[Tech Issue] Are the 2014 engine regulations too restrictive?

[JeremySmith]

F1 will have hydrogen powered engines sometime in the next ten years...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

F1 will have hydrogen powered engines sometime in the next ten years...

Maybe so (and the fossil fuel companies will like that), but they need to do something about the cost of the fuel cell to make it a realistic proposition for road vehicles. You also need a very large fuel tank, even for a car like Honda's 'Clarity'. Many say that Hydrogen fuelled road cars are, realistically, still some 50 years away! Many say that it's a dangerous detour from electric powered vehicles, which is essentially what the hydrogen powers in an hydrogen car.

[luke g28]

If they open up the regs then the teams could develop alternative fuels / engines to maximise power / efficiency.

Why do the rules need to get tighter as the cars go faster? Or are you saying that F1 has its lowest ever safety record?

Which begs the question. What is the lap time limit for F1? Why do we need one? As other series develop isn't this going to make F1 slower in real terms?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

If they open up the regs then the teams could develop alternative fuels / engines to maximise power / efficiency.

"alternative fuels". So if they all turn up with diesels or 'silent' hydrogen and electric vehicles, that's fine by you? It would certainly be a big 'turn off' for the majority.

If you weren't already aware, the 2014 regulations go a long way towards maximizing engine power and efficiency, anyway. Whilst, at the same time, providing something that most 'petrol heads' can relate to.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Why do the rules need to get tighter as the cars go faster? Or are you saying that F1 has its lowest ever safety record?

We shouldn't get complacent. Is speed everything?

Originally Posted by luke g28

Which begs the question. What is the lap time limit for F1? Why do we need one? As other series develop isn't this going to make F1 slower in real terms?

I'm sure that the FIA will see to it that all of its other racing series do not compete with F1 in terms of outright speed. Not that it should matter, anyway.

I'm sure that, even as we type, the Indy car series are looking at ways to slow down their cars.

[luke g28]

You can now buy road cars that out accelerate F1 cars and have a higher top speed. They will last 100k miles, weigh 3 or 4 times as much and will have to contend with head on collisions, lamp posts, walls etc that an F1 car will never match. I dont think thats right.

Is speed everything? What is the title of this website? Ask any of the race teams if there is anything they would rather have than lap time?

If f1 turned up with diesel engines then so be it, Lemans can cope with it, why cant we?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

You can now buy road cars that out accelerate F1 cars and have a higher top speed. They will last 100k miles, weigh 3 or 4 times as much and will have to contend with head on collisions, lamp posts, walls etc that an F1 car will never match. I dont think thats right.

But these 'Hyper cars' very rarely get driven to their limits, if at all. And certainly wouldn't last for 100,000 miles if they were! Nor would the occupant survive any 200 mph crash! They are obliged to stick to the rules of the road, just like any other road car is, for safety reasons. The very definition of frustration. Status symbols for the well heeled.

You can also fly on a Jumbo Jet at 500 miles per hour. It's all relative.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Is speed everything? What is the title of this website? Ask any of the race teams if there is anything they would rather have than lap time?

Lap time and the highest speed are two different things. MotoGP bikes and Indy Cars have a higher top speed than F1 cars. An F1 cars lap time comes from efficient use of aerodynamics at much lower speeds. This often means that the fastest timed F1 car around a lap does not usually have the highest top speed.

If speed's your thing. What about drag racing? The FIA have a drag racing series.....

Originally Posted by luke g28

If f1 turned up with diesel engines then so be it, Lemans can cope with it, why cant we?

Le Mans has many different classes racing at the same time. Something for everyone. Very few would turn up if it were just diesels. Fewer still if everything were lumped into one class, as many would have it with F1.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But these 'Hyper cars' very rarely get driven to their limits, if at all. And certainly wouldn't last for 100,000 miles if they were! Nor would the occupant survive any 200 mph crash! They are obliged to stick to the rules of the road, just like any other road car is, for safety reasons. The very definition of frustration. Status symbols for the well heeled.

You can also fly on a Jumbo Jet at 500 miles per hour. It's all relative.

Lap time and the highest speed are two different things. MotoGP bikes and Indy Cars have a higher top speed than F1 cars. An F1 cars lap time comes from efficient use of aerodynamics at much lower speeds. This often means that the fastest timed F1 car around a lap does not usually have the highest top speed.

If speed's your thing. What about drag racing? The FIA have a drag racing series.....



Le Mans has many different classes racing at the same time. Something for everyone. Very few would turn up if it were just diesels. Fewer still if everything were lumped into one class, as many would have it with F1.

I have consistently used the phrase lap time. Over and over and over and over, yet now I just want to watch a drag race?

"Hyper cars" May very rarely get driven to their limits, but I doubt they really test the 0-120 times. I also wouldn't be shocked if many hadn't seen the naughty side of double the speed limit. Completely different to hammering it around a track but they can still say that if an f1 car pulled up at the lights next to them, it wouldn't be able to keep up. I feel that you completely missed the point here (deliberately?)

