The Official F1 2021 silly season *contains speculation*
Discussion
jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Agree.A challenge will be matching what's best for F1 versus the manufacturers. I think F1 would work best with a spec hybrid bolt on, meaning new entrants would develop an ICE without the associated cost and risk of the rest. For the manufacturers, I'm not sure that works, as they'll want to use F1 to prove their electrical prowess. Suppose it might be that the public at large doesn't know or care enough to distinguish and manufactures get the benefit all the same.
jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Common sense and cost wise surely it makes the most sense to go this way with them already having V6 engines. But when it comes to F1 rule making common sense is rarely something that comes into it. jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Less overall efficiency if the heat energy isn't recaptured though. Which ultimately will either give a power reduction, or increase in fuel usage.Personally I agree and think it's a modest and we'll worthwhile trade off - but I expect the sport won't want to be seen to take any form of backwards step.
TheDeuce said:
jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Less overall efficiency if the heat energy isn't recaptured though. Which ultimately will either give a power reduction, or increase in fuel usage.Personally I agree and think it's a modest and we'll worthwhile trade off - but I expect the sport won't want to be seen to take any form of backwards step.
DanielSan said:
jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Common sense and cost wise surely it makes the most sense to go this way with them already having V6 engines. But when it comes to F1 rule making common sense is rarely something that comes into it. I'm aware that we won't be going back to how impressive the cars used to sound, but if they could at least sound like they are enthusiastic, rather than the current muffled drone, that would be great news.
Sandpit Steve said:
If you’re going to dump the heat recapture, you’re going to have to allow more kinetic recapture to make up for it. Maybe allow a bigger capacity battery too, but not any more weight to encourage experimental battery tech.
I'd up the capacity to 2.5 litre with 10:1 mandated compression ratio max, twin turbo, single standard spec spark plug, keep the same size battery and add refuelling. Cheap and spectacular.Sandpit Steve said:
TheDeuce said:
jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Less overall efficiency if the heat energy isn't recaptured though. Which ultimately will either give a power reduction, or increase in fuel usage.Personally I agree and think it's a modest and we'll worthwhile trade off - but I expect the sport won't want to be seen to take any form of backwards step.
The skills and expertise are specialist ones. A well thought through formula ought to allow a business model in which such engines or power plants are built and sold at a profit without a near bottomless marketing budget propping it up.
Get Cowell and Cosworth round the table.
TheDeuce said:
jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Less overall efficiency if the heat energy isn't recaptured though. Which ultimately will either give a power reduction, or increase in fuel usage.Personally I agree and think it's a modest and we'll worthwhile trade off - but I expect the sport won't want to be seen to take any form of backwards step.
thegreenhell said:
TheDeuce said:
jsf said:
If they have any sense they will ditch the whole road relevant tech spiel and go for a low cost simple v6 turbo running on synthetic fuel. Keep the battery tech but dump the heat energy recovery.
Less overall efficiency if the heat energy isn't recaptured though. Which ultimately will either give a power reduction, or increase in fuel usage.Personally I agree and think it's a modest and we'll worthwhile trade off - but I expect the sport won't want to be seen to take any form of backwards step.
Leithen said:
Honda should be the wake up call. Regardless of the fudge to allow Red Bull continuing to use existing power plants, whatever is next needs to be attractive to not just car manufacturers and their budgets, but specialist engine manufacturers too.
The skills and expertise are specialist ones. A well thought through formula ought to allow a business model in which such engines or power plants are built and sold at a profit without a near bottomless marketing budget propping it up.
Get Cowell and Cosworth round the table.
Yes, agree completely. F1 overdid themselves with the complexity of these units, and Honda is the result - they never really could make it work, despite ridiculous amounts of cash poured into the project. Renault look not far behind them too. There needs to be a competitive budget option from someone like Cosworth. The skills and expertise are specialist ones. A well thought through formula ought to allow a business model in which such engines or power plants are built and sold at a profit without a near bottomless marketing budget propping it up.
Get Cowell and Cosworth round the table.
Between Andy Cowell, Ross Brawn and the interested parties, it shouldn’t be rocket science to come up with a plan.
