What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

As of 2013, we will have a new engine formula. According to most informed reports we will have a 1.5 litre turbocharged 4 cylinder unit.
Do you think this is the way forward?
Please not the usual V10 or V12 answers as these are no longer viable in modern F1.
KERS will also most likely feature, so if anyone has an idea of what to expact please share your thoughts.

Thanks

[Pandamasque]

As of 2013, we will have a new engine formula. According to most informed reports we will have a 1.5 litre turbocharged 4 cylinder unit.
Do you think this is the way forward?
Please not the usual V10 or V12 answers as these are no longer viable in modern F1.
KERS will also most likely feature, so if anyone has an idea of what to expact please share your thoughts.

What's the point in asking if you posted your only acceptable answer within the question?

[madtown77]

1.5 - 2.0L I-4
Turbocharged
Gasoline Direct Injection

As much as I would like to just say, "here is the fuel finish the race", it won't ever happen because the FIA sucks.

Great racing comes from having cars that are lighter and less powerful against cars that are heavier but faster in the straights. Just watch Le Mans or the BTCC back in the day.

[WhiteBlue]

The 1.5-1.6 L turbo charged in line 4 cylinder engine based on the already published main specs certainly is a good way forward. It may not be the way for every team and every manufacturer because they have their particular interests. But it will be good for the sport. I'm also giving the reasons why it will be good.

F1 should not be a competition of tyre manufacturers nor should it be the playground of aeronautical engineers or billionaires. It should be about building cars using main stream technology with the highest refinement that finish first in a race of equal class. The best driver driving the car made by the best engineers with the best ideas and the best organization should finish first.

With main stream technology I mean ways to power a car, to construct the chassis and the suspension. It doesn't hurt if bits of aerodynamic body work is involved, but it should not be all important over the aspects of the power train and the rest of the chassis. A good approach is fixing the upper limit of the downforce and allow aerodynamic competition purely on reducing drag. This is what usually happens in the motor industry.

With common technologies I refer to the ICE which is currently down rated across the industry and of course electric propulsion, storage and control technology. This is currently the hottest item under development in the global automotive industry without a shadow of a doubt. To incorporate the best electric technology in hybrid racers should be the aim of F1.

The only way to achieve this while maintaining the role of the ICE is to maximise the electric potential and cut back the ICE power accordingly. The best approach actually would be limiting ICE power and making electric power unlimited. Limiting ICE power could be done by limiting the energy content in the fuel which would be an incentive to develop better combustion efficiency which again is a main stream issue in the motor industry.

By picking up all the issue that are driving the global motor industry F1 would go back to what it is supposed to be. The pinnacle of auto racing and not the pinnacle of a war between chemists (tyres) or aerodynamicists. We can expect F1 to attract a much wider choice of manufacturers from makers of power electronics, to electric storage solutions and car manufacturers.

The trick in combining all those innovative forces is control of the cost of innovation. The competition is supposed to happen at the teams that are putting everything together for a complete racing car. It must be possible for more than one or two teams to win. This means F1 has to attract manufacturers but it must not allow them to gain an advantage by outspending the average team by excessive resources or funds. The consequence from this is that any break through they generate will be quickly available to all competitors. Only by constant innovation on all fields of technology teams can win.

The GRE idea looks like it will be attractive to manufacturers and will reflect the main stream engineering aspects of the auto industry. It should be good for F1.

[madtown77]

Completely agree. 4 wheel KERS with no limits on power would also produce some gaps between vehicle handling and acceleration.

I think with this reducing downforce may play less of a role, but certainly adding that to the mix will liven things up even more.

[WhiteBlue]

Completely agree. 4 wheel KERS with no limits on power would also produce some gaps between vehicle handling and acceleration.

I think with this reducing downforce may play less of a role, but certainly adding that to the mix will liven things up even more.

I think that F1 engineers are too much focussed on old technologies. If electrical power components woud be allowed without any limit an advantage could be gained by a big capacity of electric storage or big motors. I would expect everybody to make huge development efforts there.

