the formula itself, it does make some sense, there is a general movement in engine technology away from large displacement normally aspirated units, to smaller, fuel efficient and turbo charged. F1 is only following a trend that is already well under way.

They may well follow WRC in limiting the engines by means of limiting the air intake allowed? Toyota might be interested in competing then ;) (A little joke for those who know WRC history!)

I have a 1.6 turbo charged engine in my car, sadly not 750bhp!

Sonic

6th December 2010, 16:37

The most important question - Are they going to get rid of the silly engine freeze and let teams develop their engines?

The phrase 'engine parity' keeps popping up in relation to the new units, so yes, would assume after a few months the engines will be frozen - RUBBISH!

.

They may well follow WRC in limiting the engines by means of limiting the air intake allowed? Toyota might be interested in competing then ;) (A little joke for those who know WRC history!)

;)

ioan

6th December 2010, 17:35

The FIA would feel less of a need for gimmicks like push to pass if their other regulations like the engine freeze and the rev limit didn't limit overtaking opportunities!

The engine freeze is a joke. So is the rev limit.

The rev limit was brought in to equalize engine performance and reliability.
At that time Ferrari were revving as high as BMW, Mercedes or Honda and were bullet proof, while the others were exploding every 2nd race. So we have got a rev limitation which made the Mercedes bullet proof too.

gloomyDAY

7th December 2010, 09:27

Toyota might be interested in competing then ;) (A little joke for those who know WRC history!) :D I'd be happy to see them come back to F1.

Mark

7th December 2010, 09:49

I'd love to see engine development come back into F1. I'm all for cutting costs but the engine freeze thing is stupid, you might as well just have a standard engine if they are going down that route.

Make the rules strict, i.e. you can only use certain materials, and of course only a certain number of engines per year, but other than that lets have a proper engine battle, rather than the secret one we have now where engines are modified for 'reliability' which just so happens to give them more power!

Retro Formula 1

10th December 2010, 14:02

Moveable wings and KERS next year and "green" engines in 2013

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9275796.stm

Tazio

10th December 2010, 14:12

V12

10th December 2010, 15:59

Hmm, plenty of things not to like, some standardised parts, likelihood that KERS will remain as a power and time-limited push to pass device rather than left for teams to use as much as they want, when they want.

But I'd forgive all of that, ALL OF IT, if it just meant we got rid of the bloody engine freeze. But judging by posts here and given the FIA's recent form, I guess any relief from it will only be temporary :(

I've no problem with the "green" stuff per se to be honest at least from a real technology standpoint (silly gimmicks like the Honda earth car and the green bands on the tyres can go take a running jump though).

More efficiency = more speed, and that efficiency needs fresh thinking and cutting edge technology to be achieved so there's no reason why it can't fit neatly into F1's ethos from both a technological and competition standpoint. The problem will be, as always with the FIA, not necessarily the idea, but the execution.

In an ideal world the engine rules would limit the amount of energy used....and pretty much not a lot else. Nothing on engine configuration, size etc. And then let some of the world's most inventive and cleverest people loose on the problem, and see what they come up with. That would be interesting for us fans AND maybe make a difference to the world's energy problem.

However the FIA's plan of babying all teams through it side-by-side, little step at a time, isn't really going to achieve much in the grand scheme of things. I read somewhere that all F1 cars use the same amount of fuel in an entire season as a single long-haul jumbo jet flight. The real (potential) benefits to going "green" are in R&D and technology filtering down. Mostly-standardised (and maybe frozen) engines and heavily neutered KERS units won't achieve that, not nearly as much anyway.

bblocker68

10th December 2010, 17:15

As long as they're enormously powerful and don't have stupid gimmicks like push to pass, I will be happy.

If they have KERS, Push to Pass is in full effect.

Rollo

10th December 2010, 22:52

In the great 80s turbo era we didnt see any airbox cars on turbocharged machines. this was after such a thing was invented in the 70s. It all changed in 1989, when turbos were banned...

The single dominant airbox was banned for the 1976 season, turbos didn't arrive properly until the Renaul RS01 "teapot" and wouldn't win a GP until the 1979 French GP, with Jean-Pierre Jabouille as the driver.
Jabouille and Villeneuve going at it in that GP is still in my opinion the single greatest dogfight ever in any F1 race. Youtube it NOW.

BDunnell

10th December 2010, 23:06

Jabouille and Villeneuve going at it in that GP is still in my opinion the single greatest dogfight ever in any F1 race. Youtube it NOW.

Arnoux and Villeneuve, you mean. Jabouille was way in front of them.

anthonyvop

11th December 2010, 00:15

It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.

How is a 4 cylinder Turbo higher tech than what they have now?
Before you answer remember that 4 cyl Turbos were used in F1 back in the 1980's

anthonyvop

11th December 2010, 00:16

Moveable wings and KERS next year and "green" engines in 2013

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9275796.stm

Green???

Didn't the Europeans get the Memo?

ShiftingGears

11th December 2010, 00:53

If they have KERS, Push to Pass is in full effect.

Awful really. I hope for something like turning the KERS up and down like turbo boost pressure in the 1980's depending on the situation of the driver.

