What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[autogyro]

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....

Sound just means wasted energy to me.

[WhiteBlue]

Sound just means wasted energy to me.

It isn't carrying a lot of energy actually. I don't care that much about the engine noise either, but F1 needs to cater for the fan base and many of those are noise lovers. A bit immature perhaps but very traditional.

So it would be better for F1 from a marketing point if it retains an impressive engine noise.

[Pandamasque]

Very little is mature about car enthusiasm.

[autogyro]

I feel much the same white blue. My dragster would deafen anyone standing to close and tuned exhausts work better without silencers.
However it is a question of priorities. The change to alternative energy sources and hybrid development in Kers etc is inevitable.
The latest talks among the teams show the pressure there is for this development direction. Many are still holding these changes back. Some reasons are justified as the technology in alternates is not yet fully mature but it is only a matter of how long, not if.

[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

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

For starters the guy can't have heard that many turbocharged engines in his life to make the claim he does. Yes, turbocharged engines are a little bit quieter than non-turbocharged engines due to some noise suppression caused by the turbocharger turbine, but this is generally considered a good thing. Most tracks have noise limits and the laws regulating this are becoming harder since the noise levels at the grandstands in many cases are above what is considered damaging for the hearing. Engine sound is also much about preference, some prefer the low speed rumbling of a big V8 while others prefer the scream of a small high speed engine.

Secondly, that you need 'immense knowledge' to get the power with NA is just a bunch of crap. You need no less knowledge to design a turbocharged engine. That you can get more than 1000 hp out of a ca 3 litre Supra/Skyline engine is about as significant that you can buy a naturally aspiranted crate engine with more than 1000 hp for very little money. The challenge in race engine design is never to get the power, but to get the maximum power within the regulations without compromizing the performance in other areas such as weight, size, shape, cooling requirement, throttle response, reliability and so on.

[010010011010]

For starters the guy can't have heard that many turbocharged engines in his life to make the claim he does...

...Engine sound is also much about preference, some prefer the low speed rumbling of a big V8 while others prefer the scream of a small high speed engine.

So as you said engine sound is about perfrence, opinions, but im not allowed think turbo engines sound crap?

Secondly, that you need 'immense knowledge' to get the power with NA is just a bunch of crap. You need no less knowledge to design a turbocharged engine.

I didnt say you need no knowladge to design a Turbocharged engine, I said that any spanner can get 1000hp quite easily using just a turbo. As I said 'With turbos you just have to know how not to let your engine destroy itself', and perhaps the 'just' there was belittling the task so I appoloogise for that, but the engines will loose all their obvious amazing technology, and we will be left with engines you can make yourself, only they wont be as reliable.

As for...

you can buy a naturally aspiranted crate engine with more than 1000 hp for very little money

Maybe im wrong but ive never seen a 3liter NA crate engine with 1000HP

[djos]

1.8ltr Twin Turbo V6* (can be sequential or simultaneous) with a maximum fuel tank size, driver controllable boost (with no boost limit) and 1 engine per entire weekend or to the back of the grid you go (will prevent 2,000HP hand grenade qually motors).

Then we will see who the real men are and we'll see a few more failures during races as teams try to get more HP than they really should especially in qually. The driver controllable boost should liven up overtaking too and far more than the "green" elephant KERS ever would!!!

Engines should also be made from road car materials eg Aluminium blocks and heads etc to keep the costs low (no unobtainium).


*basically a 90 degrees 2.4ltr V8 with 2 cylinders missing.

[010010011010]

no unobtainium.

=D>

[Giblet]

Was thinking what would be the best way to spice up the racing, and while not an answer in itself, what would be the best way to have monster torque low, but not as much up high?

With no TC, if the drivers had too much power to deal with down low, it would take more finesse, more mistakes would be made, and the racing would improve.

Unfortunately, turbo-diesel keeps coming to mind.

Maybe TD's with noisemakers to sound like 90's V10's?

[djos]

Was thinking what would be the best way to spice up the racing, and while not an answer in itself, what would be the best way to have monster torque low, but not as much up high?

With no TC, if the drivers had too much power to deal with down low, it would take more finesse, more mistakes would be made, and the racing would improve.

Unfortunately, turbo-diesel keeps coming to mind.

Maybe TD's with noisemakers to sound like 90's V10's?

[-X Please, not oil burners!!!!

Driving a Diesel is like kissing your sister, you only do it when you have to!!!


NOTE: If Europeans didn't have artificially inflated Petrol prices they wouldn't drive Diesels either!

[alelanza]

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

In the context of F1, why would it mean getting more from less? and why more efficient?
Also why would they be ligther or more compact? You may have smaller cylinders, but how much smaller would the actual engine be?
Once you fit variable geometry turbos, intercoolers, some sort of anti lag mechanism, etc. is it really more compact and/or lighter?

