What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[010010011010]

The FIA would have to ensure the the "engine companies" operated as independent organisations and were budget capped

As weve seen before theres no real way to budget cap F1, I mean its not like football where they cap salaries as thats not the problem.

As for the engine companies operating independently, try getting Fearrai to agree to that...

However having a regulation that demands they sell their engines to any team that wants it and capping THAT price, that could well work.

Turbos = high horsepower

I cant see the FIA allowing any engine with more than 800~900 hp
Hence why they (at considerable expense to the teams) downgraded from v10 to v8, so they'll only have around the same horespower as they have now

[xpensive]

There is a point with turbo engines in that they are very easy to power-control by limiting the boost, which theoretically speaking can be done between practice and race if needed. However, I would still favor a fuel-metering device limiting flow in cc per second, which also could be adjusted at the FIAs leisure.

[WhiteBlue]

It doesn't make sense to compete on power if you have to cut the power all the time to maintain a safe level. The FiA should limit power from the ICE by SECU control. It can be done by measuring the torque and rpm.

Certain interface dimensions should also be standardized so that teams can exchange engines from different suppliers more easily. A minimum weight should be maintained.

There should be more design freedom to the engine itself so that engine manufacturers can optimize fuel efficiency and integrate unlimited HERS and KERS. If possible the basic spec of the GRE should be adopted.

Teams who design their own engine must do so under the F1 resource restrictions. They would also have an obligation to supply at 5 mil $ per year to teams without engine manufacturing.

The FiA needs to support Cosworth as an independent engine supplier to make sure all teams have access to engines close to the competitiveness of the leading engines as long as there are not enough manufacturers around to fill the grid.

[xpensive]

I think a racing series with xactly the same engine power would be rather boring, you cannot limit everything,
why I vote for fuel flow limit and let the engine manufacturers do the best they can with that.

[piast9]

Whatever the rules will be I think that the freedom in engine development has to be brought back. Rules may limit the materials and technologies to common and cheap ones but let teams pushing their engines to the limits. Engines working at the limits would be prone to failures making the outcome of the race more unpredictable and squeezing the maximum of the engine made of common material would be more relevant to engines in real world cars.

[ESPImperium]

I think a racing series with xactly the same engine power would be rather boring, you cannot limit everything,
why I vote for fuel flow limit and let the engine manufacturers do the best they can with that.

I think im on your side of the argument here.

Low fuel ammount, 120KG say, would be the way to go for the green credentials for F1. Then when all engines are getting equal, or theres one clear engine with an advanatge, reduce it by 20KG.

But on ballance, looking at the limiting side again, thhere could be something done with engine mapping and Torque transer band adjustments. What id make it is that there all engine maps and torque bands be limited to 10 for each engine, with differential settings being set to a maximum of 10 as well.

All this could be quite easily done by using a standard steering wheel style or two. Say one like the Red Bull one with the MECU display on the monocoque and one like the McLaren one with the MECU display on the steering wheel.

[machin]

* 1700cc V6 Supercharged Petrol 17000rpm 70KG 100 litre fuel cell

Supercharging isn't really in-keeping with the energy efficient approach that most people feel is the way forward... because superchargers are engine driven the compression is gained by burning more fuel (i.e. it takes engine power to drive the compressor)... whereas a turbocharger gives "free" compression because it is driven by exhaust energy that would otherwise be wasted...

[xpensive]

If it wasn't for the potentially exorbitant costs, I would stick with the fuel-flow limit in so many cc per sec,
then let the engine builders do whatever they want.

Wouldn't that be something to behold, but I wonder what engine design would prevail, any suggestions?

[WhiteBlue]

Just limiting the fuel flow would not address the problem of having no standardized interface between engine and chassis. The current engine market works because teams can switch between manufacturers relatively easy. We saw this with the 2009 switch of Brawn from the Honda to the Merc engine and 2010 of Sauber from BMW to Ferrari. I think this is essential for the engine market to work.

The other issue is cost control. If the longevity of engines and gear boxes is lost to design freedom the cost of engines can spiral back to 50 mil $ per year. That isn't desirable.

