Discussion
Autosport http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83106
I thought about this when they went from 3.0 V10 to 2.4 V8. When they downsized last time it did nothing to slow the cars down. In fact, the 2.4 cars were faster than the 3.0 within a season, despite a 100BHP+ deficit.
Autralia GP fastest lap 2005 1:25.683, 2006 1:26.045
Brazil GP Fastest lap 2005 1:12.162, 2006 1:12.268
My assessment is that the aerodynamisists soon overhaul the loss in power, helped, in no small degree, by the better packaging of a smaller engine. Smaller engine=better packaging=better aero.
Given that the current criticism of F1 and the difficulty overtaking due to the over reliance on aero, is it wise to go smaller still? Is there a significant packaging advantage of the 1.5 Turbo over the 2.4 V8 once inter-coolers ect are fitted?
Why not restrict revs further, not by an electronic limit, but by stipulating a design constraint on the engine, such as a metal coil spring for the closing of valves,, thus limiting RPM to 13-14k rpm.
Got to be cheaper than a complete engine/packaging redesign.
Steve
I thought about this when they went from 3.0 V10 to 2.4 V8. When they downsized last time it did nothing to slow the cars down. In fact, the 2.4 cars were faster than the 3.0 within a season, despite a 100BHP+ deficit.
Autralia GP fastest lap 2005 1:25.683, 2006 1:26.045
Brazil GP Fastest lap 2005 1:12.162, 2006 1:12.268
My assessment is that the aerodynamisists soon overhaul the loss in power, helped, in no small degree, by the better packaging of a smaller engine. Smaller engine=better packaging=better aero.
Given that the current criticism of F1 and the difficulty overtaking due to the over reliance on aero, is it wise to go smaller still? Is there a significant packaging advantage of the 1.5 Turbo over the 2.4 V8 once inter-coolers ect are fitted?
Why not restrict revs further, not by an electronic limit, but by stipulating a design constraint on the engine, such as a metal coil spring for the closing of valves,, thus limiting RPM to 13-14k rpm.
Got to be cheaper than a complete engine/packaging redesign.
Steve
i think the reason this time is not to reduce power but to be seen as more green, and save money.
by using a 1.5l engine it seems slightly more green than a V8. they're not gonna have significantly less power, they reckon 670bhp, that'll be up to 750bhp soon enough and your back to square one.
to help overtaking they're banning double defusers etc
by using a 1.5l engine it seems slightly more green than a V8. they're not gonna have significantly less power, they reckon 670bhp, that'll be up to 750bhp soon enough and your back to square one.
to help overtaking they're banning double defusers etc
Edited by wildman0609 on Friday 23 April 14:06
It doesn't matter in reality about making the engines greener, the planes they charter to fly the cars to one race use more fuel than all the cars during one season. It's all the usual policy, make it sound as if it is saving the planet to please the hanger-on greenies and they go away thinking all's well in the world once more, getting on board their 747 for home.
F1 is about racing cars and high tech and it should stay that way. Engine & gearbox saving is one thing that is hurting the racing (on dry tracks) if they must cut costs they would say 1 sealed race day engine and gearbox for each race, with a pool of 10 other engines/gearboxes for practices & qualifying (these can be rebuilt). No rev limits, no parc ferme conditions after qualifying. Cut practice sessions to 1hr (from the 1.5 it is now) and bring back the Sunday morning 30min warm-up to run in the race engine and allow for any setup changes.
F1 is about racing cars and high tech and it should stay that way. Engine & gearbox saving is one thing that is hurting the racing (on dry tracks) if they must cut costs they would say 1 sealed race day engine and gearbox for each race, with a pool of 10 other engines/gearboxes for practices & qualifying (these can be rebuilt). No rev limits, no parc ferme conditions after qualifying. Cut practice sessions to 1hr (from the 1.5 it is now) and bring back the Sunday morning 30min warm-up to run in the race engine and allow for any setup changes.
The old turbo cars were very low tech by modern standards, you could produce a lot more from them now given the same rules.
The limiting factor on these turbo engines is the fuel in use, with mandated pump fuel you are looking at relatively low power output compared to the rocket fueled engines of old, which produced well in excess of 1000BHP, 1400BHP in qualy trim was suposed to be what Berger saw with the waste gate screwed shut.
Having played with slightly larger production block turbo engines on pump fuel, with 900BHP available from a 2.0litre at fairly sensible rpm and boost, 650BHP sounds about right for a 1.5T F1 engine on pump fuel.
I like the idea of the new engine, it's got some new technology interest which is sadly lacking with the engine freeze currently imposed, packagaing of the cooling will be a real challenge for guys brought up on NA engines, heat management is a big task when you wind these things up to high BHP/Ltr.
The limiting factor on these turbo engines is the fuel in use, with mandated pump fuel you are looking at relatively low power output compared to the rocket fueled engines of old, which produced well in excess of 1000BHP, 1400BHP in qualy trim was suposed to be what Berger saw with the waste gate screwed shut.
Having played with slightly larger production block turbo engines on pump fuel, with 900BHP available from a 2.0litre at fairly sensible rpm and boost, 650BHP sounds about right for a 1.5T F1 engine on pump fuel.
I like the idea of the new engine, it's got some new technology interest which is sadly lacking with the engine freeze currently imposed, packagaing of the cooling will be a real challenge for guys brought up on NA engines, heat management is a big task when you wind these things up to high BHP/Ltr.
AlexS said:
telecat said:
Given the 1'5 turbos of the last era produced over 1000BHP I have high hopes for it!!(even if they try and limit them).
In qually only. In racing trim the last of the line 3ltrs were more powerful.nah, if the engines have:
turbos
turbo compounding (can you do both - I read that they would have this but I think it has been mis-stated and they menated turbo heat recovery instead)
heat recovery (make steam from exhaust gas temperature and drive a piston with that)
direct injection
some kind of KERS
then they would be awesome, very cutting edge, probably have as much power as we do now, would differentiate the teams quite a lot, etc.
basically they talking about massively freeing up a whole section of the regulations.
turbos
turbo compounding (can you do both - I read that they would have this but I think it has been mis-stated and they menated turbo heat recovery instead)
heat recovery (make steam from exhaust gas temperature and drive a piston with that)
direct injection
some kind of KERS
then they would be awesome, very cutting edge, probably have as much power as we do now, would differentiate the teams quite a lot, etc.
basically they talking about massively freeing up a whole section of the regulations.
F1 is more about the chassis development than the engine power, it's been that way for most of F1's history, changing to the new engine formula wont change any of that. To say you may as well badge an F2 car and run that is wide of the mark. The turbo era of old was very exciting in terms of how raw the cars were, but we wont ever see that kind of thing again where rocket fuel was the key to the engines performance. It makes a lot of sense to me to see the formula go down this new route, it has some intresting technical challenges that have been missing for a long time in F1 and could well add another aspect to the cars performance.
Combine this change with a posible change to 18" low profile tyres and you have a major shift technically, going 18" will bring back more importance for suspension design and negate some of the aero eficiencies, because you wont be able to get away with as a big a compromise in mechanical geometries as you do at present with the high profile tyres. It could and should be an interesting era if the rules are well written and allow some design flexibility.
Combine this change with a posible change to 18" low profile tyres and you have a major shift technically, going 18" will bring back more importance for suspension design and negate some of the aero eficiencies, because you wont be able to get away with as a big a compromise in mechanical geometries as you do at present with the high profile tyres. It could and should be an interesting era if the rules are well written and allow some design flexibility.
Isn't another reason for the smaller lighter engine so that they can also run an effective KERS system so twin turbos and KERS. Now what they need to do is allow the teams to run these systems unrestricted and lets see what modern day engineers can do. Or restrict the engine power to say 750bhp and let them go mad with KERS power and put a restriction on the weight of the overall car. That would be worth watching. Take the emphasis off Aerodynamic advantage and back to engineering.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff