Return of the V12

[Taxi645]

Now hold on. This not a nostalgic dream. I reckon there a sound reasons for going back to it.

The idea of F1 staying relevant on the power unit side to the automotive real world is a fallacy. All mid to high end vehicles will go electric and cobalt free batteries will facilitate it. The only combustion engines will be cheap cars in India (which won't be using any of F1's high-tec ICE technology anyway) and perhaps the odd hydrogen project. So the notion that F1 in 5 years time is still going to add much to the broader automotive world is a dead end street in my view.

So if automotive relevance and development is out of the window, what remains?

In my view you can do two things to keep engine manufacturers on board (and get new ones in):

1 Up the excitement!
2 Strongly reduce cost.
3 Use synthetic fuel to keep it politically acceptable.



There is a perfect tool to do just that:

A 3.5L V12.

That's it, no KERS, no Turbo's.

- 93mm maximum bore to keep it compact and limit output.
- 17.000rpm rev limit to keep power and costs in check and make it easier for smaller independent engine manufacturers.
- They'll probably produce around a 1.000HP.

Cars will get a lot lighter, but not as light as 20 years ago (due to safety measures), so power won't be too much and can be further governed through fuel flow.

So what you get:

1 An exiting power unit: light, powerful, strong sound, exciting to drive and watch!
2 Cheap.
3 Output closer together so helps to keep the field level and easier to freeze after a while.
4 Small and compact, gives more chassis freedom and easier to swap engine manufacturer.
5 Carbon neutral due to synthetic fuels.

[P38 in workshop]

Not a chance! Greta Thunberg and her acolytes would rain indignation on the idea of fleets of racing cars being transported around the world for no purpose other than making a noise while racing.The total amount of greenhouse gas generated would probably be wrongly calculated and fed to the general public who would join the condemnation.The sponsors would briskly step away because of the image problem it would represent.If top level motorsport is to survive, it has to demonstrate some sort of relevance or we might be left with no alternative to watching Formula E.



Strangely,the generation of millions of tons of greenhouse gas by vehicles transporting football fans never gets a mention.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Not a chance! Greta Thunberg and her acolytes would rain indignation on the idea of fleets of racing cars being transported around the world for no purpose other than making a noise while racing.The total amount of greenhouse gas generated would probably be wrongly calculated and fed to the general public who would join the condemnation.The sponsors would briskly step away because of the image problem it would represent.If top level motorsport is to survive, it has to demonstrate some sort of relevance or we might be left with no alternative to watching Formula E.



Strangely,the generation of millions of tons of greenhouse gas by vehicles transporting football fans never gets a mention.

I get what your saying, but what's the alternative? Stick with the current formula, which is already close to irrelevant to the broader automotive world, let alone in 5 years time?

Then you either skip directly to electric, which I reckon would still be a bit too early for F1.
Or you have hydrogen, which would have significant (perhaps prohibitive) cost and weight implications, with also serious question marks regarding relevance if hydrogen use remains marginal in the automotive world.

I reckon generally the target audience for F1 does and will not have the sustainability as their main concern. The use of synthetic fuel will keep it socially/politically acceptable enough for the time being. What's the difference between running mega date centres on wind mills to power our irrelevant youtube video's or let a few F1 cars run on it?

Sure some manufacturers may leave. They will be back when FE and F1 merge once battery tech has evolved enough. In the meantime, we'll have very exiting racing, thank you!

[steve_r]

I think that a lot of fans would be happy to see F1 go back to "normal" combustion engines. Teams paying GBP 200m per year for the current over-complicated lumps is plainly ridiculous.

However this is F1, rightly or wrongly being run by teams and engine manufacturers and Liberty who all have their own agendas which do not necessarily mean that common sense prevails. So, prepare for the next set of engine regulations that makes the current ones look cheap and simple.

[S griffin]

The whole point of hybrid V6s has gone. Only Honda has joined and now they’re leaving. They might as well go back to simpler engines, all this extra expense has been to no avail

[Lola]

I believe the rules regarding power trains should be opened up. By limiting the amount of energy available. Give each car so many Joules (the amount can be decided to equal things up) and the teams can do whatever they want.
Hybrid (as now)
100% electric (unlikely)
Petrol (Cosworth, Judd whatever)
Some other system not yet thought about.
Then the ruling factor would be energy usage. At the moment Hybrids with recovery are the best solution (maybe?), petrol or bio are getting better and better all the time and maybe competitive. This should eliminate a team being without an engine when the music stops. The energy allowance could be fettled to even it up if a technology gets either too expensive, dirty, etc

[Richard Casto]

I agree on the approach of a less complex formula. A few details to nitpick. Its my understanding that given modern understanding of friction, optimal combustion chamber size, etc. that a 12 cylinder engine would not be the first choice (it would sound lovely however). It would probably be a V8 or V10 solution. Unless a V12 was mandated. Also, given a target displacement, I think a V8 would probably be more compact than a V12. Last, I suspect we will continue with some type of Hybrid (KERS) solution.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I agree on the approach of a less complex formula. A few details to nitpick. Its my understanding that given modern understanding of friction, optimal combustion chamber size, etc. that a 12 cylinder engine would not be the first choice (it would sound lovely however). It would probably be a V8 or V10 solution. Unless a V12 was mandated. Also, given a target displacement, I think a V8 would probably be more compact than a V12. Last, I suspect we will continue with some type of Hybrid (KERS) solution.

Richard

I can see the point of the V6 Turbos in increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing pollution, the hybrid sytems however are not worth their weight in ballast, as RBR proved before the axle weights were mandated, and just add inefficiency to the cars.

Perhaps the way to slay the myth is set the minimum weight to 500kg without the drivers, mandate na V8s and allow any hybrid/KERS system that anyone wishes to add.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I agree on the approach of a less complex formula. A few details to nitpick. Its my understanding that given modern understanding of friction, optimal combustion chamber size, etc. that a 12 cylinder engine would not be the first choice (it would sound lovely however). It would probably be a V8 or V10 solution. Unless a V12 was mandated. Also, given a target displacement, I think a V8 would probably be more compact than a V12. Last, I suspect we will continue with some type of Hybrid (KERS) solution.
Richard

I meant mandating a V12. Sounds muffler might be in order though. I agree a 3.0 V10 would suffice from an output point of view.

Originally Posted by wnut

I can see the point of the V6 Turbos in increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing pollution, the hybrid sytems however are not worth their weight in ballast, as RBR proved before the axle weights were mandated, and just add inefficiency to the cars.
Perhaps the way to slay the myth is set the minimum weight to 500kg without the drivers, mandate na V8s and allow any hybrid/KERS system that anyone wishes to add.

Even turbo's and KERS are not neccesarry in my view. The R&D has long been done, lessons have long been learned and use for the public road will soon evaporate. Forget about relevance, it won't be relevant in five years time.

Focus on: exciting, cheap and acceptable.

[NaBUru38]

The problem isn't really the displacement or the number of cylinders, but the low revs.

[Richard Casto]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

The problem isn't really the displacement or the number of cylinders, but the low revs.

Are you referencing the current specification? I believe they tend to rev lower than the maximum allowed RPM as the maximum efficiency is not achieved at max RPM. The current spec could allow 19K and they would still not rev that high given the specified displacement and maximum fuel flow rate.

Richard

[Adam43]

Yes - it is better to rev low for them. And they still get that power.

[Casper]

As I have said before, why is F1 still using bespoke motors? You want it simplified, put a low maximum weight on the cars, give then a capacity limit and tell them to go at it.

Retreating from the where F1 is now is unpalatable to those who thought up this hybrid nonsense as they would have to admit that everything for the last 6 years has been a huge mistake and huger waste of money that has damaged the sport in more ways than anyone wants to even think about.

[greentrumpet]

Mostly agree. I'd like to see the safety rules maintained along with a budget cap but pretty much complete freedom otherwise to encourage creativity. Perhaps a fuel limit to show some responsibility!

[P38 in workshop]

Seriously guys I don't think you have grasped the fanaticism that opposes the use of internal combustion engines in some very vocal quarters.They are going to be unobtainable for road use quite soon and you seem to believe it will be acceptable to scorch around circuits making lots of noise because you like the sound?We will be very lucky if motorsport still exists in ten years.It isn't a situation I like to contemplate,but how far are you willing to go to keep some form of high level competition?Even NASCAR is mapping a path to hybrid use,as it the BTCC so why should there be a money and hydrocarbon burning exception?