[agip]

Hey, sorry if you consider this a stupid question, but im relatively new to world of F1.

We all know that engine formula will be changed in 2013, and I want to know if maybe low budget teams will have permisson to stay with a V8 N/A engines for a while. Meaning that we could have a mixed grid! I think that would be really nice for the show.

What do you think?

[WhiteBlue]

No reason to start a new thread. We do have one that deals with all the issues post V8.

On topic I think that mixed engine formulae make no sense. In line 4 cyl should be equally affordable as V8s.

[agip]

But im not asking for a mixed formulae! Im just trying to guess what will happen in the transition year between N/A and TURBO engines, just like we saw when changing from V10 to V8. (I cant remember wich team used a V10 for a while)

[WhiteBlue]

When you have two formulae I would call it a mixed field. Having a transition would be very unwise. F1 has an independent power train manufacturer now who is supposed to offer an affordable 2013 solution. Why should they allow a transition?

[agip]

Oh, you're right. I forgot about Cosworth.

I just wanted to see some mixed stuff for a little!

[Pandamasque]

Oh, you're right. I forgot about Cosworth.

I just wanted to see some mixed stuff for a little!

You see the days of technical competition are gone. The new trends is that variety in a racing formulae makes no sense, to quote WB. The competition used to define the most efficient solutions, but now it's decided beforehand by FIA, FOTA, OWG and other kinds of WTF.
Some here think it's absolutely acceptable and makes sense. If that's so it's time to choose a sole engine and chassis manufacturer because F1 is way too expensive for a spec series. I think I can call a spec series any series that doesn't allow different answers to the same question (how to win the race).

(I cant remember wich team used a V10 for a while)

It was Toro Rosso who were allowed to use heavily restricted Cosworth V10s in 2006.

btw, this discussion belongs here -> viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6508

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Sadly in recession, spec series becomes de riguer for alot of racing.
Personally I think the tech innovation stuff all went pop with Group B rally cars Group C sports cars and ground effect in F1.
If they loosened the regs, but made it Homolgated, we would see ingenuity at its best.

For example, If they want to make a 10 litre v12, they need to sell 5000 units to qualify. Bang goes the expensive one offs! and finally we would see real world engineering in F1, even if it would be tuned to the stratosphere.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[WhiteBlue]

You see the days of technical competition are gone. The new trends is that variety in a racing formulae makes no sense, to quote WB.

Strong disagree. You have to look at the field of tech that you open to competition. There is no point to hone the 761st similar F1 aero configuration or to make a large naturally aspired engine go 1000 rpm faster and spend 1 billion $ per years to do that.

It makes more sense to develop more efficient combustion, electric storage, light weight electric motor generators, dual torque drive control, avoid ICE throttle losses and minimize drag/wake turbulence to improve the sport. All this can be done with largely specified engines but with emphasis on engineering efficiency. People who deny this do not mention the positive side of the work done by the FiA.

[alelanza]

The displacement of an engine is the volume of air an engine displaces during one complete engine cycle. For the rotary to complete one cycle, it must do one revolution of the rotor (three shaft revolutions). One revolution of the rotor equals three combustions per rotor, and since Mazda rate their engines by the displacement of one chamber per rotor, the correct displacement will be three times the displacement rated by the method Mazda uses. So the real advantage of the rotary is a big displacement in a small package.

Hi Edis,

I know this is old but hopefully you're still around. I've learned a lot from your posts, however i'm not sure i agree with this one. I guess the disagreement hovers around the 'engine cycle' term used. You are correct in that for the 4 "strokes" totake place the rotors must make a full 360 turn, so the 3900 cc makes sense. However in practical terms what's of importance is the crankshaft turns, as you state it 3 of those will take place per each rotor turn. So compared to a 1.3 l piston engine which only burns 650 cc worth of mixture for every crank turn, the 1.3 rotary burns all 1300 cc per crank revolution. Because of this i feel for practical purposes and speaking in volumetric terms only (leaving burn efficiency out of the equation) a wankel should be considered 2x it's rated volume when compared against an otto.