New engine regs for 2021
Discussion
Hungrymc said:
When would they have to start development in earnest? 2 or 3 years before introduction?
There was a suggestion that the details of the proposed new engine rules announced this week were deliberately vague in order to stop the big manufacturers from starting development too soon and getting a head start over the smaller manufacturers they hope to attract. I believe the plan is to finalise the rules by the end of next year, to give everyone two full years to develop something for the next era.
aeropilot said:
417 Donovan...?
Can't beat the small of Nitro in the morning
It's 426 Hemi based, in this instance a billet TFX block, early BAE fuel heads and the like, 408 cubic inch so quite small considering (a function of the rule book, a 500ci motor requires more fuel pump volume than what we're permitted). Can't beat the small of Nitro in the morning
Cost cap is a total farce.it's 1000% unenforceable.
How in gods name can the fia or fom expect to police the maddeningly complex array of legal entities and revenue streams, when lotus couldn't even identify the legal owner if the team, a and hmrc can't argue that Bernie isn't in charge of various billions?
At base level, any given contractor could perform very expensive design work and charge the f1 team lots less. That deal would only need a second deal in the shadows in another (non audited) formula, where little work is done for a lot more. This could easily be done by any of the current f1 crop, all of whom have interests in other formulae. Hell, red bull could even account for it with a yacht, or it'sanyne else with watches.
How in gods name can the fia or fom expect to police the maddeningly complex array of legal entities and revenue streams, when lotus couldn't even identify the legal owner if the team, a and hmrc can't argue that Bernie isn't in charge of various billions?
At base level, any given contractor could perform very expensive design work and charge the f1 team lots less. That deal would only need a second deal in the shadows in another (non audited) formula, where little work is done for a lot more. This could easily be done by any of the current f1 crop, all of whom have interests in other formulae. Hell, red bull could even account for it with a yacht, or it'sanyne else with watches.
Gad-Westy said:
I think it's time that F1 ditched any pretense about aligning with roadcar trends.
Major manufacturers don't seem that invested in hybrids other than the odd handful. It's mainly small capacity turbo charged petrol engines and rapidly-falling-out-of-fashion turbo charged diesel engines and by the time these regs come in, most manufacturers will be heading very rapidly towards EV's which, for now at least, has no place in F1. So it seems to me like the automotive industry is in a transition period as we pass from IC engines to EV's.
Relevence to road cars is a red herring, the very nature of the automobile industry will change quite radically in the near future, its likely that kids starting school today wont even sit a driving test and soon after them will be those who consider fire-powered cars you have to drive yourself a wonderous, qaint, bizarre novelty, the same way we might view a mangle or a family sitting around a wireless set.Major manufacturers don't seem that invested in hybrids other than the odd handful. It's mainly small capacity turbo charged petrol engines and rapidly-falling-out-of-fashion turbo charged diesel engines and by the time these regs come in, most manufacturers will be heading very rapidly towards EV's which, for now at least, has no place in F1. So it seems to me like the automotive industry is in a transition period as we pass from IC engines to EV's.
As car makers diversify and the link between sport and the personal transportation devices we use is made obsolete the question F1 and all motorsport needs to consider is how to keep itself entertaining and marketable in this world, it's probable that noisy fire spitting V8's or whatever would be more relevant in this regard. Thats obviously an odd juxtaposition with F1's bleeding-edge-tech image, but then look say at competitive cycling - a completely "obsolete" device yet still a popular sport supported by multi billion ultra high tech industry constantly improving itself with clever equipment and silly costumes.
thegreenhell said:
hairyben said:
cycling - a completely "obsolete" device
Somebody should tell all the bike manufacturers, who collectively produce twice as many of these obsolete devices as the total number of cars produced in the world in a year.hairyben said:
Relevence to road cars is a red herring, the very nature of the automobile industry will change quite radically in the near future, its likely that kids starting school today wont even sit a driving test and soon after them will be those who consider fire-powered cars you have to drive yourself a wonderous, qaint, bizarre novelty, the same way we might view a mangle or a family sitting around a wireless set.
As car makers diversify and the link between sport and the personal transportation devices we use is made obsolete the question F1 and all motorsport needs to consider is how to keep itself entertaining and marketable in this world, it's probable that noisy fire spitting V8's or whatever would be more relevant in this regard. Thats obviously an odd juxtaposition with F1's bleeding-edge-tech image, but then look say at competitive cycling - a completely "obsolete" device yet still a popular sport supported by multi billion ultra high tech industry constantly improving itself with clever equipment and silly costumes.
Good post As car makers diversify and the link between sport and the personal transportation devices we use is made obsolete the question F1 and all motorsport needs to consider is how to keep itself entertaining and marketable in this world, it's probable that noisy fire spitting V8's or whatever would be more relevant in this regard. Thats obviously an odd juxtaposition with F1's bleeding-edge-tech image, but then look say at competitive cycling - a completely "obsolete" device yet still a popular sport supported by multi billion ultra high tech industry constantly improving itself with clever equipment and silly costumes.
Perhaps now is the time that manufacturers should be considering leaving?
Cos I am old, I cannot believe that there will ever be a place for self-driving Ferraris, McLarens, or AMGs. Owning a car in London, or Paris is already a burden and alternatives are plentiful, but personal transport outside of big city’s will remain a necessity for a long time yet.
rdjohn said:
Perhaps now is the time that manufacturers should be considering leaving?
We've a few years and lots of car sales to go yet so I think manufacturers will still get something from F1, its for F1 to decide whether or when it would be better off not being a car manufacturer themed sportrdjohn said:
Cos I am old, I cannot believe that there will ever be a place for self-driving Ferraris, McLarens, or AMGs. Owning a car in London, or Paris is already a burden and alternatives are plentiful, but personal transport outside of big city’s will remain a necessity for a long time yet.
Would be godsend if you own an exotic car rental agy in bradford no?;) Ferrari are making an SUV, they'll include self driving as and when because drunken footballers need conveying too. hairyben said:
Gad-Westy said:
I think it's time that F1 ditched any pretense about aligning with roadcar trends.
Major manufacturers don't seem that invested in hybrids other than the odd handful. It's mainly small capacity turbo charged petrol engines and rapidly-falling-out-of-fashion turbo charged diesel engines and by the time these regs come in, most manufacturers will be heading very rapidly towards EV's which, for now at least, has no place in F1. So it seems to me like the automotive industry is in a transition period as we pass from IC engines to EV's.
Relevence to road cars is a red herring, the very nature of the automobile industry will change quite radically in the near future, its likely that kids starting school today wont even sit a driving test and soon after them will be those who consider fire-powered cars you have to drive yourself a wonderous, qaint, bizarre novelty, the same way we might view a mangle or a family sitting around a wireless set.Major manufacturers don't seem that invested in hybrids other than the odd handful. It's mainly small capacity turbo charged petrol engines and rapidly-falling-out-of-fashion turbo charged diesel engines and by the time these regs come in, most manufacturers will be heading very rapidly towards EV's which, for now at least, has no place in F1. So it seems to me like the automotive industry is in a transition period as we pass from IC engines to EV's.
As car makers diversify and the link between sport and the personal transportation devices we use is made obsolete the question F1 and all motorsport needs to consider is how to keep itself entertaining and marketable in this world, it's probable that noisy fire spitting V8's or whatever would be more relevant in this regard. Thats obviously an odd juxtaposition with F1's bleeding-edge-tech image, but then look say at competitive cycling - a completely "obsolete" device yet still a popular sport supported by multi billion ultra high tech industry constantly improving itself with clever equipment and silly costumes.
One could argue there are plenty of other racing series which cater for the "crude technology but spectacular racing" sort of market.
I think at the moment F1 is just desperate to maintain the interest of the mayor car manufacturers. If they went to non-hybrid N/A engines I can't see any of the current engine manufacturers with the possible exception of Ferrari, hanging around so we'd probably end up with spec engines. That for me would largely negate the point of the sport.
I think at the moment F1 is just desperate to maintain the interest of the mayor car manufacturers. If they went to non-hybrid N/A engines I can't see any of the current engine manufacturers with the possible exception of Ferrari, hanging around so we'd probably end up with spec engines. That for me would largely negate the point of the sport.
CraigyMc said:
robinessex said:
A NA 5ltr engine isn't that expensive to produce. Works on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Given a 5l swept volume and running the same fuel rules as now, that'd be circa 1650bhp from the likes of Ilmor, Cosworth et al.robinessex said:
CraigyMc said:
robinessex said:
A NA 5ltr engine isn't that expensive to produce. Works on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Given a 5l swept volume and running the same fuel rules as now, that'd be circa 1650bhp from the likes of Ilmor, Cosworth et al.Megaflow said:
robinessex said:
CraigyMc said:
robinessex said:
A NA 5ltr engine isn't that expensive to produce. Works on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Given a 5l swept volume and running the same fuel rules as now, that'd be circa 1650bhp from the likes of Ilmor, Cosworth et al.robinessex said:
CraigyMc said:
robinessex said:
A NA 5ltr engine isn't that expensive to produce. Works on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Given a 5l swept volume and running the same fuel rules as now, that'd be circa 1650bhp from the likes of Ilmor, Cosworth et al.It's not alone - the BMW P83 was making similar specific output numbers in 2003 (V10).
I propose that the remainder would be made up for with the technology that has evolved over the 13 years since that was being developed: lighter, stronger pistons, higher revs, lower friction surfaces, CFD+FEA of the structures and flows.
