|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
23 Oct 2012, 21:21 (Ref:3156702) | #101 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
I doubt we will see very high reving engines as generally the higher the revs the higher the fuel consumption.
|
|
|
23 Oct 2012, 22:56 (Ref:3156742) | #102 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
I believe it's going to be a 15,000 RPM ceiling...
|
||
|
23 Oct 2012, 23:06 (Ref:3156744) | #103 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
23 Oct 2012, 23:42 (Ref:3156764) | #104 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
But the thing with the current naturally aspirated engines is that you can only get meaningful power increases by increasing rpm. With a turbo engine, that just doesn't hold true. The 1000 plus turbo engines of the 80's never revved beyond around 12,500 - 13,000 rpm. Power was created by adding more fuel to more boost pressure until the engine blew up. |
||
|
24 Oct 2012, 18:00 (Ref:3157110) | #105 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 495
|
Interesting, being a complete engine noob, I was not aware of all this, so thanks for the explanation.
|
|
__________________
"How would you like a newspaper upside your head?" @MattMK45 |
29 Oct 2012, 13:09 (Ref:3159516) | #106 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
I don't know what the need is for GP engines to be revving at circa 20K. If revs are important, then just eliminate much of the reciprocating parts by moving to two strokes... if fuel economy and reliability are important, then there's no need to go above 10K-12K.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2012, 13:28 (Ref:3159528) | #107 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 867
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
29 Oct 2012, 15:04 (Ref:3159574) | #108 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
The current trend in the auto industry is precisely what F1 will be doing in 2014. Downsized turbo engines with electronic energy recovery systems.
Most manufacturers are realising that their monster V8, V10 and V12 engines are falling foul of too many emission regulations, and that the necessity for increasingly complicated emission regulation systems to keep them legal will eventually sound their death knell sooner rather than later. So enjoy them while you still can. The other 'sop' to the 'green' image that F1 will be trying to win over new sponsors with, is that the 2014 engines will also be fitted, for the first time, with exhaust gas recirculation valves. Maybe further down the line they will also be fitted with 'cats', but hopefully not with silencers. |
|
|
29 Oct 2012, 17:06 (Ref:3159647) | #109 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,294
|
A single 747 on takeoff uses more fuel than the entire F1 grid over the course of a season.
Maybe everyone should stop flying too. |
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 17:56 (Ref:3159670) | #110 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
You'll have noticed that I mentioned the word 'sponsors' in my previous post. This is important because there is currently a shift in practically everything to be more efficient, and this is the image that sponsors in F1 want to be associated with - efficiency. 750 BHP pushing the equivalent of a barn door through the air is not anyone's idea of efficiency. |
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 18:38 (Ref:3159690) | #111 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,753
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
29 Oct 2012, 18:51 (Ref:3159696) | #112 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Actually, you could say that Red Bull's barn door is more aerodynamically efficient than HRT's barn door, but both are still barn doors, nonetheless. Currently, the cars can carry as much fuel as they like to overcome that 'barn door' effect, and this is why the 2014 regulations will have more to do with engines and connected systems, and less to do with aero. Although, it will still be important. |
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 20:54 (Ref:3159753) | #113 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,294
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
30 Oct 2012, 00:29 (Ref:3159865) | #114 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,753
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
30 Oct 2012, 02:47 (Ref:3159921) | #115 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
It is quite relevant if we are looking at comparisons. An LNG cargo suffers "boil off" where the stored gas expands and either gets vented or, nowadays, is used to power the ship. A jumbo jet takes off carrying up to 400 passengers, so it is actually quite fuel efficient.
There are various examples where the product is used to transport the product. Pumping stations on oil pipelines need energy and in remote locations use dedicated generators. These are often powered by the crude oil that is being pumped through the pipeline. In this context a Formula 1 car is quite inefficient, so it is conceivable that the governing body would want to be seen to be doing something about it. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
31 Oct 2012, 00:53 (Ref:3160414) | #116 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
A 747 burns 1 gallon a second, 36000 gallons on a 10 hr flight!
90 Gallons or 340 litres per passenger assuming 400. A car at 5.6 l/100 would go 6000 kms on that. So per passenger you are probably right its quite efficient - probably about the same as the car! ( am a bit surprised here! Learnt something!) |
|
|
31 Oct 2012, 04:47 (Ref:3160466) | #117 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Add to that, the 747 is performing a public service whilst burning the fuel, whereas a Formula 1 car is not and you can see that there is a need for further consideration.
However, for the record my personal preference would be for the engines to burn as much fuel as they need to be the fastest and most powerful. But I guess that makes me a dinosaur. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
31 Oct 2012, 08:54 (Ref:3160508) | #118 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,120
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
31 Oct 2012, 10:13 (Ref:3160542) | #119 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Trouble with bio fuels is that you either grow crops to feed an ever increasing population, or you grow crops to provide fuel that won't be used because the population will have starved to death!
There is GTL which is an expensive but ever more popular process and with the advent of shale gas, would appear to be a way forward. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
31 Oct 2012, 10:42 (Ref:3160549) | #120 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,885
|
The comparison with the 747 taking off has another relevance.
The environmental impact of transporting the F1 circus around the globe every year is many times greater than that of the races themselves. If the FIA and FOM genuinely want to ease their true environmental impact, there is far more scope for change in the logistics of a season's racing than in the F1 cars. However, as with just about every environmental initiative out there, the emphasis always seems to end up on the high profile stuff that every idiot in the street can understand, creating a whole political furore for little or no actual environmental benefit. Still, I don't suppose fiddling with the specification of Formula 1 cars could ever become as big a lie as hybrid road cars. Yes that's you, Toyota Prius owners. Thanks for helping to kill the planet. |
||
__________________
"Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose." |
31 Oct 2012, 13:30 (Ref:3160614) | #121 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,355
|
This is of course true but ignores the fact that the largest impact of Formula 1 on the environment is the indirect one of contributing to a culture of high powered, high fuel consumption cars and further encouraging drivers to tend towards aggression rather than economy in driving style on the road. The new engines are aimed at making F1 a little less part of the problem and a little more a part of the solution in this regard. Much as I have loved F1 over the years I do think this change in approach is needed and to imagine it is to do with fuel burnt by the F1 circus itself is to completely miss the point.
|
|
|
31 Oct 2012, 13:55 (Ref:3160619) | #122 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 519
|
Quote:
Funnily enough I agree with you, however the F1 circus needs to clean its whole act up not just the cars that are racing, as it uses aircraft make sure that they are the most fuel efficient, on the most economical routes (not taking a detour because Bernie wants something), as it uses trucks make sure they are the most econonical & the trailers are fuel efficient to tow, etc, etc. |
|||
|
31 Oct 2012, 14:58 (Ref:3160639) | #123 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,885
|
Quote:
Surely 'fuel burnt' is as relevant as any other measure of actual environmental impact? I agree that F1 should be seen to be more environmentally responsible, but this all harks back to my main point. Across the whole environment debate we see all sorts of high profile eco-friendly marketing initiatives that have no substance to them, at best they have negligible impact, at worst their impact is actually negative. Do these initiatives actually make people think more about their own environmental footprint? In a world where everybody thinks it's everybody else who should make the sacrifices I'm really not sure. I would far rather F1 led by example, by doing something tangible about the actual impact of its globe trotting circus than make some token gesture that'll have a negative effect on the F1 spectacle for no measurable gain. |
|||
__________________
"Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose." |
31 Oct 2012, 16:38 (Ref:3160663) | #124 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
It's all about the perception of efficiency, rather than the actual reality of efficiency, as far as F1 is concerned. If an F1 car is perceived as being efficient, then that's all that needs to happen in order to get the message across to the punters.
The Toyota Prius is really no worse than any other car in respect of its getting its parts from all around the world. I believe that BMW, for example, sends all of its bumpers to Australia for some reason, only to have them sent back to where they originally came from. This sort of thing happens quite a lot in the car industry, it's very rare for any car manufacturer to do everything 'in-house' these days. Logistics plays a very important part in making car production a feasible thing to do, and it's often more cost effective to have nuts and bolts, etc, sent to you from halfway around the planet than to make them yourselves or even to have them sourced locally. |
|
|
31 Oct 2012, 17:14 (Ref:3160673) | #125 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
Quote:
totally i agree that this desire to make people more environmentally friendly has not worked (even creating more backlash) but for me its not so much about living in an eco-friendly way rather its just about saving money. probably missing the point but anyways thats why i think its relevant to pursue these policies. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glickenhaus Project(s) Discussion | The Badger | Sportscar & GT Racing | 58 | 11 Nov 2018 19:16 |
V6 Engines for 2014 | Spritle | Formula One | 201 | 10 Jul 2011 19:48 |
Saab in the WRC for 2014? | I Rosputnik | Rallying & Rallycross | 4 | 14 Jul 2010 00:09 |
[Rumours] KERS it! More controversy on its way? | mjstallard | Formula One | 5 | 1 Apr 2009 12:20 |
How superior are turbocharged engines compaired to NA engines in sportscar racing? | chernaudi | Sportscar & GT Racing | 16 | 27 Dec 2006 18:07 |