The other wake up call for F1 management were the old V10 demo runs last year, that literally stopped the paddock in their tracks. As others have said, these old engines are nowhere near as efficient as the modern stuff, but generated a visceral reaction from the fans. Count me in as a fully paid-up member of the ear defenders appreciation society!
vaud said:
I'll rephrase - by how much can energy density increase for a synthetic fuel without the addition of riskier (to health) exotic chemicals?
You will probably find they will mandate a similar spec to current pump fuel so they have a product similar to that used in road cars that switch to synthetic fuels.Sandpit Steve said:
Yes, agree completely. F1 overdid themselves with the complexity of these units, and Honda is the result - they never really could make it work
Wouldn't be surprised if Honda did their usual trick of announcing they're leaving the sport just as they've produced something amazing. This year's engine is new, is it not? What's the bets it's a barnstormer?jsf said:
Sandpit Steve said:
If you’re going to dump the heat recapture, you’re going to have to allow more kinetic recapture to make up for it. Maybe allow a bigger capacity battery too, but not any more weight to encourage experimental battery tech.
I'd up the capacity to 2.5 litre with 10:1 mandated compression ratio max, twin turbo, single standard spec spark plug, keep the same size battery and add refuelling. Cheap and spectacular.BrettMRC said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Wouldn't be surprised if Honda did their usual trick of announcing they're leaving the sport just as they've produced something amazing. This year's engine is new, is it not? What's the bets it's a barnstormer?
Probably about right! 
They'd certainly have had a much better year than 2008 though even if they didn't win the title.
I know you weren't making a particularly serious point, I just thought Nick's view was a relevant point of interest.
Personally, Honda pulling out suddenly is really just par for the course for them and to me is more a reflection of their historic relationship with Formula 1 than a statement about the current engines (though I too agree they are too complex and expensive).
kiseca said:
I know what you're saying, but in Nick Fry's book he says he doesn't believe they would have won the 2009 championship with the Honda engine. The Merc engine was much more driveable and was one of the key factors in Brawn's success that year, even with the last minute shuffle to shoehorn the new engine in to the car and the higher rear CoG (or maybe it was roll centre) they ended up with.
They'd certainly have had a much better year than 2008 though even if they didn't win the title.
I know you weren't making a particularly serious point, I just thought Nick's view was a relevant point of interest.
Personally, Honda pulling out suddenly is really just par for the course for them and to me is more a reflection of their historic relationship with Formula 1 than a statement about the current engines (though I too agree they are too complex and expensive).
If Red Bull did win the title this year it wouldn't be a shock if they suddenly did a U turn on leaving the sport. They'd certainly have had a much better year than 2008 though even if they didn't win the title.
I know you weren't making a particularly serious point, I just thought Nick's view was a relevant point of interest.
Personally, Honda pulling out suddenly is really just par for the course for them and to me is more a reflection of their historic relationship with Formula 1 than a statement about the current engines (though I too agree they are too complex and expensive).
MissChief said:
I struggle to see where this love for refueling and the want for it back comes from? Refueling leads to boring racing with little to no on track passing. 'Don't try to pass Daniel, we know he's short fueled from his last stop, he'll have to pit in a lap or two' & 'Kimi we're going to short fuel you for track position at the next stop, we reckon we can jump both Williams as we think they're going long when they stop', and bingo, no passing on track. Refuelling is AWFUL for on track racing, never mind on track passing and it shouldn't come back to F1 at all. Ever.
I don't disagree with much of what you say regards refuelling other than it did add a different dimension to strategy that we simply do not have now. Most go the same way on tyres and number of stops. Refuelling may well have led to less passing but I think its worth remembering that the majority of passing in F1 these days is somewhat falsified by DRS anyway. How much passing would we have if DRS wasn't there? Significantly less I would imagine, but I would rather have no DRS and less passing than the fake racing that Crofty still wets his knickers for. One non DRS assisted pass is worth 20 DRS assisted ones in my eyes.
Refuelling allowed team to pass at pit stops because the cars just cant follow (hence DRS). It is the aero that is the problem. Refuelling just provided strategists with another way to gain places. Following closely should be less of an issue with the new aero regs coming soon. Hopefully then it would be possible to have both refuelling and raceable cars.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff