Engine rules: Alternatives?

[Adam43]

http://www.autosport-atlas.com/news.aspx?id=46148&s=5

According to Autosport Norbert Haug has suggested alternatives for F1 engines of the future. Perhaps the way forward isn't to reduce capacity, but to increase it and have other limits (e.g rev limits)?

So how would you do it? Start from the premise that you must have limitations on engines and they have to be broadly what they are aiming at with the new V8 formula (say 700-800bhp). What limitations would you have?

Do we need lots of torque, or do we want want small engine with high revs?

What other ways are there to limit the engines other than capacity? Chose your engine size and configuration and how you would limit it.

Please open another thread if you wish to discuss other aspects of Haug's words or the actual new engine rules.

[shiny side up!]

I'm not a subscriber, so have no idea what Haug had to say

But I don't like rpm restrictions, that seems very artificial to me. Why? I'm not sure! But really, rpm limits don't really have a translation to production cars. They spin as many rpm as they reliably can given the design constraints their engineers are under. The same thing goes for air intake restrictors. They really don't have a translation to the production world.

Displacement just makes sense to me. It is a very simple to regulate displacement. Displacement could also be used to free up the rules more than they are now... want to turbocharge? OK with the FIA, but you only get 1.6 litres. Supercharge? Well, FIA says 1.75. NA? 2.5. Limiting induction methods, number of cylinders, engine block geometries, etc, could all be eliminated by using solely displacement (and maybe material composition) regulations.

The FIA can even have its precious standard ECU to eliminate the possibility of TC, but please don't put rev limits on the engines... let the engineers and laws of physics take care of that, subject to the material composition rules.

[Peter Mallett]

Frankly Adam whilst I admire your enthusiasm, the fact is that F1 is based on a set of parameters. The fact that those parameters are selected by an unknowing or being charitable, a wildly speculative bunch of misbegotten nincompoops, has absolutley no bearing on the matter. So why ask us to propose something that plainly is so far left field of F1 we can't even comment? Slapped wrist for being off topic!!!

BTW. No good going for torque because the circuits are designed for max revs at max power. Its why an F1 engine won't tow a caravan.

[Kicking-back]

A big, lazy engine like a 4l V8 as used in GP2 will always offer unstressed power and can go for ages between rebuilds.

So, use the GP2 engine spec, but with a slightly higher RPM limit.

[Peter Mallett]

Ah,

Formula 5000 then? (Poetic licence I should have said "4000").

[johnh875]

Why not rpm limits? Shiny – there are no displacement limits in production cars either… Not that I am actually advocating rpm limits, I prefer as few limitations as possible for F1.

However, after listening to the video of the new Cosworth V8, I would prefer something that will produce max revs of ~14k – at 18-20k rpm the engine is nothing but a blaring shriek whereas below 14k it actually sounded like an engine.

How? Large enough capacity, and material limitations so that there will be sufficient reciprocating mass to discourage higher revs. Maybe a limit on the number of gear ratios so a wider power band is needed?

[deeks6]

3 litre Ford DFV?

Just kidding ... but how about something that must be started inside the car with NO outside assistance, computers, fans etc

[Rubinho]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Its why an F1 engine won't tow a caravan.

It would if you geared it right.

[shiny side up!]

Originally Posted by johnh875

Why not rpm limits? Shiny – there are no displacement limits in production cars either…

Quite true, there aren't any (or many) laws or regulations governing displacement! But there is a consumer marketplace that places demands on the auto industry. The market generally doesn't care about the amount of intake air, nor the amount of rpm so long as it doesn't make them deaf or shake them to death, nor about what the engine internals are made of so long as they can afford to buy the car. But by far and away (at least here in the backwards USA) the primary functional characteristic that the average consumer looks at closest in regards to the engine is the fuel efficiency. And while fuel efficiency is not completely dictated by displacement, it is certainly one of the larger factors in the equation. There aren't many 4L compact cars running around.

[BSchneiderFan]

I'm becoming more and more keen on the old Group C idea - here's your fuel, do what you like with the engine. But that's all the fuel you're getting.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by deeks6

3 litre Ford DFV?

Just kidding ... but how about something that must be started inside the car with NO outside assistance, computers, fans etc

That comes in for 2008 i think.

[Pingguest]

I would only restrict the engine capacity to 1500cc for turbo-engines and 4000cc for normal aspirated. With a ban on refuelling, the power of the engines could be controled. This could also be accomplished by introducing a standard ECU, and so a ban on traction control.

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

I'm becoming more and more keen on the old Group C idea - here's your fuel, do what you like with the engine. But that's all the fuel you're getting.

I have to say, there is something rather appealing about that.

[Raglanparade]

I like that idea as well.

Give each car 200 litres of fuel for the race weekend, or 100 litres for the race, and then see what they do.

Allow Naturally Aspirated engines of any size to compete. Id love to see a big 4 litre engine in one f1 car, and another team run a highly strung 2 litre engine.

I dunno how turbos could fit in though.

Originally Posted by Dutton

I have to say, there is something rather appealing about that.

[Gt_R]

Quote: "I'm becoming more and more keen on the old Group C idea - here's your fuel, do what you like with the engine. But that's all the fuel you're getting."

You're talking about Fuel-limit?

I've been thinking about that too, and i thought it is far better than placing any rev restrictions etc.

Allow anything up to V10 and 4 litres...no turbos...hence, with just a rough guideline and loosen the limitations to engines, let manufacturers make the engine they deem fit. But the consumption and amount of fuel is kept limited. it would directly benefit them when it comes to engineering road car engines

[TomS]

Fuel limit would be a fantastic idea...esp how at the moment people are worrying more and more about their mpg etc. So maybe ban refuelling completely and say a fuel tank can only be x litres or allow refuelling but only allow x litres to be used during a race so that strategy can still come into it. So not only would this be good PR for the companies but would also allow the FIA to control engine power and so speed of the cars. Personally i think there are better ways to slow down the cars but if thats how they want to slow them down then fair enough!

Also why dont the FIA limit the number of engines the teams can use in a year during race weekends. Something similar to what the BTCC used to have however more engines. If there were 19 races then say each driver could use 22/23 engines for the championship. This would mean that teams wont be for ever running with rev limits etc and also drivers wouldn't be thrown to the back possibly spoiling the championship (Raikkonen) while still controlling the number of engines used

[Pingguest]

I don't really see the benefit of a fuel restriction. If refuelling during the race would be banned, other fuel restriction won't be necessary.

[Dutton]

Well, there is a difference. The teams can use different sizes of fuel tanks, hence more fuel and so on than other teams. They wouldn't necessarily have to limit their designs to a specific amount of fuel, they could take the wieght penalty if theythought it payed off in performance.

With a limit on the actual amount of fuel itself, it sets a specific parameter that all the teams have to work within.

Although, in some ways, the two tings overlap and have a somewhat similar effect there is a distinct difference.

[Marbot]

I have to say that i would be in favour of an engine that was maybe too powerful for the drivers to use at full throttle for the majority of a lap.So a larger,more powerful,3.5-4 litre engine (V12s ) would be about right,with perhaps 150 bhp available on a boost button as and when required.With an engine that has more than enough power,a driver (if he's brave enough) can use this to make up for other car defficiencies.Remember,the throttle works both ways.

[jb59892]

Why not do what they do in the Cart series in the US:

1. Use turbos with pop off valves so the engine power can be limited
2. Impose a restirction in that all the cars must be able to run at a specified minimum mpg figure

That way you have specified (and very public) limiting factors but still allow manufacturers to play with the engines, max rev's, torque, etc....