What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[Pingguest]

The thing I like about the GRE is the possibility for manufactures to use one basic engine block for a number of racing series. But I don't like the idea of a mandatory configuration, like the proposed 1.6-litre L4T. Wouldn't be better to allow any engine configurations and limit the fuel-flow? The fuel-flow limits could be enforced by using fuel-flow meters.
http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/articles/ ... ntable.xml

Fuel-flow limits are not only an instrument to control the speeds, but to increase engine life span and find the right balance between Formula 1 and its feeder series too.
Ideally it should be like this:
1) Formula 1 and LMP1: 'medium' high fuel consumption and allowance of all wasted energy recovery systems (KERS, HERS, etc.)
2) Formula 2 and LMP2: fuel consumption equal to or slightly lower than Formula 1 and LMP1, but no wasted energy recovery systems.
3) Formula 3: low fuel consumption and no wasted energy recovery systems.

[010010011010]

This isnt really a technical debate, its an ethical one. To me though, racing electric cars isnt exciting to watch, its only interesting to develop.
Sound is my main problem, sound accounts for so much of your overall experience. Imagine deiving a formula ford at full tilt as opposed to a formula 3 just crusing around at 3-4000 rpm. Both might be doing similar laps but which would you rather watch?

Having driven both types, I can only remember the same dead feeling of noise from the nomex balaclava and the helmet I was wearing.
At Snetterton I understand that spectators hear a decent sound from the cars once every 60 seconds or so but at most meetings the cold weather and the wind drown out most of the pleasure. I have seen a couple of hundred spectators braving the weather on occasion there though. I do not think the many thousands who watch on TV actualy hear anywhere near the reality and never have. So what was your point again?

I dont care if ive only ever never heard it through the tv, that means they must sound even better in first person. Sound is a big part of motor racing, and indeed most high preformance cars, in my view it needs to stay, and that wont happen if they eventually go electric as you suggested. thats my point, what was yours?

[autogyro]

Big steam engines also had an awesome sound but they were relegated to history years ago apart from those kept going by enthusiasts. It will be the same for ic engines and even turbojet engines if the current volcanic groundings are anything to go by. Modern technology is far to vulnerable to such things.
Just think there could be electric versions of the Fairey Rotodyne with fuel cells producing electric power from ethanol and using the same fuel for tip jets, non of which would suffer from volcanic ash ingestion for low to medium haul and also there would be no need for long runways or ancient American ideas for airliners. Electric airships would also not be grounded today.
Electric propulsion is inevitable, we should have been using it since the 1930s anyway, it is only because of the greedy oil companies that we use the current inefficient ic engines and their vulnerable infra structure. GM destroyed a perfectly good electric public transport system in the Cities and Towns of America before the last war, bet few people know this. First LSRecord car was electric.
If you want the noise on your TV, I am sure the modern video industry will leap to your aid and add sound tracks, virtual reality is their stocking trade. Most young people today rarely know the difference between what is real and the current version of lies fed to them by the media. If you dont watch motor sport live what difference does it make. It is no different than watching the latest American film offering of how they won WW2 with no help from anyone else or playing one of those video games.

[flynfrog]

Big steam engines also had an awesome sound but they were relegated to history years ago apart from those kept going by enthusiasts. It will be the same for ic engines and even turbojet engines if the current volcanic groundings are anything to go by. Modern technology is far to vulnerable to such things.
Just think there could be electric versions of the Fairey Rotodyne with fuel cells producing electric power from ethanol and using the same fuel for tip jets, non of which would suffer from volcanic ash ingestion for low to medium haul and also there would be no need for long runways or ancient American ideas for airliners. Electric airships would also not be grounded today.
Electric propulsion is inevitable, we should have been using it since the 1930s anyway, it is only because of the greedy oil companies that we use the current inefficient ic engines and their vulnerable infra structure. GM destroyed a perfectly good electric public transport system in the Cities and Towns of America before the last war, bet few people know this. First LSRecord car was electric.
If you want the noise on your TV, I am sure the modern video industry will leap to your aid and add sound tracks, virtual reality is their stocking trade. Most young people today rarely know the difference between what is real and the current version of lies fed to them by the media. If you dont watch motor sport live what difference does it make. It is no different than watching the latest American film offering of how they won WW2 with no help from anyone else or playing one of those video games.

I am sure even you can do a simple power to weight calc on those systems you propose and can see they wont go airborne not to mention noise pollution is a major problem with new jets so why would anyone want to ride on a rotor craft. Also you America hate is quite laughable. So what don't you blame America for. You can blame greedy oil barons all you want in reality its the market that is the driving force behind fossil fuels. People don't want to pay the obscene price for an electric car. Yes as this price goes down more people will drive them/want them ect. Why force the issue?

[flynfrog]

I cannot understand how 'petrolheads' conclude it as essential to have the noise of a big V8 when they 'watch' F1. They are muddling their basic senses here.
Most of them 'watch' on TV which is limited by the speakers on the set and at the track the 'experience is only 'heard' by a very small minority.
Watching is done using eyes not ears!
Few people who follow F1 I speak to have ever heard a big racing V8 up close.
I agree it is an experience not to be missed and my own hearing has been damaged by it if I am not mistaken. Not a sensible thing to wish on others unfortunately.
Things are changing and like it or not motor racing noise is not going to remain the prime mover in the sport, if it is still there in ten years at all.

watching is done will all of the senses. Smell and Hearing are much closer tied to memory than vision is.

besides what is more exciting here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKZyzAuJkC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y33tGrlpVP4

not to mention the smell of castor should be bottled into a cologne

Thanks for the videos flynfrog, unfortunately try as I might, I could not smell anything from my speakers or the monitor and the sound was limited by the frequency response of my sound system and where I had set the volume control.
I wonder if you could advise on a better way to view/ I find that if I turn the sound off, both videos seem to be about even on screen image refresh speeds.
I see you have only featured endurance experimental EVs perhaps you should take a web search for Electric motor cycle racing. I think you will find this sport well mature and a fair bit faster than the karts you featured.

the point was both racing series were some what simaller in format. and yes with mute on they are about the same to watch but even through you poor quality computer speakers the sounds adds another dimension. Once we get smellovision you would get yet another dimension.

