Technical F1 Engines - Where to for the future?
- Thread starter FB
- Start date
Just going to leave this here.
Incubus
Champion Elect
1,000 hp would probably be more relevant to F1 these days but I'm not sure it would make that much difference to the racing.
With cornering speed being the priority in F1 they would probably use the extra power to put more wing on which again would increase aero turbulence when following another car.
You only have to look at the past 40 years in F1. In spite of the numerous technical rule changes that have taken place in that time top speeds have changed very little. Grip levels have.
With cornering speed being the priority in F1 they would probably use the extra power to put more wing on which again would increase aero turbulence when following another car.
You only have to look at the past 40 years in F1. In spite of the numerous technical rule changes that have taken place in that time top speeds have changed very little. Grip levels have.
You only have to look at the barn doors which were bolted to the cars back in the mid-late 80's to agree with Incubus last comment. Some cars even had two rear wings! Horsepower is not the be all and end all F1 needs to look at the wider World to see what is going on and then decide how to take the Formula forward.
Maybe F1 could be made more relevant to road cars by removing the wings. Either that or ensure that the wing action does not create any downforce as per the boy racer cars.
If we are going 'boy racer' they would need to fit massive speakers and neon strips under the side pods.
Oh and a 'Gaz loves Tina' sun strip to every driver helmet.
Oh and a 'Gaz loves Tina' sun strip to every driver helmet.
Modern road cars, high performance ones at least, generate downforce albeit not at the levels of an F1 car but then they are designed to run for more than about 4 hours without a complete rebuild. 1000bhp is probably possible tomorrow if they let them tweak the turbo boost but to what end? Just to make the throttle like a random on/off switch for the motor?
My proposal would be for a fuel flow formula and you do what you want with the motor. Perhaps one of the lower teams would set out to win the pole position and fast laps trophies with no intention of ever having a car finish a race. I do think there needs to be more control over what the designers can do with the wings as the current rules, and the intricate detail to gain 0.001 sec on the front wings especially, are just a nonsense.
If the rules in 2009 were designed to get rid of all the flicks, loops and aero details why is it not possible to revisit this in 2015 to tidy up the front end?
My proposal would be for a fuel flow formula and you do what you want with the motor. Perhaps one of the lower teams would set out to win the pole position and fast laps trophies with no intention of ever having a car finish a race. I do think there needs to be more control over what the designers can do with the wings as the current rules, and the intricate detail to gain 0.001 sec on the front wings especially, are just a nonsense.
If the rules in 2009 were designed to get rid of all the flicks, loops and aero details why is it not possible to revisit this in 2015 to tidy up the front end?
Tuscan1969
Podium Finisher
They should have a max number of vanes and include a max downforce level of say XXX Kg at 120mph and let it rip with the engine fuel flow (but retain a mx of 100KG for the race distance). Also do not limit the ERS power harvesting and use...whoever can make that most efficient gets a benefit and de facto makes F1 more relevant to the real world.
But the most important thing wrt the engines is that they should all be homologated before the first race. This current farce is unfairly punishing Honda and making F1 a laughing stock.
But the most important thing wrt the engines is that they should all be homologated before the first race. This current farce is unfairly punishing Honda and making F1 a laughing stock.
If the aim is to have relevance to today's (and tomorrow's) road cars, I would say that only internal combustion engines should be allowed.
The primary goal today, at least via lip service, is to becoming more "green". There are myriad problems with alternative motive power that have yet to be resolved: how do you safely dispose of batteries (which is true of both electric and hybrids) being a HUGE one. Hydrogen power is laughable as far as energy efficiency is concerned: the main way to produce hydrogen is thru electrolysis of water which requires large amounts of energy. Then you have to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen, and THEN supercool, to cryogenic temperatures, the hydrogen to allow it to be mobile enough to use as a motor fuel (and the cryogenic tanks weigh a TONNE!).
With electrics, you not only have the problem of disposal of the batteries, but you are only moving the source of the pollution from the car to the power plant, and, since no energy generation process is 100% efficient, you lose out that way as well.
