What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[mx_tifoso]

I don't want to sound rude but this subject has been covered many many times before and in many different threads.

F1 has to keep up appearances as much as it does it's technology, although the latter can be argued.

The current trend is going 'green', F1 has to at least appear to be doing so, even if doesn't really affect road cars.

The series has to be marketed in such a way that it appeals to the consumers, manufacturers, and sponsors.

[Edis]

personally, i don't see any thing wrong with the current engines. they seem to be reliable and pretty powerful.

I don't either, but the world is heading towards increasing efficiency in every aspect. The current package does not satisfy that trend as there is too much energy being wasted. And the current output levels could be accomplished with less displacement and cylinder count, but with turbocharging, which itself would help in recovering energy that would otherwise be wasted (exhaust gases).

But honestly the cars are only being run for 6 hours 17 times a year, theres much more things in the world producing carbon dioxide, maybe flywheel electric motor systems (kers) could be away to go, but only if the FIA made it mandatory.

Don't make things mandatory and the technologies that are competitive will be developed without FIA ever needing to bother. After all, McLaren was running KERS in F1 around ten years ago, but then the FIA soon moved to ban it.

Many years later they devised a strict regulation regarding the use of KERS that was quite unsuccessful.

It's also important to be in touch with what is happening in the car industry, and to offer an environment where the sport and sponsors can viewed as environmentally resposible. That is usually good for the other type of green.

[autogyro]

I am not sure if I agree Edis.
Surely development is restricted even if general regulations are opened up, so long as fuel type and amount allowed meets current ic potential.
Incentive created by energy limits is the only way to ensure new ideas.

Potential ic power and DF have long ago been restricted to lower levels.
There is little if any interesting development left for pure power or energy creation in the vehicles that has not alresdy been done.

It is time to change the development direction to energy saving by making better use of it. To make this happen there has to be sensible regulation.

[Paul Kirk]

I reckon the fuel should be Methanol or Ethanol, (renuable energy), available at the race track, (no fancy fuel rigs and transportation costs), and limited to a certain amount for the race, and let the engine builders build whatever engine they want as long as it stil has pistons, (no rotarys or turbines or KERS). That would encourage developement of fuel eficient engines and not rely on oil based fuels, (emisions and oil usage). Then we would have heaps of variety. Have one transmission suplier and specify a certain maximum number of engines and transmissions per season, and of course a minimum weight at the end of the races including driver. Also seriously reduce the size of the wings but alow any developement of ground efects, (this will allow slipstreaming and passing), standardised electronics, no adjustability of anythting by telemetry, only by humans in the pits and limited adjustments by the driver as is currantly the case. I could go on and on but enough is enough!
PK. (NZ).

[riff_raff]

Paul Kirk,

F1 racing is, and always has been, a racing formula heavily dependent upon technology. That's what separates it from all other forms of auto racing. F1 doesn't need more restrictive technical regulations. What it needs are regulations that allow race teams with limited budgets, but also some very clever engineers, to be free to design a car and drivetrain that is competitive.

For example, with propulsion, there should be no limit on what type of engine or fuel may be used as long as it is readily available to all and safe. The only rule would be that the total energy content of the fuel allotment for a race must be equal for all cars.

Rules like this would stimulate lots of creativity among the various teams and would naturally promote efficiency.

riff_raff

ps. currently, methanol is not really a "renewable" fuel. Most methanol is produced from natural gas, since that is by far the most economical method.

[autogyro]

The regs have to encourage a reduction in energy needs to achieve a performance level, rather than continuing to increase power output at the expense of everything else. IMO aero is a technology with little if any usable direction, just re-hashing the same ideas yet again. It wastes far to much money.

I am trying to motivate the FIA into bringing in official electric formula.
I believe this will address the need to bring in 'green' technology and add to the technology drive in these new disciplines.

F1 cannot make a huge leap into this area in the short term but if there are established electric and alternate racing formula the change will become possible and acceptable.
It is inevitable.

[Pandamasque]

For example, with propulsion, there should be no limit on what type of engine or fuel may be used as long as it is readily available to all and safe. The only rule would be that the total energy content of the fuel allotment for a race must be equal for all cars.

Rules like this would stimulate lots of creativity among the various teams and would naturally promote efficiency.

+1. But I don't believe budget limiting is possible in the world where you can't effectively ban friggin wheel rims or shark grills on the sidepods That will only bring 'financial creativity', while smaller teams will remain behind.

F1 cannot make a huge leap into this area in the short term but if there are established electric and alternate racing formula the change will become possible and acceptable.
It is inevitable.

Just like death. But not many are looking forward to it.

[autogyro]

Some are actively preventing proper change Panda. FOTA for instance.
This is why racing in 2010 will just be a train, with hardly any overtaking.
You can blame Montezemolo for this.
It will not be until KERS and sensible aero restrictions come back that proper racing will return.

[WhiteBlue]

Paul Kirk,

F1 racing is, and always has been, a racing formula heavily dependent upon technology. That's what separates it from all other forms of auto racing. F1 doesn't need more restrictive technical regulations. What it needs are regulations that allow race teams with limited budgets, but also some very clever engineers, to be free to design a car and drivetrain that is competitive.