The reason why revlimits were imposed on F1 in 2007 was that the big engine manufacturers already had designs on the go for 21,000rpm and 22,000rpm engines, which were getting to the "this is silly, these are as disposable as a packet of crisps" levels of manufacturing, and the costs associated with it were totally out of hand.
This led to the strangling of the V8s for 2007 - first with a 19K rpm limit, then latterly the introduction of an 18K limit and subsequent requirements for the motors to be used for more than one event, FIA-dictated maximum bore size (which essentially dictated stroke and consequently mean piston speed) etc.
Put it another way: given that 315bhp/l NA engines raced in 2006, why do you think 330bhp/l isn't realistic with modern development processes?
HustleRussell said:
Megaflow said:
robinessex said:
CraigyMc said:
robinessex said:
A NA 5ltr engine isn't that expensive to produce. Works on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Given a 5l swept volume and running the same fuel rules as now, that'd be circa 1650bhp from the likes of Ilmor, Cosworth et al.I should explain that when I said "same fuel rules as now", I was talking about avoiding running witches brew type fuels (toluene/etc) that were common in the 80s, rather than talking about the current fuel rate limit.
It's a fair point though. Fuel rate limiting completely strangles engines, in a similar, but opposite way to an airflow restriction plate does in various formulas.
It'd be interesting to see what F1 would look like with 28g/s of fuel for 5 litre V8s. They'd not look or sound like "normal" V8s as we generally know them, that's for sure. I suspect they'd be similar to diesel engines (because we're running unlimited airflow, and limited fuel, which is the description of a diesel engine..)
I think perhaps what was mooted would be more sensibly explained as a spec-engine, which would of course make all the motor companies very unhappy, and would lead to ferrari-branded toys all over the floor.
robinessex said:
CraigyMc said:
robinessex said:
A NA 5ltr engine isn't that expensive to produce. Works on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Given a 5l swept volume and running the same fuel rules as now, that'd be circa 1650bhp from the likes of Ilmor, Cosworth et al.An interview with Rob White, who was in charge of the 2006/2007 Renault F1 motors, talking about the last of the V8s.
He still works for Renault to date (albeit the sign on the door has changed several times). His history is Cosworth, then Renault, both for more than a decade on F1 motors.
Doing some basic maths, I take this to meant that in his opinion, had the revlimits not come in, by 2013 the F1 motors would have been making circa 340bhp/l. This assumes a sensible take that the field were at circa 740bhp before the 2007 limits came in - several of the manufacturers have stated those types of numbers since. By 2013. The 2018 motors are already on test benches..
Rob White in 2013 said:
Without the rev limit we would have continued to pursue greater rpm until we became limited by the physics of the combustion process and diminishing returns due to increased friction with increasing rotational speed.
Without any other new regulatory constraint, I imagine we would have reached over 22,000 rpm by now and would have found a further 75 horsepower (ie +10%), equivalent to a lap time gain of around 1.5 sec at Monza.
Without doing the development work, it is difficult to judge the level at which engine performance would have converged at the limit of the technical regulations.
The same effects that have been pursued in the frozen era (exhausts, mapping etc) would have been of interest, but the priorities may have been different.”
Without any other new regulatory constraint, I imagine we would have reached over 22,000 rpm by now and would have found a further 75 horsepower (ie +10%), equivalent to a lap time gain of around 1.5 sec at Monza.
Without doing the development work, it is difficult to judge the level at which engine performance would have converged at the limit of the technical regulations.
The same effects that have been pursued in the frozen era (exhausts, mapping etc) would have been of interest, but the priorities may have been different.”
Cosworth in 2006 said:
According to a report in this week's Autosport, Cosworth ran its new CA-2006 V8 engine to a new rev record during testing with Williams at the recent Barcelona test - and it has now set its sights on reaching 21,000rpm before the end of next season.
It's worth noting that Cosworth built the CA2006 to have a bore/stroke that allowed sensible mean piston speeds even when the motor was turning over at 20,000rpm.The geometry was such that 22,000 rpm would still have been sensible in that regard.
The limiting factor was piston strength, and (especially) piston weight given the materials restrictions in place.
Links:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/48627/cosworth-b...
CraigyMc said:
I think perhaps what was mooted would be more sensibly explained as a spec-engine, which would of course make all the motor companies very unhappy, and would lead to ferrari-branded toys all over the floor.
Though of course the race teams, as distinct from the manufacturer teams, would probably welcome a supply of relatively cheap engines giving a level playing field as far as power is concerned. Almost like a return to the mid-70s when everyone except Ferrari ( and occasionally Matra/BRM/Techno/Alfa ) had a DFV bolted to the back of their chassis, and so many teams could afford to enter they had to do pre-qualifying !Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff