What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[alelanza]

Everything i reaaaally like doesn't fit too well with that engine. F1, aussie v8s, nascar, top fuel (as of late ). I do watch wrc for the nice scenery and acrobatics, but it never really caught up to me. So with my personal preferrences out of the way, and being this is F1 technical, what would such an engine bring to F1? technically speaking. And i don't mean cost saving either, just technically what would it accomplish over current NAs?

[WhiteBlue]

In the eighties we had 1,5 L turbos and the BMW engine also was a 4 pot. It was pumping out close to 1500 hp in quali trim. The racing was considered classic in that time.

This time round power would probably be lower due to longevity demands and additional power being available from HERS and KERS. Total power should probably be slightly above 700 hp that we have today and primary ICE power near 500 hp. The main point of interest should be freedom of design for HERS and KERS in order to push efficiency higher.

HERS should be done by secondary heat/power conversion units that would work on the exhaust gases and engine cooling fluid. KERS should be unrestricted in application of all wheels, power level and energy storage. Perhaps the recovered energy from the front will be restricted to rear wheel feed back, but we can't know this.

Certainly such systems would aim at fuel efficiencies beyond 50% and at reducing total race fuel levels from 150-160 kg down to something like 100 kg or less. Applicability of HERS and KERS would be immediately given to the next road car generation, which would lure more manufacturers back into F1.

Compared to current V8 ICEs F1 would go back to being at the cutting edge of the power train development. F1 engines would be almost 1:1 be found in other racing categories which will facilitate the entry of manufacturers with touring or rally programs to F1.

We do know that VW and Aston Martin are keen to do F1 and several other engine makers could be interested. Ferrari have expressed a desire to seriously adopt regenerative technologies, but it rests to be seen if they are prepared to agree to the next formula. Renault, Cosworth and Merc should be logical candidates and I would not be surprised to find Honda back in F1 as a power train supplier. So the aim should be having seven or eight engine manufacturers competing in the power train business which would include HERS and KERS.

The conditions obviously must be tweaked in such a way that power train becomes the main field of competitive advantage and that long term most teams will have an exclusive power train maker. So having 13 manufacturers would be the ideal solution.

[Pandamasque]

So having 13 manufacturers would be the ideal solution.

VW, Seat, Skoda, Renault, Nissan, Infinity, Dacia, Lada, Cosworth, Toyota, Lexus and probably a few new brands. Who cares? It's the same engine anyway. Oh and USF1 will surely be back. We're talking about toaster racing after all.

And don't mention the BMW 1500hp engines if the 80-s. Those were just one of the solutions that different manufacturers came up with pushing the outside of the envelope. This time it's more like pushing the limits of how cheap a product can they possibly sell to the audience.

[alelanza]

I think I didn't ask the right question. I should have asked, what is to be gained by putting in a turbo? technically speaking. And i don't mean the workings behind a turbo, i know the basics.

[mx_tifoso]

I think I didn't ask the right question. I should have asked, what is to be gained by putting in a turbo? technically speaking. And i don't mean the workings behind a turbo, i know the basics.

Less displacement with turbo...

• Getting more/same from less.
• More fuel efficient.
• Lighter, more compact.

[machin]

Plus, if it were say a 2litre turbo, because it relies on higher torque and less revs to get the same sort of power (if not less if HERS & KERS made up the deficiet) it would last longer too (less stress on moving parts), so you could have fewer engines per year (without the need to increase component weight).

[WhiteBlue]

I think I didn't ask the right question. I should have asked, what is to be gained by putting in a turbo? technically speaking. And i don't mean the workings behind a turbo, i know the basics.

All the high efficiency engines nowadays are turbo engines. The efficiency benefits from higher compression and the turbo
takes additional motion energy out of the exhaust which otherwise would go to waste.

Modern turbos are also often multi stage to adjust better to the prevalent conditions. With the advances of the turbo diesel engines we also got high pressure direct precision injection technologies. You can compress the air without fuel and inject the fuel later. Engineers can play with all kinds of systems based on such technologies. You can do multi stage combustion or use multi fuel technologies with oil and different gases (like diesel and natural gas).

[autogyro]

Compression ignition wankel rotary with a turbo-generator and super chips on the exhaust for direct heat to electrical exchange, running on bio fuel.
KERS/ESERU system with part time electric only 4WD to front axle to improve traction and mechanical corner handling and spread the electric power delivery.
Electrical storage- a combination of flywheel and batteries.

[machin]

.... Turbos received a bad image in the 1980's when consumers didn't maintain them properly, and in their infancy they could result in poor throttle response, but now with modern technologies (variable-vane, sequencing, etc) the throttle response issue can be overcome.

When you learn all the advantages of fitting a turbo to an engine you start to consider an engine without one as only being half an engine! NA is a thing of the past...

[010010011010]

Heres a completely untechnical reason for me prefering NA over turbo's:
Turbos sound crap

Also F1 really woulnt be the pinnacle of motorsport considering any spanner with 10k can turn up the boost on his skyline/supera and get 1000+hp

At least with NA you have to have emense knowladge to get the power
With turbos you just have to know how not to let your engine destroy itself

[Edis]

Heres a completely untechnical reason for me prefering NA over turbo's:
Turbos sound crap

Also F1 really woulnt be the pinnacle of motorsport considering any spanner with 10k can turn up the boost on his skyline/supera and get 1000+hp

At least with NA you have to have emense knowladge to get the power
With turbos you just have to know how not to let your engine destroy itself

Honestly, what a bunch of bullshit!

[HORSEPOWER CHEF]

Heres a completely untechnical reason for me prefering NA over turbo's:
Turbos sound crap

Also F1 really woulnt be the pinnacle of motorsport considering any spanner with 10k can turn up the boost on his skyline/supera and get 1000+hp

At least with NA you have to have emense knowladge to get the power
With turbos you just have to know how not to let your engine destroy itself

Honestly, what a bunch of bullshit!

LOL, you beat me to it.

[autogyro]

Now now fellas, got to go brrm brrm for the guys in the hood doncha know.

[agip]

Heres a completely untechnical reason for me prefering NA over turbo's:
Turbos sound crap

Also F1 really woulnt be the pinnacle of motorsport considering any spanner with 10k can turn up the boost on his skyline/supera and get 1000+hp

At least with NA you have to have emense knowladge to get the power
With turbos you just have to know how not to let your engine destroy itself

Can someone explain why this guy is wrong? because I agree with what he said, specially when we talk about sound.

[machin]

I agree that there's nothing like a V8 or V10 screaming to 18 to 20,000rpm.... but also a small capacity turbocharged engine with full on anti-lag systems sound like Armageddon.... and the whoosh of the dump valve too.... its a different sound, but still a great sound....