A jumbo jet is not relevant at all, a comparison between road car tech and race car tech is.

An f1 car could be far more aerodynamically efficient if it covered the tyres up and had a cockpit, but we would rather have aesthetics than performance, noise rather than efficiency, form over function. That doesn't sit well with me and is the opposite of what the "technical innovators" should be about.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I have consistently used the phrase lap time. Over and over and over and over, yet now I just want to watch a drag race?

So, you don't like drag racing?

Originally Posted by luke g28

Completely different to hammering it around a track but they can still say that if an f1 car pulled up at the lights next to them, it wouldn't be able to keep up.

Now you do like drag racing?

Originally Posted by luke g28

A jumbo jet is not relevant at all, a comparison between road car tech and race car tech is.

Is it really? Because many would say that an F1 car has more in common with a Jumbo Jet. Certainly in the way that it's designed and built.

Originally Posted by luke g28

An f1 car could be far more aerodynamically efficient if it covered the tyres up and had a cockpit, but we would rather have aesthetics than performance, noise rather than efficiency, form over function. That doesn't sit well with me and is the opposite of what the "technical innovators" should be about.

The FIA are introducing a series called 'Formula E' (all very techy and efficient) for 2013. Perhaps you would be interested in that?

All that F1 is, at present, is a marketing tool, and it's not really the content that matters so much as the message that is sent.

[luke g28]

Okay, I agree with you. F1 cars should be slower than road cars and should become a classic nostalgia series where people can once again remember how a motorbike sounds with a high revving V8.

As you say, it is the message that is important.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Okay, I agree with you. F1 cars should be slower than road cars

F1 cars are designed for circuit use, and on those circuits a Bugatti Veyron would not stand a cat in hells chance.

Originally Posted by luke g28

As you say, it is the message that is important.

Indeed it is. Downsized petrol engines with regenerative technology. Message sent. No need to complicate it.

[höller]

The FIA are introducing a series called 'Formula E' (all very techy and efficient) for 2013. Perhaps you would be interested in that?

You can be sure that, as long as Bernie moves, no F1 car will be launched that does not offer at least a sound level of 100 dB (A). So full electricity, we will see in F1 maybe at that point when everybody else posesses a flying saucer as street car.
At Le Mans, the R18 is a borderline case. There were some people among the Le Mans crowd this year which were...ehm... quite unhappy with the "sound", although the spectacular body structure of the now-closed Audi was compensating quite a lot.

Yes, it's possible that BMW could come back into F1 if it starts to market a V6 road engined car.

As BMWs main reason to leave was the intention to be increasingly defined in terms of sustainability and environmental compatibility, for their new-planned turbocharged V6 the new F1 would be a prosperous stage, furthermore as they obviously are planning to patent their own turbocompound system. Considered their history in F1, the new third era should be more promising than the second one. As their inline four (the "bavarian powerhouse") and the V10 were gorgeous and the V8 was a very good engine, we can be sure to see a hell of an engine if they would get back.

[luke g28]

But you aren't allowed compound turbos, 4pots, v8s or v10s..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

But you aren't allowed compound turbos, 4pots, v8s or v10s..

I think that he was referring to BMW possibly coming back into F1 with a V6 engine. F1 having already sampled their 4 pot, V8 and V10 engines.

[höller]

Thats true; sorry for my sleazy wording, being no native! My topic should be the following: It was revealed in May that BMW is about to patent a turbocharged V6, as you can see in their concept drawing:

http://www.f30post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=582941

This CONCEPT (which it still is to date) seems to be conceived as a single turbocharged engine as well as a twin-turbo configuration - as you like it:

"After leaving the first turbocharger, the exhaust gases can be routed either into the exhaust system or into another turbocharger"

So why I was writing about this was the possibility this could be a project which would fit into F1 regulations of the new F1 (which was not planned in that way in 2009 when BMW left), F1 could be a appropriate stage for BMW to promote their new way in engine buliding. Please consider, leaving their beloved inline six in favour of a new V6 could become a big cultural shock for their customers and followers worldwide. I don´t know if its possible to race with it within WTCC or DTM, so the F1 would be left as a worldwide opportunity for marketing purposes.
So, additionally, I wanted to show you (to keep on track with our topic!) an example for engine regulations of F1 being too strict: the full concept of BMW shown above will never be in use if e.g. there´s only one turbocharger allowed.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

So, additionally, I wanted to show you (to keep on track with our topic!) an example for engine regulations of F1 being too strict: the full concept of BMW shown above will never be in use if e.g. there´s only one turbocharger allowed.

Turbo compounding, which isn't anything new btw, was discussed during the making of the new regulations, but didn't make an appearance in the regulations. Just because it isn't in the regulations, doesn't mean to say that BMW can't develop it on their road cars if they want to.