[xpensive]

You can obviously combine the fuel-flow limit with the current stringent V-8 external sizing, but release development of the internals

[machin]

The only technical issue with a fuel flow limit is ensuring that clever manufacturers don't include some form of "buffer tank" (which could be part of the engine) after the flow restrictor.. i.e. on the straights the engine consumes more than the restrictor allows, so the level in the "buffer tank" goes down, and is topped up, through the restrictor, when engine load is low... i.e. in the corners.

From this point of view it would be easier simply to mandate that each team is given a certain amount of fuel for qualifying and the race (i.e. one total, split between saturday and sunday as the team saw fit), and let them get on with using that fuel in the best way they see fit....

I agree, common interfaces would be a good idea to allow easy engine interchangeability.....

[xpensive]

The only technical issue with a fuel flow limit is ensuring that clever manufacturers don't include some form of "buffer tank" (which could be part of the engine) after the flow restrictor.. i.e. on the straights the engine consumes more than the restrictor allows, so the level in the "buffer tank" goes down, and is topped up, through the restrictor, when engine load is low... i.e. in the corners.

This should be easy enough to police, but I can understand your suspicioness. When CART introduced their pop-off valve on the intake side, engine makers made sure there was a venturi right there.

[WhiteBlue]

Pitpass are claiming that there is a serious push for the GRE at the F1 paddock.

According to highly reliable Pitpass sources, F1's powers that be are seriously considering a switch to 1.5 litre powerplants in 2013 together with the return of turbochargers.

For many, the turbocharged era (1977 - 1988) was one of the greatest in the history of the sport, the ultra-fast machines, widely considered the most powerful open-wheel circuit racing cars in the history of motorsport, truly helping the sport to live up to its 'pinnacle of motorsport' tag.

However, as the 1,100 bhp monsters looked set to raise lap speeds ever higher, assisted by the increasing influence of aerodynamics, the FIA first sought to limit the power before finally banning the turbochargers for 1989.

Twenty-one years later, however, with an eye on environmental issues, the teams and engine manufacturers have been discussing the possibility of returning to the 1.5 litre formula complete with turbos, or "boosters" as some would have them known.

It's believed that such a move would not only bring a number of (currently hesitant) sponsors on board, but could also lead to manufacturers entering the series, Audi being the first name that spring to mind.

When Virgin was linked with a buy-out of the Honda F1 team at the end of 2008, it was the sport's failure to genuinely deal with green issues, especially biofuels, that caused Richard Branson to get cold feet, though he subsequently bought into the Manor Grand Prix team. Nonetheless, the Englishman has said that the sport must genuinely address environmental issues.

Our sources claim that one of the ideas currently on the table for 2013 is for 1.5 litre, straight-four, turbocharged engines, using half as much fuel as at present, but with as many KERS variables as possible. Indeed, our source says that the current talk of the return of KERS in 2011 - initially rejected by the teams before a 180 degree turnaround - is "only half the story".

However, while most are supporting of the idea, including manufacturers not currently in F1, some, mainly Ferrari are not.

Contacted by Pitpass, one insider admitted: "A number of possible engine configurations are being looked at but all at a sensitive stage. (There is a) big push for current units to remain (for cost reasons) but the FIA is keen on a step change in technology."

First introduced by Renault in 1977, initially the systems were highly unreliable, the French manufacturer having to endure a year of failures before finally finishing a race. In the years that followed, more and more teams tried the devices but it was in 1983 when, in the eyes of many, the turbo era truly began.

Why am I not surprised that Ferrari are once again the main opposition to the plan?

[djos]

Why am I not surprised that Ferrari are once again the main opposition to the plan?

I'd luv to see the Turbo era recreated! [-o<

Im not at all surprised Ferrari object as A/ they have never made a 4cylinder road AFAIK and B/ the only turbo road car they've ever made IIR is the F40.

[xpensive]

Inline 4 cylindrers turbos at 1.5 liter would indeed have road relevance, interesting question would be how to prevent them from producing 1500 Hp?

Boost limit, rpm limit or fuel-flow control?