I would say that the fuel limit per race should either be in kilocalories to equalize gasoline with diesel, etc.
As far as aero goes, what I would propose is that front wings cannot extend beyond the inside wall of the front tyre and are limited to two elements. I would also ban raised noses. The anteater look isn't even appealing on anteaters--it is far worse on race cars.
The primary goal today, at least via lip service, is to becoming more "green". There are myriad problems with alternative motive power that have yet to be resolved: how do you safely dispose of batteries (which is true of both electric and hybrids) being a HUGE one. Hydrogen power is laughable as far as energy efficiency is concerned: the main way to produce hydrogen is thru electrolysis of water which requires large amounts of energy. Then you have to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen, and THEN supercool, to cryogenic temperatures, the hydrogen to allow it to be mobile enough to use as a motor fuel (and the cryogenic tanks weigh a TONNE!).
With electrics, you not only have the problem of disposal of the batteries, but you are only moving the source of the pollution from the car to the power plant, and, since no energy generation process is 100% efficient, you lose out that way as well.
I would say that the fuel limit per race should either be in kilocalories to equalize gasoline with diesel, etc.
As far as aero goes, what I would propose is that front wings cannot extend beyond the inside wall of the front tyre and are limited to two elements. I would also ban raised noses. The anteater look isn't even appealing on anteaters--it is far worse on race cars.
Initiate a cap on engine costs to the teams. Put in a total energy limit for a race, whether that be fuel weigh limit or total energy, allowing Diesel etc. As much energy recovery as you want, as much power as you want, as much development as you want, although engine manufacturers are not allowed to charge teams for the development.
In terms of the "green" credentials, simply allow the teams one less container of equipment each.
I find it farcical that a circus which have several trucks per team, and equipment flown around the world by a fleet of Jumbo Jets that the saving of a collective 27,000 kg of petrol in a season (equivalent to one Jumbo flying 2000 km) is considered the best way to improve environmental considerations.
In terms of the "green" credentials, simply allow the teams one less container of equipment each.
I find it farcical that a circus which have several trucks per team, and equipment flown around the world by a fleet of Jumbo Jets that the saving of a collective 27,000 kg of petrol in a season (equivalent to one Jumbo flying 2000 km) is considered the best way to improve environmental considerations.
It's not about improving F1's environmental considerations The Pits - it's about pushing engine fuel efficiency technology forward, in the hope of retaining some of the existing manufacturers (Renault) and attracting new ones (Honda) by making F1 a tiny bit more road-relevant. The trouble is, the FIA and FOM have done absolutely sod-all to champion this aspect of "the show", and instead have gone down the line of denigrating the lack of noise. This stuff about 1kbhp and noisier engines is all about one old man desperately trying to keep F1 like he thinks it ought to be. The problem here is that people keep listening to him, when what they should really do is nod and smile until he leaves the room, and get on and do it differently once he's gone home...
Now the FIA are considering changes to allow Honda to be in line with the other engine makers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30815234
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30815234
There is one question I have about Honda.
Making the decision to join the F1 circus is never a spur-of-the-moment affair. So the question arises, why didn't they join for last season? Did they think that, by putting off their joining, they would gain an advantage but getting an extra year to develop their engine, since it wasn't frozen last year?
If that is the case, is it fair to now reward them for delaying that entry by ceding them the added year that they calculated on in the first place?
Making the decision to join the F1 circus is never a spur-of-the-moment affair. So the question arises, why didn't they join for last season? Did they think that, by putting off their joining, they would gain an advantage but getting an extra year to develop their engine, since it wasn't frozen last year?
If that is the case, is it fair to now reward them for delaying that entry by ceding them the added year that they calculated on in the first place?
Just on that very subject: http://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/wec-now-the-championship-of-choice-for-manufacturers-not-f1
Now they are considering wider tires as well. I am not an engineer but wouldn't wider tires change the balance of aero grip and mechanical grip? They would have to bend the air around even wider tires, which reduces downforce, and would have more rubber on the road. I would think that wider tires and 1000 hp would make for a better show because the cars could follow closer.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