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).

You make gains on friction, but then higher torque would mean more robust parts all across the drivetrain are needed as well. Is the balance favorable towards turbo or NA in the end?

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.

True, now, on an engine designed towards mainly full throttle application, how much efficiency do you really gain in the end?
I won't comment on the diesel part because that's really a whole different discussion.

[djos]

1.8ltr Twin Turbo V6* (can be sequential or simultaneous) with a maximum fuel tank size, driver controllable boost (with no boost limit) and 1 engine per entire weekend or to the back of the grid you go (will prevent 2,000HP hand grenade qually motors).

Then we will see who the real men are and we'll see a few more failures during races as teams try to get more HP than they really should especially in qually. The driver controllable boost should liven up overtaking too and far more than the "green" elephant KERS ever would!!!

Engines should also be made from road car materials eg Aluminium blocks and heads etc to keep the costs low (no unobtainium).


*basically a 90 degrees 2.4ltr V8 with 2 cylinders missing.

Further to this, I would ban pneumatic valve-trains as they have no road going application but I would allow continuously variable valve control/timing as used in road cars.

This would keep the RPM down without needing to set rpm limits as chain driven cams etc are prolly not viable above about 14,000rpm.

[mx_tifoso]

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

In the context of F1, why would it mean getting more from less? and why more efficient?
Also why would they be ligther or more compact? You may have smaller cylinders, but how much smaller would the actual engine be?
Once you fit variable geometry turbos, intercoolers, some sort of anti lag mechanism, etc. is it really more compact and/or lighter?

...

Well probably not more since they wouldn't target more then 750hp, but somewhere around the current mark. And it would be getting the same from less because there would be two or even four less cylinders, but obviously with a turbo(s) being the equalizer.

And more efficient in that less cylinders/displacement means using less fuel, that's what my comment is based on . Although wouldn't direct injection help in this area as well? The LMP Porsche engines gained fuel efficiency by adopting DFI.

They would be lighter than the current V8's since two/four cylinders less with the same material would yield some weight. Are the accessories really heavy? ie turbos and intercoolers? And to be honest I wasn't considering these extra parts when I mentioned compactness. But then it depends on whether it's a V6 or I4.

[WhiteBlue]

[-X Please, not oil burners!!!!

Driving a Diesel is like kissing your sister, you only do it when you have to!!!


NOTE: If Europeans didn't have artificially inflated Petrol prices they wouldn't drive Diesels either!

That is nonsense. I get more power, more torque at lower fuel consumption from a diesel. This is why people drive modern diesels. You get more fun from the same energy. People would drive a car that runs on Australian sheep dung if that would deliver twice the power at half the price. Unfortunately it doesn't.

Modern turbo diesels with state of the art soot filters are simply so well engineered that they take top honors all round: Power and torque delivery, fuel efficiency, cleanliness and even power/weight ratio. The advantages are so great that in some years you may have only diesel and turbine engines around for ground, water and air transport.

I would not be surprised if you have to go to the drugstore in ten years again to obtain petrol for you historic vehicle. For anything current you will get diesel, gas and electricity at your "Petrol" station.

F1 may stay with petrol to please the noise lovers and traditionalists such as Ferrari, but those are emotional and not rational reasons. I have certain sympathies for those folks but left to my own criteria I would always go for the rational solution.

For me it is more concerning that F1 apparently are looking at V6 instead of 4 in line for the next formula. That would be a step away from the GRE and towards an F1 specific format. It could have a huge and detrimental impact on the number of manufacturers in the next F1 engine formula.

[djos]

That is nonsense. I get more power, more torque at lower fuel consumption from a diesel. This is why people drive modern diesels. You get more fun from the same energy. People would drive a car that runs on Australian sheep dung if that would deliver twice the power at half the price. Unfortunately it doesn't.

What a load of bollocks, Europeans drive Diesels out of economic necessity - here in Aus I can put Shell Vpower98 or BP Ultimate98 in my car for less than $1.30AUD per litre most of the time and that gets me 630-650Km's of city driving ('02 323 Mazda Astina 5spd Manual) for $65AUD (about 2 weeks driving for me). Regular 91RON is even cheaper at about $1.15 per litre!

I can buy a new Mazda3/6 Diesel, Fiesta Econetic, Mondeo Diesal or a few Euro Diesel's for reasonable money atm but the engines are not fun to drive - they top out at about 4,000rpm and you are constantly changing gears to stay in the narrow RPM band. (Diesel is usually same price as 98RON Petrol)

Instead Im intending to buy the Mazda3 SP25 which has far more character in the engine dept and most aussies feel the same way. We usually only stick diesels in full size 4WD vehicles that need the extended range and low rpm torque although some penny pinchers (prolly accountants by trade) are starting to buy diesel sedans and hatches.