I to have driven both IC and electric race vehicles and you are fooling your self if you think they were both the same since you couldn't here anything through the helmet.

[WhiteBlue]

The thing I like about the GRE is the possibility for manufactures to use one basic engine block for a number of racing series. But I don't like the idea of a mandatory configuration, like the proposed 1.6-litre L4T. Wouldn't be better to allow any engine configurations and limit the fuel-flow? The fuel-flow limits could be enforced by using fuel-flow meters....

There is one issue with fuel flow control and modern efficient petrol engines. The direct stratified injection will enable massive savings when on partial loads. This means for most F1 courses when the engine isn't on full song consumption will be lower. If you introduce fuel flow limits you would never get top power because you cut that segment off.

In my view it will be better to limit the total amount of fuel for the race. This means that the engine that runs most efficient in partial load can utilize top power more often than other engines can. This would be a huge incentive to fuel efficiency.

The other point I have is the mandatory use of certain fuels like petrol only. I would essentially limit the amount of energy in the fuel and allow basically all fuels within a certain environmental impact limit. For example natural gas or methanol should be allowed but leaded petrol or petrol with obnoxious chemicals should be forbidden or discouraged by a handicap. That way dual, multiple fuel systems and water injection can be used successfully. With dual fuel systems you achieve higher octane ratings and you can use higher turbo pressures and achieve higher efficiencies.

[autogyro]

I wish they would use the Ilmor five stroke engine as a V6.
Mainly because I have jusy thought of a way to get over the requirement of the engine to run one valve system at crank speed.

[010010011010]

Just think there could be electric versions of the Fairey Rotodyne with fuel cells producing electric power from ethanol and using the same fuel for tip jets, non of which would suffer from volcanic ash ingestion for low to medium haul and also there would be no need for long runways or ancient American ideas for airliners. Electric airships would also not be grounded today.

Theres many reasons for not flying through ash, its not just about the engines. Also considering the airspace above britian and many other affected countrys is closed to all civilian traffic, No, i think both the Faireys and the airships would be grounded also.

fuel cells producing electric power from ethanol

where are you going to get the ethanol from?

What I find funny is that the electricty to power the most electric cars comes from coal/gas powerstations. Which, might I add, are typically between 30% and 50% efficent.

[WhiteBlue]

ty to power the most electric cars comes from coal/gas powerstations. Which, might I add, are typically between 30% and 50% efficent.

Power stations do not pay taxes on fuel as gas stations do. Electricity would be eight times more expensive if they would.

[machin]

I wish they would use the Ilmor five stroke engine as a V6.

Seen first here...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8329

[machin]

What I find funny is that the electricty to power the most electric cars comes from coal/gas powerstations. Which, might I add, are typically between 30% and 50% efficent.

I agree... At the moment I'm not sold on all-electric... ...that's until the national grid is provided nearly entirely from renewable sources..... THEN there's a good argument of using all-Electric drive. There's a reason they're currently nicknamed "Pollute elsewhere" cars!!!!

[machin]

1) Formula 1 and LMP1: 'medium' high fuel consumption and allowance of all wasted energy recovery systems (KERS, HERS, etc.)
2) Formula 2 and LMP2: fuel consumption equal to or slightly lower than Formula 1 and LMP1, but no wasted energy recovery systems.
3) Formula 3: low fuel consumption and no wasted energy recovery systems.

I like this... I'd just tweak it so that its a total fuel load limit rather than a fuel flow rate limit....

[autogyro]

I wish they would use the Ilmor five stroke engine as a V6.

Seen first here...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8329

It was indeed machin and the V6 is a good idea.
I am thinking of a flat six boxer version for reduced rpm and light aviation use.
The Ilmor test engine gives max power at 7000 rpm and max torque at 5500,for the aviation application we need just over 4000 for a direct drive airscrew on turbocharging. The figures look very very good. The problem IMO is that the engine has one valve train and valves (for the LP cylinder) running at engine speed. This results in the valves operating (when at max engine revs) at the same speed as the conventional half engine speed cam would be working at with a crank speed of 14,000 rpm. Not good for a cost effective production engine.
I have a 'cool' idea to negate this problem and do away with the LP cylinders poppet valves. (Well this is a technical forum).

[autogyro]

1) Formula 1 and LMP1: 'medium' high fuel consumption and allowance of all wasted energy recovery systems (KERS, HERS, etc.)
2) Formula 2 and LMP2: fuel consumption equal to or slightly lower than Formula 1 and LMP1, but no wasted energy recovery systems.
3) Formula 3: low fuel consumption and no wasted energy recovery systems.

I like this... I'd just tweak it so that its a total fuel load limit rather than a fuel flow rate limit....

I like the basic engine concept here but I still think that ic technology should be allowed to stretch its development legs to its ultimate level for the benefit of road applications. I also do not believe electric propulsion is mature enough as yet to do away completely with ic but it will happen.
I want to see the possibility of sleeve valves in F1 (clue on the five stroke perhaps). Sleeve valve engines are the most powerful ic engines ever built and had over three times the power for the same size as poppet engines. The ultimate limits need to be tried. They also come with better fuel efficiency.

[machin]

Ah, hah and if I put your earlier post about sleeve valves with this one...????