Rollo

11th December 2010, 01:24

Arnoux and Villeneuve, you mean. Jabouille was way in front of them.

You are of course quite quite correct good sir. I consider my nibble-pibblies thoroughly vanquished.

call_me_andrew

11th December 2010, 02:57

If they have KERS, Push to Pass is in full effect.

They arealdy have push-to-pass. The difference between F1 push-to-pass and Champ Car push-to-pass is that when an F1 team uses push-to-pass, it is not broadcast with the TV telemtry. It's not really a gimmick as long as it's kept secret.

Hawkmoon

11th December 2010, 03:49

I can see Ferrari being against this move as they are the only one who has bugger all knowledge of such small engines. Maybe Fiat will do the engine development for them?

Tell me something. What expereince did any of the engine suppliers have with V10s when they first entered the sport? Bugger all, that's what.

Ferrari have been making racing engines for 60+ years. They'll figure it out.

airshifter

11th December 2010, 06:59

I don't really mind the smaller turbos. Over the years around various forms of motorsport I've learned one thing... 800 HP in just about any form may sound different, but it still sounds like 800 HP.

KERS in the last configuration sucked IMHO. If they are going to use it allow the teams to have more "boost" time... much more... and simply put a limit on the maximum increase in power. That way rather than a constant "push to pass or defend" type thing it may affect starting fuel load, or *gasp* actually save some fuel and make the sport a little "greener". Unless all cars have it, it screws with the race too much.

anthonyvop

11th December 2010, 17:23

The idea of "green" in racing turns me and many others off big time.

A large percentage of the population(in some countries the majority) view Man-Made Global warming as a scam.

Many who do buy into it realize that F1 is such an insignificant part of it that it doesn't matter and all the "green" hype is just $$$ spent on window dressing.

ioan

11th December 2010, 19:21

A large percentage of the population(in some countries the majority) view Man-Made Global warming as a scam.

Like 20% or so?! (90% of them US republicans)
Long live the ignorance! :D

maxter

11th December 2010, 21:02

Is the pollution (you know, the one we can actually see and feel in larger citis) a scam as well? And the fact that we are running out of oil?

I think SGWilko already hit the nail on the head in this thread.

I feel your pain, but we do really have to get 'real'.

Like it or not, Oil will, one day, become a scarce commodity. More and more influential figures are beginning to talk about 'peak' oild production. We will have to be weened off its use (and face it folks, there is not a lot we rely on every day that is not made with the use directly or indirectly of oil sourced products).

Why should our beloved sport not become the breeding ground for technologies and solutions that will help us find ways of ensuring we have effective and practical transport modes for decades to come.....?

I do think that engine freeze and such restrictions is kind of counterproductive though. It would be really nice to see the teams trying different solutions and thus really pushing the technological boundaries, though I understand trying to reduce costs are always an issue.

call_me_andrew

12th December 2010, 01:51

A large percentage of the population(in some countries the majority) view Man-Made Global warming as a scam.

Because truth must be determined by a democracy.

Bagwan

12th December 2010, 14:45

Because truth must be determined by a democracy.

But , truth in my and your democracy , is furnished by the aristocracy .

I don't mind little engines , as long as the go fast .
I don't like a rev limit , as that won't make them fast .
And , I don't like a limit , unless it is one engine per race (twenty for a twenty race season) .

PitMarshal

12th December 2010, 19:32

anthonyvop

13th December 2010, 01:10

Like 20% or so?! (90% of them US republicans)
Long live the ignorance! :D

Actually less people in the UK believe in Man made Global warming than in the US.

30% in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/british-public-belief-climate-poll

50% in the USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/11/americans-climate-change-threat

So please take your baseless, anti-US bias someplace else

Hawkmoon

13th December 2010, 11:20

Moveable wings and KERS next year and "green" engines in 2013

They'll need the KERS to make up for the turbo lag...
I'm all for innovation, but 700hp from a 1.6l? The turbo will need to be bigger than the engine block.

They were getting 1300hp in qualifying trim out of similar engines in the '80's. 700hp will be a walk in the park.

SGWilko

13th December 2010, 12:38

They were getting 1300hp in qualifying trim out of similar engines in the '80's. 700hp will be a walk in the park.

They were getting 1200 at a push - from an engine you would put in the bin after 3 laps....

Remember, today's engines must last a minimum of 2 races, plus all the practice and qually sessions. I doubt it is quite a walk in the park.

Mark

13th December 2010, 12:42

Turbo lag isn't something you worry about these days, that's old school turbos.
It would be good idea, IMO if when they bring in the new regs they also put up the number of allowed engines, preferably to one per race in order to allow more experimentation to get the engines right, especially since testing is not allowed.

SGWilko

13th December 2010, 12:53

Turbo lag isn't something you worry about these days, that's old school turbos.

Ha, tell that Ford! My d!seasel S-Max has terrible turbo lag....

wedge

13th December 2010, 13:55

Awful really. I hope for something like turning the KERS up and down like turbo boost pressure in the 1980's depending on the situation of the driver.

Problem is KERS isn't a device that affects the durability of the car whereas you turn up and down the wick to compromise the engine.

SGWilko

13th December 2010, 13:59

Problem is KERS isn't a device that affects the durability of the car whereas you turn up and down the wick to compromise the engine.

Well, I don't know - the more you demand from KERS, the more you stress the three main components, and anything under stress can fail.

Difference with KERS is it gives energy without - technically - reducing vehicle performance, as it harvests energy that would otherwise go to waste.

With a turbo, aside from increasing stress on the engine, your fuel consumption rockets when the wick is turned up......

ioan

13th December 2010, 18:08

Actually less people in the UK believe in Man made Global warming than in the US.

30% in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/british-public-belief-climate-poll

50% in the USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/11/americans-climate-change-threat

So please take your baseless, anti-US bias someplace else

I was talking about a global figure (and specified a US percentage out of the global figure), so no need to involve the UK.

anthonyvop

13th December 2010, 19:39

I was talking about a global figure (and specified a US percentage out of the global figure), so no need to involve the UK.

I don't care which country you choose. A sizable percentage is turned off by the whole "green" marketing movement and their numbers are growing. You can agree with the issue or not I am just stating a fact.

DexDexter

13th December 2010, 19:42

I don't care which country you choose. A sizable percentage is turned off by the whole "green" marketing movement and their numbers are growing. You can agree with the issue or not I am just stating a fact.

So you're bringing your stuff into the F1 forum as well. Keep it at chit chat, please, it's easier to ignore there. :rolleyes:

Jag_Warrior

13th December 2010, 19:47

and another good thing; we will see a return to the classic 'roll over hoop' instead of the 'airbox' designs one would expect, an added bonus.

I understand that "form follows function" and all that jazz, but along with return of the roll hoop, if we could also go back to noses that aren't high in the air... I'd be a totally happy camper (in the aesthetics area).

As for the move to 4 cylinder turbos, I prefer that to the normally aspirated V8's they have now. I never cared for the V-10's (better known as truck engines in this country), but loved the V-12's (more closely associated with true exotic cars). To me a V-8 is just another engine type... no big deal... and absolutely nothing "exotic" about the basic configuration. Even though the turbo has been around for decades, it does have a bit more flair with the general public. Sort of like when you attach the words "magnum" to a firearm caliber: "Oh man! That's a .44 Magnum!!!" :eek: If nothing else, it could be a good marketing tool for those who don't follow F1 (or the motor car industry) as closely as many here do.

What I'd really like to see is for the FIA to allow the engine producers to have the freedom to choose any 4 cylinder configuration that they see fit to use: inline, flat, boxer, single turbo, twin turbo... whatever! But I know that's not going to happen. Oh well... I'll just file that dream into the same slot as the one where I'm sitting on a beach in Saint-Tropez with Charlotte Casiraghi. :s mokin:

Jag_Warrior

13th December 2010, 19:59

Moveable wings and KERS next year and "green" engines in 2013

They'll need the KERS to make up for the turbo lag...
I'm all for innovation, but 700hp from a 1.6l? The turbo will need to be bigger than the engine block.

I really can't see that 700hp from a 1.6 liter (engineered) racing engine should be such a big deal. They will have to last for a couple of races. But given that it's nothing to see 2.0 liter turbo street engines that put out 500hp+ and can go for 30K-40K miles, 700hp from an "advanced" F1 engine of similar size isn't all that amazing. At 900hp+ and lasting for an extended time (2-3 races), yeah, that would make me say :eek:

anthonyvop

13th December 2010, 22:08

So you're bringing your stuff into the F1 forum as well. Keep it at chit chat, please, it's easier to ignore there. :rolleyes:

Jeez,

Forget the whole "man-made global warming" argument.

Is it smart for F1 to push an ideal that turns off a sizable chunk of the market?

ShiftingGears

14th December 2010, 01:40

Problem is KERS isn't a device that affects the durability of the car whereas you turn up and down the wick to compromise the engine.

But turning the KERS boost up and down would still be a strategic matter, like storing it for a late race attack on the leaders, or using it to gradually extend a lead, whereas right now it's simply more of an overtake button which heavily restricts the change in the dynamics of a grand prix that it otherwise could have, and does not potentially award driver strategy with its implementation remotely as much.

call_me_andrew

14th December 2010, 04:35

Moveable wings and KERS next year and "green" engines in 2013

They'll need the KERS to make up for the turbo lag...
I'm all for innovation, but 700hp from a 1.6l? The turbo will need to be bigger than the engine block.

Let's assume they are making 750hp now. In a 2.4L engine, that's 312.5 horsepower per liter. Scaling that to a 1.6L engine, that's exactly 500 horsepower. For every atmosphere of boost, an engine's power output increses by a factor of itself. At half at atmosphere of boost, the engine is back to producing 750 horsepower.

Of course that is grossly oversimplified. This is ignoring variables such as bore diameter, stroke length, valve diameter, compression ratios, etc.

As to the matter of lag, half of an atmosphere shouldn't cause significant lag. However, the ancient 1980's engines used multiple turbochargers where a low pressure turbo would feed into a high pressure turbo to steady the influence of lag. A more modern solution would be a variable gemoetry turbo, but then reliablility comes into question.

With a turbo, aside from increasing stress on the engine, your fuel consumption rockets when the wick is turned up......

Using the figures from above, this hypothetical 1.6L turbo engine at full throttle would consume as much fuel as the current 2.4L engine at full throttle. The difference is that under light loads the 1.6L turbo engine consumes as much fuel as a 1.6L NA engine, and the 2.4L NA engine consumes as much as a 2.4L NA engine.

Jeez,

Forget the whole "man-made global warming" argument.

Is it smart for F1 to push an ideal that turns off a sizable chunk of the market?

I hate to quote my own blog, but I'll do it anyway:

A few years back I recall reading a shareholder proposal submitted to Ford Motor Company asking that the company no longer devote resources to researching alternative fuels or high efficiency engines because the shareholder in question believed global warming to be a hoax. The board of directors responded with a statement about what benefits the research could have for future company products regardless of the effects of climate change. Here’s a simpler way to phrase that: whether global warming is real or imagined, there’s a way to profit from it.

gloomyDAY

26th December 2010, 04:58

Are we going to see V6 engines with a wide V angle?
They need room to throw in that turbo somewhere.

This seems like more and more....BACK TO DEH FUTAH!

mstillhere

3rd January 2011, 00:40

Current 2.4-litre V8s to 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo engines with energy recovery systems and fuel restrictions.

As a follow up to this topic, LdM recently gave a interview where he strongly disagrees with the introduction of a 4 cylinder engine in F1. LdM point is that for Ferrari it would be pointless getting involved in such venture since no Ferrari would be ever produced with a cylinder engine. Obviously LdM is looking for support among the other teams and he found on so far, and that would be Mercedes. I thing Haug's motivation would be the same as LdM's.
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=396838&FS=F1

I for one am against such a small engine. I know that F1 needs to adapt itself to the tough economical times but again a F1 car with a 4 cylinder engine....well it's not a F1 car. There are plenty of other series where racing teams can use those kind of engines. Forcing F1 cars to adopt a 4 cyl. engine is not F1. What's going to be next? A 3 cyl. engine car and then 2 and then 1 just in name of cutting down expenses and gas consumption? I see 3 probable endings:

1. A breakaway series.
2. No 4 cyl. engine F1 cars
3. No Ferrari, Mercedes and probably some other team.

I know some of you would love to see a F1 without Ferrari but remember, Ferrari will not disappear from the racing world. It would reappear somewhere else and they would take with them a share of the F1 public and revenue, that's why I am pretty confident we wont see any 4 cyl. engines in F1.

Certainly it would be interesting to see how things will unfold.

call_me_andrew

3rd January 2011, 03:11

And where did you spend the 1980's?

Big Ben

3rd January 2011, 12:58

travelling through the univers, womb, communist romania. I was kind of busy. Why, what happened then?

Malbec

3rd January 2011, 13:52

As a follow up to this topic, LdM recently gave a interview where he strongly disagrees with the introduction of a 4 cylinder engine in F1. LdM point is that for Ferrari it would be pointless getting involved in such venture since no Ferrari would be ever produced with a cylinder engine. Obviously LdM is looking for support among the other teams and he found on so far, and that would be Mercedes. I thing Haug's motivation would be the same as LdM's.
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=396838&FS=F1

I for one am against such a small engine. I know that F1 needs to adapt itself to the tough economical times but again a F1 car with a 4 cylinder engine....well it's not a F1 car. There are plenty of other series where racing teams can use those kind of engines. Forcing F1 cars to adopt a 4 cyl. engine is not F1. What's going to be next? A 3 cyl. engine car and then 2 and then 1 just in name of cutting down expenses and gas consumption? I see 3 probable endings:

1. A breakaway series.
2. No 4 cyl. engine F1 cars
3. No Ferrari, Mercedes and probably some other team.

I know some of you would love to see a F1 without Ferrari but remember, Ferrari will not disappear from the racing world. It would reappear somewhere else and they would take with them a share of the F1 public and revenue, that's why I am pretty confident we wont see any 4 cyl. engines in F1.

Certainly it would be interesting to see how things will unfold.

Whilst I can see LdM's point its a bit undermined by the fact that Ferrari have run engines in F1 before that they would never have used in their roadcars, like small capacity V6's back in the 60s when Enzo refused to have anything on the road with less than a V12.

4 cylinder turbos have been in F1 before, IIRC BMW and perhaps Porsche both used them to win championships in the early 80's. People weren't complaining about them then, except perhaps that they were too powerful...

mstillhere

3rd January 2011, 17:16

Whilst I can see LdM's point its a bit undermined by the fact that Ferrari have run engines in F1 before that they would never have used in their roadcars, like small capacity V6's back in the 60s when Enzo refused to have anything on the road with less than a V12.

4 cylinder turbos have been in F1 before, IIRC BMW and perhaps Porsche both used them to win championships in the early 80's. People weren't complaining about them then, except perhaps that they were too powerful...

Since Mercedes is also against the 4 cylinder engines, I wonder what would happen to all the Mercedes powered teams if Mercedes were to retire from F1

DexDexter

3rd January 2011, 17:27

Since Mercedes is also against the 4 cylinder engines, I wonder what would happen to all the Mercedes powered teams if Mercedes were to retire from F1

The simple answer is that they'd get other engines, from Cosworth if nothing else was available.

Malbec

3rd January 2011, 17:28

Since Mercedes is also against the 4 cylinder engines, I wonder what would happen to all the Mercedes powered teams if Mercedes were to retire from F1

They'll find another supplier like cosworth, or vw, Honda and Toyota who are rumoured to be making a comeback.

But Mercedes is unlikely to pull out. They stayed despite the credit crunch which was a far larger problem. The engine regs will annoy them but not put them off. The switch from v10 to v8 really angered them but they still stayed.

mstillhere

4th January 2011, 03:57

They'll find another supplier like cosworth, or vw, Honda and Toyota who are rumoured to be making a comeback.

But Mercedes is unlikely to pull out. They stayed despite the credit crunch which was a far larger problem. The engine regs will annoy them but not put them off. The switch from v10 to v8 really angered them but they still stayed.

I really don't see that happening. The fact that F1 used to run on 4 cyl engines does not mean that the actual car makers have to go for it. Especially if the car market they operate with does not provide use for them.

Mercedes may choose to stay in F1 if it makes commercial sense for them otherwise I don't think we will see 4 cyl powered Benzs. Besides, why not stay with 6 or 8 cyl engines? I don't think it's that outrageous. Especially with all the regulations and limitations that all the F1 teams have to observe right now. How low should these budgets go?

I am not so sure the F1 circus can do without Mercedes and Ferrari. If they were to go, who would replace them?

In any case, only time will tell. We'll see what happens.

Mark

4th January 2011, 09:09

F1 engine manufacturers do gain new technologies from racing F1 engines, but I'm not sure that directly relevant to the number of cylinders an engine has.

Indeed, I would say that 4 cylinder engines are much more relevant to road car technology than 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines are, given that the vast majority of cars on the road are powered by 4 cylinder engines.

SGWilko

4th January 2011, 09:16

I really don't see that happening. The fact that F1 used to run on 4 cyl engines does not mean that the actual car makers have to go for it. Especially if the car market they operate with does not provide use for them.

Mercedes may choose to stay in F1 if it makes commercial sense for them otherwise I don't think we will see 4 cyl powered Benzs. Besides, why not stay with 6 or 8 cyl engines? I don't think it's that outrageous. Especially with all the regulations and limitations that all the F1 teams have to observe right now. How low should these budgets go?

I am not so sure the F1 circus can do without Mercedes and Ferrari. If they were to go, who would replace them?

In any case, only time will tell. We'll see what happens.

It's a case of the need to wake up and smell the N02. Whilst I do not see any particular hardship in the next decade, oil is a finite resource. From the plastic bags you collect your shopping in, to the fuel needed to transport the goods to the supermarket - oil is consumed.

Which do you suppose will ALWAYS be more economical - 4 or 8/10/12 cylinder motors?

NOw, how many people, globally, own and regularly use a fuel (oil) consuming vehicle?

If, by stipulating it's use in a sport and actively encourage the search for better economy via a sport, you can significantly reduce the global consumption, do you not think this is;

1. A good thing

&

2. Sensible?

Malbec

4th January 2011, 20:09

I really don't see that happening. The fact that F1 used to run on 4 cyl engines does not mean that the actual car makers have to go for it. Especially if the car market they operate with does not provide use for them.

Mercedes may choose to stay in F1 if it makes commercial sense for them otherwise I don't think we will see 4 cyl powered Benzs. Besides, why not stay with 6 or 8 cyl engines? I don't think it's that outrageous. Especially with all the regulations and limitations that all the F1 teams have to observe right now. How low should these budgets go?

I am not so sure the F1 circus can do without Mercedes and Ferrari. If they were to go, who would replace them?

In any case, only time will tell. We'll see what happens.

I'm not sure whether you're aware that Mercedes is downsizing all its engines including for AMG, reducing capacity left right and centre and slapping turbochargers on them to improve efficiency.

There are plenty of turbo 4-cylinder Mercedes already available, in fact I don't think you can get an A or B-class without one.

The new engine regs for F1 are exactly in line with what Mercedes is doing anyway with their roadcars.

BTW Ferrari aren't going to pull out of F1 just because of some engine regs change, I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of these changes. F1 might need Ferrari but Ferrari needs F1 even more.

V12

4th January 2011, 20:21

Maybe playing devils' advocate a bit as I'll be sad to see the demise of multi-cylinder engines, but Ferrari's first WDC was won with a 4-cylinder engine...

import111

5th January 2011, 01:27

If the power level stays above 700hp then I don't care what engine they use. I just don't want the power of F1 to fall down to the 650hp they have been talking about.

mstillhere

5th January 2011, 04:01

I'm not sure whether you're aware that Mercedes is downsizing all its engines including for AMG, reducing capacity left right and centre and slapping turbochargers on them to improve efficiency.

There are plenty of turbo 4-cylinder Mercedes already available, in fact I don't think you can get an A or B-class without one.

The new engine regs for F1 are exactly in line with what Mercedes is doing anyway with their roadcars.

BTW Ferrari aren't going to pull out of F1 just because of some engine regs change, I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of these changes. F1 might need Ferrari but Ferrari needs F1 even more.

Interesting points. However, Haug is still against 4 cyl engines in F1.

"Mercedes’ opinion is based on the fact that they have the most powerful engine on the F1 starting grid, as this tactical advantage might disappear once the new engines occur."

http://www.mibz.com/28586-ferrari-f1-team-new-f1-engine-regulations-pathetic.html

mstillhere

5th January 2011, 04:20

It's a case of the need to wake up and smell the N02. Whilst I do not see any particular hardship in the next decade, oil is a finite resource. From the plastic bags you collect your shopping in, to the fuel needed to transport the goods to the supermarket - oil is consumed.

Which do you suppose will ALWAYS be more economical - 4 or 8/10/12 cylinder motors?

NOw, how many people, globally, own and regularly use a fuel (oil) consuming vehicle?

If, by stipulating it's use in a sport and actively encourage the search for better economy via a sport, you can significantly reduce the global consumption, do you not think this is;

1. A good thing

&

2. Sensible?

Of course it is also true that nowdays 6 or 8 cylinder engines are not as bad as those used in the 70s or 80s. For that matter a 6 cylinder engine at times may be more gas efficient than a 4 cylinder engine.

Besides that, I hardly believe we should see F1, or for that matter any motor racing sport, from an enviromental friendly perspective. That's not the nature of motor racing. Not to mention that over the years the F1 engines have become cleaner and more reliable without compromising the original nature of the sport.
F1 has always been about high technology and high speeds.

And again, as I asked earlier, how low are we willing to go, with these cylinders? Are we going to see cars powered with one cylinder engines? If the environment and the oil consumption should be our focus, would not a one cylinder engine be more environmently friendly than a four cyl engine?

Let's also remember, as I mentioned, all the testing limitations, reduction of engines available to a team, etc, etc. All rules that I am sure are having a positive inpact on the environment.

SGWilko

5th January 2011, 08:59

Not to mention that over the years the F1 engines have become cleaner and more reliable without compromising the original nature of the sport.

Indeed, but your average Jo Public does not want to pay a fortune every 4 weeks for an engine rebuild...

....and this is where F1 needs to allign itself more for road car relevance, and the transfer of technology.

V12

5th January 2011, 14:07

More efficiency = more speed. If they limited fuel usage the engineers would be compelled to develop more environmentally friendly and economical solutions, because they'd also be faster. No need to mandate KERS or 4-pots, because they'd get used anyway, or the engineers would come up with something even more beneficial.

The FIA (or whichever "working group" is responsible for framing the rules), by setting these restrictions in the rules (e.g. on KERS boost usage, engine architecture and so on) are actually holding back the progress of these technologies, not promoting them. Am I right in remembering that McLaren developed a form of energy recovery some time ago, only to see it promptly banned before it could race?

Big Ben

5th January 2011, 14:07

maxter

5th January 2011, 14:08

In the future we will see electric cars powered by hydrogen cells in F1, as well as everywhere else. You may or may not like it but that's where we're eventually going and that's exactly the right thing to do if we think more than a few years ahead in time.

I'd recommend enjoying these 4 cyl petrol engines while you can, it's just a small step in the current direction of motor industry and it won't be the last by a longshot.

You can dream about bigger petrol engines all you want but it will never ever happen again so I kind of fail to see the point.

maxter

5th January 2011, 14:13

PR thing? How many times does it have to be said in this thread that no, the emission level of a single F1 race is not the issue; the issue is being one step ahead of technology and push it forward and yes, also to be seen as "green" from the outside, not to draw more fans but to show a modern and relevant mindset that's sustainable.

I'd say you enjoy petrol cars while you can instead of bitch and moaning about them being downsized, because in a decade there will be electric cars with hydrogen cells running. Which I'm looking forward to.

(I do agree that the tight regulations does nothing but hinder progress though, I would love to see something like limited fuel for the weekend and then let the teams solve it in whatever way they can.)

SGWilko

5th January 2011, 14:34

I think that all this eco-friendly f1 is nothing more than a PR thing. There's nothing ecological about f1 even if they build 0 emission cars. I wonder just what is the proportion between the emissions of everything involved in organizing f1 compared to the actual emissions of f1 cars or the fuel consumed to carry everything and everyone from one country to another or from one continent to another compared to the fuel consumed to drive those cars around the track.

The carbon footprint is indeed huge, but then, look at the carbon emissions of having the luxury produce we all love in our supermarkets every day - flown in from every corner of the earth.

As I understand it, the FIA has, for some years now, offset the estimated or calculated CO2 emissions associated with F1.

SGWilko

5th January 2011, 14:38

in a decade there will be electric cars with hydrogen cells running. Which I'm looking forward to.

Me too, but how to extract the Hydrogen without the need to use disproportunate amounts of fossil fuels? And we know what burning fossil fuels create, don't we? Catch 22.....