For example, with propulsion, there should be no limit on what type of engine or fuel may be used as long as it is readily available to all and safe. The only rule would be that the total energy content of the fuel allotment for a race must be equal for all cars.

Rules like this would stimulate lots of creativity among the various teams and would naturally promote efficiency.

riff_raff

ps. currently, methanol is not really a "renewable" fuel. Most methanol is produced from natural gas, since that is by far the most economical method.

Some good ideas, but it does not take the lessons of the manufacturer dominated sport into account. We would end up with a race between Ferrari and Mercedes who are able and prepared to invest huge amounts of money into competitive engine development if it coincides with their road car needs. In the past we have seen that 200 - 300 mil $ per manufacturer are available in good times. The budget could be even higher if the R&D goals are 100% identical with the road car divisions. Merc could be easily spending 1 bil $. Other teams could not nearly compete with those budgets and would be very quickly left behind.

To allow high freedom of design in power train with the competition on energy saving there must be more competing manufacturers and an obligation to supply the rest of the grid with engines at a fixed price near manufacturing cost. Unless you force the manufacturers to supply the grid with something that is close to the competitive level (one spec back perhaps) and absorb the cost of R&D on their own you will kill off the other teams.

Same situation for an engine supplier as Cosworth. They cannot get R&D budget from a road car division. Very soon they would not be competitive and go bust like in 2006. Those things have to be considered.

[autogyro]

Development of KERS was going to be allowed outside the team budgets.
Because this has a direct effect and application on road vehicles, it would be the perfect avenue for road vehicle manufacturers to become involved with F1 and gain the promotional benefits without having to invest in and run teams.
Scared Ferrari to death didnt it.

[flynfrog]

Development of KERS was going to be allowed outside the team budgets.
Because this has a direct effect and application on road vehicles, it would be the perfect avenue for road vehicle manufacturers to become involved with F1 and gain the promotional benefits without having to invest in and run teams.
Scared Ferrari to death didnt it.

kers would only result in the cars that have it being able to overtake the new Mosley back markers easier. It was nothing but a money black hole. the real problem here is the ban on refueling I think any sensible person can see this.

[Ciro Pabón]

I erased some posts, sorry. Please, girls, be nice to each other. Giggling is ok, yelling is not.

[riff_raff]

How soon F1 fans forget.

Cosworth in the mid 1960's was a tiny engine company with no money and a pair of clever, ambitious engine designers. With less than $100K and six months, these nobodies produced an F1 race engine that went on to dominate F1 for over a decade.

The point is that the rules should be written to allow small teams with limited budgets, but also with very ambitious and clever designers, to have the freedom to try out their ideas. The rules should limit innovation where it doesn't provide much "bang-for-the-buck" with regards to the quality of racing, but in other areas it should be more open. Because the more specific the rules, the more big buck teams will benefit. Since optimizing a tightly regulated engine or aero package is ultimately more costly than allowing a more open set of technical regulations.

As I noted, a formula that allows any engine size or type with any fuel, as long as the energy content of the fuels are all equalized, would be fantastic. Remember the low-revving, big displacement Mercedes Group C car that Schumacher drove to victory at LeMans? Or the very low revving turbo-diesel that Audi has dominated endurance racing with for the past few years?

Fun stuff! F1 needs more of this, not less.

[WhiteBlue]

Without much further ado the Bahrain WMSC session finalised the the Global Race Engine plan for WRC use in 2011. F1 didn't pay much attention to this but I guess it will when the discussions about the 2013 engine regs will become hotter. Drive train specs have to be set 48-54 months ahead of the season they are introduced, because the engine manufacturers don't have development resources and budgets to do it in less time. So lets have a look at what the rally world has decided:

Global Race Engine specifications for WRC

• Four cylinder in line 1,6 L turbo engine
• Audi, BMW, Citroën, Chevrolet, Ford, Mitsubishi, Renault, Seat, Skoda, Subaru, Renault, Volvo and VW agreed
• smaller air restrictor than current
• direct fuel injection
• throttle diameter max. 50 mm
• ban of exotic materials like beryllium and magnesium
• no variable valve drives
• min weight 82 kg (without inertial fly wheel, intake, outlets, electric generator)
• min crank shaft weight 12 kg
• min fly wheel weight 3 kg
• min connecting rod weight 450 g
• min piston weight 400 g
• min piston center distance 92.9 mm
• mandatory cylinder diameter 84 mm
• max intake valve diameter 35 mm
• max outlet valve diameter 31 mm

I have highlighted the items in bold which would probably be mandatory for F1 if they agree to the GRE concept.

[Pandamasque]

WRC is already dead. As the WTCC. It's hard to make it even worse. F1 is next.

Do the big wigs realize that in every survey the fans scream of wanting the opposite? My fecking computer fan makes a variety of noises more exciting than any 1.6 4-pot can make. Who is going to watch a boring semi-spec series with ugly cars powered with boring spec. VW vs. Cosworth engines parading around the dullest circuits in the world? A so called pinnacle of motorsport will look far less exciting than Formula Ford.