What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[autogyro]

I think it should be 1.5 turbo with limited fuel flow and fuel allowed but completely open other than this.
It would allow the development of the ic engine to its ultimate level based on efficiency, which is a better direction than solely power.
Poppet valves and limits on materials have held ic engines at the same basic level for decades.
Doing this would have a direct relevence to road ic engines and would give a boost to investment and competition between engine manufacturers again.
Also allowing a more open application of Kers and other energy recovery systems would help encourage the big car makers to invest in support of their own hybrid developments.
It would be a risky call but I see little point in a one spec engine, that would put F1 behind sports car racing.

[djos]

I think it should be 1.5 turbo with limited fuel flow and fuel allowed but completely open other than this.
It would allow the development of the ic engine to its ultimate level based on efficiency, which is a better direction than solely power.
Poppet valves and limits on materials have held ic engines at the same basic level for decades.
Doing this would have a direct relevence to road ic engines and would give a boost to investment and competition between engine manufacturers again.
Also allowing a more open application of Kers and other energy recovery systems would help encourage the big car makers to invest in support of their own hybrid developments.
It would be a risky call but I see little point in a one spec engine, that would put F1 behind sports car racing.

Limited fuel flow is far cruder than limiting the fuel tanks size imo as it limits power for qually and overtaking.

[autogyro]

Yes I am in two minds on fuel flow. I would like for them to do all it is possible to do, to encourage fuel efficiency at all times.

[WhiteBlue]

1.5l turbo GDI would be very nice i think ... but it should not be limited in the number of cylinders allowed. if the regulations for 2013 says it has to be a 4 cylinder then it sucks!
really hope there will be no limit on cylinders.

I would like to hear your objections against a 4 cyl. solution. The same engine is already agreed by the FiA and the future WRC manufacturers. Of course it would have a totally different specification for F1 as for rally. But the engine block would be the same and there would be 10-20 potential suppliers who are likely to embrace the global race engine. If only seven or nine of those would commit to F1 at a time there would be the right kind of competition in propulsion technology.

Yes I am in two minds on fuel flow. I would like for them to do all it is possible to do, to encourage fuel efficiency at all times.

I have asked for fuel flow limits for some time but it has some negative aspects if you think about it. If you simply limit fuel flow there is no incentive to use the leanest combustion technologies and develop strategies around such technologies. It makes more sense to limit the fuel tank. This will be an incentive to apply the leanest possible combustion technology whenever it is possible. It would also allow access to massive power well above the average for boost phases.

In order to avoid running empty cars could have a reserve fuel tank that would automatically invoke drastic penalties if utilized. The reserve fuel tank would activate a flashing red light on the car so that the infringement would be visible to all. For instance you have to serve a stop and go penalty of 20 s at the next pass of the pit entry. If you are on the last lap you would have a 40 s penalty added to your race time. Alternatively you could serve the penalty at the start of the pit lane and finish the race by crossing the line on the pit lane. FOM could monitor critical fuel state for the viewers and it would be very entertaining.

Such a strategy can already be implemented for the next year. If the average fuel use is 165 kg/race you limit the tank to a 145 kg plus a 20 kg reserve.

[tarzoon]

1.5l turbo GDI would be very nice i think ... but it should not be limited in the number of cylinders allowed. if the regulations for 2013 says it has to be a 4 cylinder then it sucks!
really hope there will be no limit on cylinders.

agree with WB. Nothing against the number of cylinders. Well, apart from noise - but then again nothing else will ever sound like the 94 Ferrari.

Turbo engines would be cool, preferably with loads of torque. Since FIA may limit power, at least a couple more Nm would put drivers on their tip toes out of turns.

[010010011010]

I wouldnt like to see them restricted to 4 cylinders. Id like them to be creative, see what they can come up with. They're going to be compeletly different to road engines no matter how many cylinders they have, so why limit them to 4

[Holm86]

1.5l turbo GDI would be very nice i think ... but it should not be limited in the number of cylinders allowed. if the regulations for 2013 says it has to be a 4 cylinder then it sucks!
really hope there will be no limit on cylinders.

I would like to hear your objections against a 4 cyl. solution. The same engine is already agreed by the FiA and the future WRC manufacturers. Of course it would have a totally different specification for F1 as for rally. But the engine block would be the same and there would be 10-20 potential suppliers who are likely to embrace the global race engine. If only seven or nine of those would commit to F1 at a time there would be the right kind of competition in propulsion technology.

I think sound is a big part of motorracing. I wouldnt like all F1 engines to be 4 cyllinders (i am aware that some would choose the 4 cylinder configureation if there is no limit on number of cylinders).

And i am not a fan of this "global race engine" because it just wouldnt be fun if every racing series just ran that one engine with diffirent power levels.

[WhiteBlue]

And i am not a fan of this "global race engine" because it just wouldnt be fun if every racing series just ran that one engine with diffirent power levels.