Not everything that car manufacturers come up with can be included in F1 regulations. As long as the concept is understood, then it shouldn't stop the BMW engineers in Germany from doing their job. It doesn't necessarily need any help from F1.

[Marbot]

Nothing new at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Nothing new at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

Turbo-compound versions of the Napier Deltic, Rolls-Royce Crecy, and Allison V-1710 were constructed but none was developed beyond the prototype stage.

Ah yes a few prototypes that they couldn't get to work reliably but has begun to be used in trucks for 2001. I see what you did there..

somebody once trying to make something work =/= Common place technology with no room for improvement.

We have spent over 100 years working on IC piston engines which are "nothing new" doesn't mean there isn't still room for improvement.

Of course it wont stop BMW putting it in their road cars

Despite what you say, compound turbo / supercharging is a technology in its infancy which I would say is largely because it was almost instantly banned from all forms of racing and so few people have any experience of it. Try finding an aftermarket compound turbo set-up for your road car. Good luck.

höller, I apologise, I did not realise the BMW patent also included single turbo applications.

[Marbot]

Even though turbo-compounding has been left out of the 2014 engine regulations. That doesn't mean to say that it wouldn't be allowed in subsequent engine regulations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/13878359.stm

F1 ENGINE RULES FROM 2014

1.6-litre, six-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s

Fuel efficiency to increase by 35%

Maximum revs of 15,000rpm

Power of energy-recovery systems to double

Overall power to remain at approx 750bhp

Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable

*Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years.*

You'll just have to be patient and hope that it gets the nod some other time.

But by then.............

Edit: There was some suggestion that the higher rpm limit put the damper on the turbo-compounding. Also it would need the use of engines being developed specifically with turbo-compounding in mind.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Edit: There was some suggestion that the higher rpm limit put the damper on the turbo-compounding. Also it would need the use of engines being developed specifically with turbo-compounding in mind.

Hence my initial point regarding the BMW engine I thought an effective compound setup would not be competitive with a single turbo.

[Carsandmotorracing]

If motorsport stops using IC engines, then expect it to die. Bernie knows this, he'll lose a lot of fans if he goes to electric engines. Expect sportscar racing to go into decline in the next few years.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Hence my initial point regarding the BMW engine I thought an effective compound setup would not be competitive with a single turbo.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it.


The thing about turbos is that two turbos are more costly to manufacture, and ultimately sell on, than one turbo is. Two turbos are also probably less reliable than one. And perhaps the point of getting F1 to use as little hardware as possible has some bearing on what car manufacturers really want from the series?

Surely the challenge for the future is to make less do more?

In any event, this: "Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable" will apply. So no guarantee that your new fangled multi turbo would be a huge success.

I also find it hard to believe that BMW have managed to patent something that has already been invented!!

But the patent only usually applies to the drawings of the particular device put forward for patenting. So, it doesn't stop anyone else from building one (which is obviously the case), as long as it doesn't match, in detail, BMWs drawings.

The other problem that F1 currently has is that the 2013 chassis regulations are no longer compatible with the V8 engines currently used. Indeed, F1 has many much larger problems to sort out before it decides on what interesting new technologies can be used.

[luke g28]

Ah I see what you mean, in the 80s cars began having a big single turbo, then the 90s saw twin turbo setups and now we have compound turbo/Supercharged small capacity engines. But obviously that's less reliable and nobody would want to do that right?

Gah, I should stop replying to this really, no point arguing with the fountain of knowledge is there.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

But obviously that's less reliable and nobody would want to do that right?

Since they already are and have done for some time, I fail to see your point. But the very nature of adding more parts to an engine makes it, ultimately, less reliable. And the other thing to answer is: Are you doing it for performance or efficiency? Making an engine more powerful doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. Supercharging in the past has added power to engines, but the very nature of how supercharging works (saps engine power, heats up intake air) doesn't make it very efficient. Possibly the reason F1 hasn't considered it for the future.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Gah, I should stop replying to this really, no point arguing with the fountain of knowledge is there.

In another post I had pointed out that the teams and the FIA may, at a later date, decide if it is going to introduce compound turbocharging into F1. The fact that they haven't already done so tells you something about how high up on the list of things that might make a fossil fuel engine more efficient, it was.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Completely different to hammering it around a track but they can still say that if an f1 car pulled up at the lights next to them, it wouldn't be able to keep up

Er, not even close.

F1 car (2006 Renault) did 0-300kmh (186mph) in 8.6s

Fastest accelerating road car over a quarter mile got to 159.2 mph (256.2 km/h) in 8.4 sec.

Not sure where you get the idea that F1 cars are slow accelerating compared to modern road car.

They do have a lower top speed of course, but most people have to go round corners at some point.

[Marbot]

There is little point in comparing the performance of a 'Hyper car' with an F1 car.

There is no point comparing either car with top fuel dragster cars either.