What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[djos]

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?

imo it's simple to keep things real:

* Engine must last the entire race weekend - any change equals back of the grid
* Engine must be made of Aluminium (block, heads) and other materials found in normal road cars (no crazy alloys)
* Engine must have a mechanical cam phasing system (no pneumatics)
* Boost/engine map must be fully driver controllable and include a "push to pass" full power option.
* Car must have a maximum tank size

This in itself wont stop 1500bhp engines but it will stop them using too much HP for too long as the engine will be a 5min hand grenade like the old turbo Qually motors and of course with a small tank size they wont be able to use max power for the entire race.

[WhiteBlue]

Just a reminder

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, 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.

It would be absolutely madness to introduce another 1.5 L formula with the WRC already on the GRE 1.6 L specification, unless they plan to use the same block with smaller cylinders. Probably the most promising feature is direct fuel injection and that nine engine manufacturers agreed. If you add Ferrari, Mercedes, Aston Martin and Cosworth to the list you can almost supply the whole grid with a separate engine. If Honda and Toyota would come back you would have a full grid of engine suppliers.

[xpensive]

Right, so let's make it 1.6 liter, but can we have balance-shafts and pneumatic valves? And my initial question, how to avoid 1500 Hp, boost, rpm or fuel control, or turbo size perhaps? Or do we trust the 50 mm throttle dia?

[djos]

Agreed, the GRE seems an ideal basis for F1 with a few tweaks of course. I'd add mechanical variable cam phasing, variable turbos and a bigger air restrictor to get the engines to at least 900bhp in full boost mode.

As we all seem to agree, excess horsepower makes for more exciting racing especially when there is no traction control etc. F1 still needs to solve the aero problem tho, personally I'd introduce spec wing elements and controll angles of attack and leave the rest of the regs as they are for 2011 (no ddd) and I'd the great green elephant completely (kers).

[autogyro]

If you give the teams 'excess power' you encourage them to use the excess for creating more DF, drag and wake turbulence.
If you give them less power and fuel restriction you encourage them to make the cars more aero efficient with less drag and less wake turbulence.
If you include KERS and other energy recovery systems you encourage development for further efficiency.
Put an intake restrictor on current engines and see how fast the aero people change their tune and take of anything creating DF and drag.
There is no super technology to be had bolting on huge power.
There is an old saying:
"You can make a brick sh-- house fly if you give it enough thrust".

[xpensive]

Autogyro, I know we have had our arguments over the days, for good and bad just like me and WB, but can you once and for all xplain your problems with aerodynamics?

[WhiteBlue]

Forget the overtaking problem and just look at the fun drivers had when all the great corners like Eau Rouge were something like 80% throttle. Now there is no challenge in it. The cars are glued to the track and it takes two laps for rookies to get on speed and go through there on full throttle. Remember Jacques Villeneuve stuffing it twice in Eau Rouge in one weekend until they had no more chassis. Don't tell me a lower downforce formula cannot be madness and adrenaline. If the aero is cut they can use a bit more power than today and of course more mechanical grip with the same safety.

But back on topic. Yeah, I agree that F1 must have some high tech features like variable valves, inlets and outlets if they make the engines more efficient. But primarily I expect direct piezo injectors with stratified charged injection to feature and things like, twin fuel injection (Bobcat), total KERS and HERS.

[autogyro]

Autogyro, I know we have had our arguments over the days, for good and bad just like me and WB, but can you once and for all xplain your problems with aerodynamics?

I have no problem with aerodynamics.
I have a problem with those who have pressurised the rule making to allow the development of excess DF to the detriment of all other aspects of F1.
IMO this has been done for self serving reasons and not for the over all benefit of F1 and motor sport in general.
I do not believe that F1 needs to be a high DF formula to maintain its place at the peak of vehicle engineering, in fact I believe that as things are, aero is detracting from this ideal and producing a boring spectacle for spectators.

[xpensive]

Autogyro, I know we have had our arguments over the days, for good and bad just like me and WB, but can you once and for all xplain your problems with aerodynamics?

I have no problem with aerodynamics.
I have a problem with those who have pressurised the rule making to allow the development of excess DF to the detriment of all other aspects of F1.
IMO this has been done for self serving reasons and not for the over all benefit of F1 and motor sport in general.
I do not believe that F1 needs to be a high DF formula to maintain its place at the peak of vehicle engineering, in fact I believe that as things are, aero is detracting from this ideal and producing a boring spectacle for spectators.

So why don't you jump mine an WB's train of a set downforce?

[autogyro]

I have already suggested that a much reduced DF level is stipulated in the regs and a way of measuring it and enforcing the regulation be found.
However engine power is directly effected by this and any other regulation changes, so it is important to find a suitable level of power output restriction so as to create both a better spectacle and the incentive for engineering development on the cars.
I can see plenty for aero even with reduced DF, in fact it could be a lot more critical if there is also restricted power.
Unfortunately, I see little in engine development if restricted as it has all been done before. The main development area would be in energy efficiency from energy recovery systems.
Finding the balance is as always the big problem.

[WhiteBlue]

The main development area would be in energy efficiency from energy recovery systems.

That would be extremely foolish. The modern high pressure piezo direct stratified injection systems and dual fuel systems could cause big efficiency jumps in the ICE compared to current technology. They would be very dumb if that isn't exploited. Sure recovery needs to go on top to reach the efficiencies that are expected, but even Ferrari are working on direct injection in their latest road cars and such opportunities must not be missed.

[autogyro]

The main development area would be in energy efficiency from energy recovery systems.

That would be extremely foolish. The modern high pressure piezo direct stratified injection systems and dual fuel systems could cause big efficiency jumps in the ICE compared to current technology. They would be very dumb if that isn't exploited. Sure recovery needs to go on top to reach the efficiencies that are expected, but even Ferrari are working on direct injection in their latest road cars and such opportunities must not be missed.

I agree WB such technology must be followed where ever it is possible to frame regulations to include it.
IMO however I see a gradual move away from IC engines in general in company with a gradual move towards electric. This is the future IMO even if a fair way off at present.

[Pierce89]

I have already suggested that a much reduced DF level is stipulated in the regs and a way of measuring it and enforcing the regulation be found.
However engine power is directly effected by this and any other regulation changes, so it is important to find a suitable level of power output restriction so as to create both a better spectacle and the incentive for engineering development on the cars.
I can see plenty for aero even with reduced DF, in fact it could be a lot more critical if there is also restricted power.
Unfortunately, I see little in engine development if restricted as it has all been done before. The main development area would be in energy efficiency from energy recovery systems.
Finding the balance is as always the big problem.

Limiting DF is easy, stipulate maximum spring rate and outlaw bumpstops, shock packers, and third elements(jounce sring,J-damper etc.), and finally stipulate ride height.

[machin]

IMO however I see a gradual move away from IC engines in general in company with a gradual move towards electric. This is the future IMO even if a fair way off at present.

I think it'll be a while yet until the ICE is a thing of history... but certainly all cars will soon be augmented in one way or another to improve efficiency and reduce emissions... F1 needs to make sure its leading the way, not lagging behind if it is to claim to be the pinnacle of the sport.

[machin]

* Engine must last the entire race weekend - any change equals back of the grid

I'd go further and keep the multiple races per engine rule we currently have... probably go further; 5 races per engine?