Then let's hope that the decision makers have more economic sense. The future development of the ICE will not be about cylinder configurations but about combustion efficiency, combined fuel properties, regeneration and high pressure direct injection with clever electronics to manage it all. The PTB are obviously not looking at diesels in order to please the noise lovers but that seems to be not recognized. F1 would profit massively if we get plenty of manufacturers engaged in an efficiency race. An efficiency formula would enjoy the greatest technical freedom we have seen for many years in propulsion. We would not need different configurations. At least that is my believe. We will not get that race unless F1 recognizes the cost targets of the manufacturers and embraces the GRE.

[010010011010]

What ever happened to Group C?
I heard they tryed to turn it into a formula but failed and wrecked it, anyone know why?

[Pingguest]

1.5l turbo GDI would be very nice i think ... but it should not be limited in the number of cylinders allowed. if the regulations for 2013 says it has to be a 4 cylinder then it sucks!
really hope there will be no limit on cylinders.

I would like to hear your objections against a 4 cyl. solution. The same engine is already agreed by the FiA and the future WRC manufacturers. Of course it would have a totally different specification for F1 as for rally. But the engine block would be the same and there would be 10-20 potential suppliers who are likely to embrace the global race engine. If only seven or nine of those would commit to F1 at a time there would be the right kind of competition in propulsion technology.

Yes I am in two minds on fuel flow. I would like for them to do all it is possible to do, to encourage fuel efficiency at all times.

I have asked for fuel flow limits for some time but it has some negative aspects if you think about it. If you simply limit fuel flow there is no incentive to use the leanest combustion technologies and develop strategies around such technologies. It makes more sense to limit the fuel tank. This will be an incentive to apply the leanest possible combustion technology whenever it is possible. It would also allow access to massive power well above the average for boost phases.

In order to avoid running empty cars could have a reserve fuel tank that would automatically invoke drastic penalties if utilized. The reserve fuel tank would activate a flashing red light on the car so that the infringement would be visible to all. For instance you have to serve a stop and go penalty of 20 s at the next pass of the pit entry. If you are on the last lap you would have a 40 s penalty added to your race time. Alternatively you could serve the penalty at the start of the pit lane and finish the race by crossing the line on the pit lane. FOM could monitor critical fuel state for the viewers and it would be very entertaining.

Such a strategy can already be implemented for the next year. If the average fuel use is 165 kg/race you limit the tank to a 145 kg plus a 20 kg reserve.

Your solution sound quite artificial to me. Any way, I can't see why fuel-flow limits wouldn't give manufactures an incentive to use the leanest internal combustion engine. As the amount of fuel is limited, manufactures will have to make their engines more fuel-efficient to get more power out of them. Besides, a maximum fuel allowance is impractical for qualifying, don't you think?

[Pingguest]

What ever happened to Group C?
I heard they tryed to turn it into a formula but failed and wrecked it, anyone know why?

In the pre-1991 Group C any engine configuration was allowed and fuel consumption limited. From 1992 Formula 1-like 3.5-litre normally aspirated engines became mandatory and fuel consumption unlimited. The new engine rules caused a quick downfall as manufacturers didn't want to use Formula 1-engines outside Formula 1.

Some say the Group C was killed off by Bernie Ecclestone, as he wanted the manufactures to enter Formula 1.

[WhiteBlue]

Your solution sound quite artificial to me. Any way, I can't see why fuel-flow limits wouldn't give manufactures an incentive to use the leanest internal combustion engine. As the amount of fuel is limited, manufactures will have to make their engines more fuel-efficient to get more power out of them. Besides, a maximum fuel allowance is impractical for qualifying, don't you think?

You are contradicting yourself. A solution with max fuel flow isn't limiting the amount of fuel in any practical way. It is limiting the flow rate. I did not mention qualifying because I would not do any thing there. Let them have a go without limit except the longevity. Naturally the engines have to live as long as they have to live now because we need low engine prices. F1 must never go back to the silly spending when engines alone cost a billion $ per year.

It is the nature of an F1 race that only a certain percentage like 40-70% runs on full throttle. It is the other 60-30% were you can save significantly if you employ the best lean running technique. None of the new technologies does improve the efficiency much on full throttle but they help on a partial load. If you set the total fuel load to 90% of what is normally needed you give an incentive to find max fuel saving under partial load conditions. Those teams and manufacturers who manage to find such savings will be able to continue to run with the same max power when it is needed. So by finding those savings they will not loose speed when the amount of fuel gets restricted more and more every year.

I don't understand what you mean by artificial. It either works or it works not. Current qualifying format is rather complicated but it works well and provides the spectacle. Why should the limited fuel tank not work the same way. It works in Le Mans and I just made a little change for F1.

[raymondu999]

Ferrari have recently brought up 1.5L GDI, Turbocharged engines.

[WhiteBlue]

Ferrari have recently brought up 1.5L GDI, Turbocharged engines.

compare viewtopic.php?p=164546#p164546

[freedom_honda]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589

pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S