Honda are working on this on their 'hydrogen island', using hydroelectric power to extract the hydrogen. Not everyone has an island handy though, do they.......?

Bagwan

5th January 2011, 14:51

The carbon footprint is indeed huge, but then, look at the carbon emissions of having the luxury produce we all love in our supermarkets every day - flown in from every corner of the earth.

As I understand it, the FIA has, for some years now, offset the estimated or calculated CO2 emissions associated with F1.

Carbon credits are simply a way to make it look good while being bad for the planet .

Limitting the amount of fuel used is something they all do as a matter of course anyway , as nobody wants to carry any more than they have to , as it costs lap time .

As has been said here , restrictions on which plant should be used should come naturally , with technology moving toward the engine most suited to the conditions .

Lose the wings entirely , and give them whatever engine they wish .
It'll slow them down , but it'll also show which drivers can drive .

Bagwan

5th January 2011, 15:00

Me too, but how to extract the Hydrogen without the need to use disproportunate amounts of fossil fuels? And we know what burning fossil fuels create, don't we? Catch 22.....

Honda are working on this on their 'hydrogen island', using hydroelectric power to extract the hydrogen. Not everyone has an island handy though, do they.......?

You are right that hydrogen costs too much power to create .

Ballard , the creator of the hydrogen fuel cell , suggested that the power be created by reactors when in over-production situations , basically every night .
We pay to dump power when it could be stored as potential energy in hydrogen .
It's dumb .

It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .

Mark

5th January 2011, 15:26

Ballard , the creator of the hydrogen fuel cell , suggested that the power be created by reactors when in over-production situations , basically every night .
We pay to dump power when it could be stored as potential energy in hydrogen .
It's dumb .

Coal stations also have "spinning reserve", in that they need to be producing power even when it's not needed. However in the UK to a large extent this is used to reverse pump hydro-electric stations so they are ready for the next peak.

It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .

I fear this is the major problem, but of course you can say the same of petrol.

SGWilko

5th January 2011, 15:55

It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .

If the hydrogen tank were to rupture, would the hydrogen react with oxygen without any catalyst and explode, or would there need to be an ignition source?

Now, if every house in the UK had;

1. A wind turbine
2. A ground source heat pump
and
3. Solar panels, we could all potentially store our own energy, charge up our electric cars, heat and light our homes for free. Power stations would be required only to power streetlighting (which ought to be replaced with low energy consuming LED's) and public transport.

Now, is there a government party that currently exists with the testicles to push such legislation through?

Sorry, I'm just scratching my head wondering wtf my rambling has to do with F1...... :dozey:

Bagwan

5th January 2011, 17:10

If the hydrogen tank were to rupture, would the hydrogen react with oxygen without any catalyst and explode, or would there need to be an ignition source?

Now, if every house in the UK had;

1. A wind turbine
2. A ground source heat pump
and
3. Solar panels, we could all potentially store our own energy, charge up our electric cars, heat and light our homes for free. Power stations would be required only to power streetlighting (which ought to be replaced with low energy consuming LED's) and public transport.

Now, is there a government party that currently exists with the testicles to push such legislation through?

Sorry, I'm just scratching my head wondering wtf my rambling has to do with F1...... :dozey:

Hydrogen does need an ignition source , but if that is provided , you produce water ......very , very violently .
I remember the science class experiment , where once you had the required ratio of oxygen to hydrogen in the metal flask , you had a very distinct ringing in your ears for several days .

I am currently building an off-grid house .
I am about to install 2.8kw of solar .
My research told me to stay away from ground-source heat pumps . They ulitize a compressor to extract the temperature variance , so , off-grid , you would need a lot of power , and that costs money .

Better to use solar thermal for heat , backed up by a non-fossil fuel source . That would be a wood stove , in my case , but better would be to use a digester to produce methane for back-up .
We're all full of it , and it should be a resource , rather than a waste , as methane is roughly ten times as bad as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide .

Small wind can work in the countryside , but wind turbulence in a city would make it useless in most cases , due to cost .
And , large or small wind generation requires the use of a storage system , as the wind does not blow on demand .

And , the sun doesn't shine that way either . It inconveniently decides to rise and set each day , also making storage a must .

So , how do we relate this to F1 ?

First , we could drop the price for the venues if they got off the grid .
The additional press that Bernie could derive from such a move , potentially effecting a green change in all the countries that F1 visits would be astounding .

All the transport , short of the air travel , could be mandated as driven with non-fossil methane .
They'd soon realize that a factory with 500 employees would likely produce all the fuel they need for the season .
That could lead them to realize that the fuel they had left over could heat the factory as well .
And , that could lead them to realize that such a simple system could also be enlarged to neighbourhood , and then small town size .
Maybe then they'd see that all bergs , villages , towns , and cities already have most of the necessary infrastructure to retrofit methane capture into the game , making the pumping of any more fossil sourced natural gas cease completely , due to cost .

Now , I am sure you thought to yourself , when I suggested that Bernie drop the price for the venues , that it would never happen , and perhaps laughed , and rolled on the floor holding your belly .
If the venues holding races incorporated these standards , they would actually make more money .
They could also likely get more money from governments for support , as green initiatives are all the rage .

If you've got some guys that owe you money , and they keep whining about having none , you work out a way to have them make more , so they can afford to pay you more .

mstillhere

5th January 2011, 23:36

Indeed, but your average Jo Public does not want to pay a fortune every 4 weeks for an engine rebuild...

....and this is where F1 needs to allign itself more for road car relevance, and the transfer of technology.

Well Ferrari and Mercedes dont really cater to the every day Joe :)

mstillhere

5th January 2011, 23:38

call_me_andrew

6th January 2011, 03:16

Well Ferrari and Mercedes dont really cater to the every day Joe :)

Well Mercedes is owned by Diamler who builds this:

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/reviews/hatchbacks/6709685+w440/0702_z+2008_smart_fortwo+front.jpg

And Ferrari is owned by Fiat who builds this:

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/fiat_500.jpg

Malbec

6th January 2011, 10:26

Besides that, I hardly believe we should see F1, or for that matter any motor racing sport, from an enviromental friendly perspective. That's not the nature of motor racing. Not to mention that over the years the F1 engines have become cleaner and more reliable without compromising the original nature of the sport.
F1 has always been about high technology and high speeds.

Thats a fair attitude to have, why compromise the sport?

The reason is that the biggest problem F1 faces today is that it lacks cash. Many of the mid- and back of the grid teams are up for sale. Everyone bar the top 3 lacks sponsors. Many of the car makers have left and taken their money with them, its pretty clear that for most car makers the environment is THE priority in terms of product right now.

Honda and Toyota barely have any sports cars left in their product line-up but plenty of hybrids. BMW are introducing efficient dynamics across their entire range. All the German makers are downsizing engines and slapping turbos on them to keep the power and torque but slash emissions and consumption. Nissan/Renault are going electric. FIAT are going for simple but effective small capacity engines. Even Ferrari are talking about slashing weight and cutting engine capacity to offer the same speed but cleaner while Porsche are talking hybrids.

So why should these car makers want to return to a sport which is all about more power obtained through burning more fuel? How does that fit into their brand realignment?

And its not just carmakers, plenty of other brands are desperate to appear green.

F1 needs to reinvent itself to get back these sponsors, to appear green to look as if its part of the solution by being the test ground for new green technologies like KERS. Getting 4 cylinder turbos is all part of this process. Otherwise it just looks like the sport is part of the environmental problem.

If you want F1 to keep its big V8s then find an alternative cash source that doesn't rely on sponsorship...

V12

6th January 2011, 17:26

Not to mention the "freeze" on all engine developements

Is that going to remain after the new regs come in?

If so, I think that closes the book for me - officially a PR exercise and nothing more.

Here's hoping not though.

billiaml

6th January 2011, 18:23

It would seem logical to allow some sort of development to comply with the new regs. Assuming, of course, that logic gets factored into the equation at some point,... :rolleyes:

V12

6th January 2011, 23:50

It would seem logical to allow some sort of development to comply with the new regs. Assuming, of course, that logic gets factored into the equation at some point,... :rolleyes:

Yeah, but for me the nightmare scenario (or realistic nightmare scenario) would be allowing say, one year of development from 2013, then freezing them after that. If they are serious about developing relevant technologies, they need to rescind the freeze permanently, no excuses. They can't even use the very old, very worn, very boring and very tired "cost-cutting" excuse if part of the point is that promoting "green" technologies will bring new investment (i.e, money) into the sport.

Mark

7th January 2011, 11:13

V12

7th January 2011, 11:45

Or, a compromise being that engines must be homologated at the start of the year, and no changes can be made through the season. Thus you get engine upgrades once per year rather than every other race.

If they want to limit performance they could say that the engine needs to be tested and can't exceed x bhp and x amount of torque while using x amount of fuel, for example. Hence the concentration of development will be on reliability and driveability and not just on the cars getting faster and faster which was the concern previously.

I don't see why they'd need to say the engine can't exceed a certain amount of bhp and torque, they might as well go for a spec engine then. If they decide the cars are too fast and need to slow them down for the next season, just adjust down the maximum permissible fuel flow and let the engine manufacturers deal with it.

Mark

7th January 2011, 13:00

You probably don't even need to mandate the fuel flow, just mandate a maximum fuel tank size.

V12

7th January 2011, 13:42

You probably don't even need to mandate the fuel flow, just mandate a maximum fuel tank size.

Don't get me wrong, in the race that would be ideal, as it would allow different drivers to put their foot down or ease up at different parts of the race and make things more interesting, but it might be hard to manage for qualifying: do you make the cars run a certain number of laps and penalise those that don't, or go back to single lap qualifying and somehow measure the fuel that goes in, while ensuring the tank is completely drained before filling? I can't think of an obvious solution, so I (grudgingly) accept fuel flow meters might be the way to go.

EDIT: Thinking about it, fuel tank size was restricted in the mid-80s in the last few years of the turbo era, and also in Group C racing, anyone know how qualifying was dealt with then, was it completely unrestricted fuel usage?