What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[ESPImperium]

Id prefer to just make the engines a V6 naturally asperated petrol or a V4 turbo diesel, limit the fuel to 100KG per car for petrol and 70KG for diesel as well. Have completly open regs for the first 2 or 3 years, then homologate in 2015 for the next 5 years.

Id bring back KERS but only with a spec system costing $1.5million but to act as a performance differenciator, but limit have the driver choose how his car uses KERS, say a little over most of the lap, or once with a massive boost for example.

Id also alow the diesels to have 9 turbo boost and the petrols to have 9 over-revs per race distance.

Id limit the supply of engines to 2 teams per manufacturer, if the engine supplyer has its own works F1 team; EG Ferarri/Mercedes/Renault. But suppliers that dont have their own works team can supply up to 3 teams; EG Cosworth.

[autogyro]

You are again defining a spec formula ESP and leaving the aero guys to carry on playing with their model aeroplanes.

[Italiano]

What is wrong with current regs, so much crap that I have read here is hard to find. Something will change, but to crap like this? Jesus...

A 4 cylinder F1?! Limited fuel? Oh god...

[010010011010]

What is wrong with current regs, so much crap that I have read here is hard to find. Something will change, but to crap like this? Jesus...

A 4 cylinder F1?! Limited fuel? Oh god...

What would you limit so?

The problem with the current regs is that there is no meaningful development allowed. The only development worth talking about in the last while has been the f-duct, which will be banned next year..

[xpensive]

...

A 4 cylinder F1?! Limited fuel? Oh god...

Correct, just like during those glorious turbo-years in the mid 80s with Nelson Piquet in a 1300 Hp 4-cyl BMW with limited fuel.

[WhiteBlue]

If F1 is to be seen as a high technology development formula then tight specification of engine must be dropped. This is also needed so as to allow IC technology to reach its final peak of efficiency before its inevitable replacement by electric traction.

IMO the engine regulations should be made as fully open as possible within a safety and cost envelope. The neccesary restriction on excess speed to fit the circuits designs should be achieved by the simple addition of a set amount of fuel for the race distance. This can also be used to restrict aero by forcing a large reduction in drag.

All forms of energy recovery systems should also be open within a restricted chassis weight.

100% spot on. The only point which I see slightly different is the optimization of the ICE. Almost certainly that optimization will not come from cylinder configurations or free choice of geometric parameters. It will come from more efficient combustion, avoiding throttling losses and use of tailor made fuels for HCCI. I also see no sense to go back to spending 1 billion $ per annum on making ICEs lighter to the point where engine blocks creep and are useless after one race. Same goes for excessive design cost for CoG designs and higher revs that limit engine life.

Inevitably this will also lead to downsized turbo engines with a 1.5L formula making a lot of sense. That or the homologation idea of pandamasque are the possible ways to go. Since the FiA is pushing the 1.5L formula I guess that will actually be the one to succeed. It also has the advantage that those manufacturers who support the GRE will come on board.

[donskar]

autogyro wrote:

This is as near to a controlled formula as it can get without being actualy described as one. It is NOT what F1 should be and it is no use using over blown aero technology with little relevence to road vehicles as a diversion.

If F1 is to be seen as a high technology development formula then tight specification of engine must be dropped.

I don't often agree with you, but on these points it seems we are 100% in synch. I see F1 slowly moving in the direction of a spec series. Anyone who has any sense of the past few decades of F1 knows how much diversity has been lost. I'll just remind you (plural) that Gordon Murray and John Barnard, two of the most creative minds who ever designed an F1 car have been very loud and clear -- they want no part of F1. That says a lot, IMHO.

[ISLAMATRON]

90% of the field ran Ford V-8's & the same gearbox but all of a sudden because Ferrari cant run a V-12 all the diversity is lost.

Give me a damned break.

Ferrari could not build a good turbo engine so they had it banned, that is when "diversity" in F1 was lost...

all the teams were running V-10's years before it was mandated(diversity was gone)... and it was the teams that chose to switch to V-8's.

eventually, given a specified displacement, all the teams will converge on 1 design configuration and F1 has allways had a specified engine diplacement.

An open displacement formula is not something based in reality, speeds & costs must be held in check on F1 today.

A 2L turbo engine with 4 cylinders and 4 valves per cylinder, leave it up to the manufacterers if they want DI, VVT, or whatever, 10 engines per season, must sell their engines for 5 mil per season or hopefully less. mandate an amount of fuel or energy.

max power in qual but 10 engines per season stops the dedicated qually engines, fuel limit regulates power in race and hopefully encourages teams to make the cars with less drag. unlimited KERS sold to any team for 1.5 mil

[WhiteBlue]

eventually, given a specified displacement, all the teams will converge on 1 design configuration and F1 has allways had a specified engine diplacement.

An open displacement formula is not something based in reality, speeds & costs must be held in check on F1 today.

A 2L turbo engine with 4 cylinders and 4 valves per head, leave it up to the manufacterers if they want DI, VVT, or whatever, 10 engines per season, must sell their engines for 5 mil per season or hopefully less. mandate an amount of fuel or energy.

max power in qual but 10 engines per season stops the dedicated qually engines, fuel limit regulates power in race and hopefully encourages teams to make the cars with less drag. unlimited KERS sold to any team for 1.5 mil

Islam is right. I would tweak the figures slightly but the basic principle is correct. Instead of 2 L it should be 1.5L and the basic cylinder pitch of the GRE to get a wider manufacturer base.

Instead of 10 engines it should be five engines per year as already targeted by FOTA and the price should be 3 mil $ per year.

Unlimited KERS for 1.5 mil $ per year is ok but the supply of the whole homologated power train inclusive KERS should be mandated. The much more important developments are supposed to come from KERS and manufacturers must supply the total power train to all customers exactly as they use them in their own team. No backward specs for customer teams.

Limited fuel per race is also OK but the limit should be low enough to make excessive drag prohibitive. Ideally fuel should be so much restricted that cars should reach 350 km/h top speed with just 200 kW instead of 650 KW. I would allow movable and adaptive aerodynamics to achieve that figure. I would not limit the power under the 650 kW they run now but by the fuel limit they would not be able to waste it on drag as they do today.

Today an F1 car uses approximately 2L per minute and 180L per race. The vast majority of that fuel is used to produce downforce and drag. I would say that they need to cut the fuel allowance to 90L or less. The power at full speed should be tested and if it exceeds 200 kW the fuel limit should be further reduced.

With such a formula passing would not be an issue. Drivers would pass all the time to get into the slipstream and save fuel. The decisive moves would clearly come in the last minutes of the race when the leaders fight it out. To make the fight even more interesting I would carry a reserve fuel tank with 5L of fuel that should prevent cars to totally run out. If a car goes on reserve before the checkered flag a bright red light would go on so that all competitors know this car is out of fuel. The driver would be required to drive like a car one lap down and he would receive a 10 place penalty in the classification.

[ESPImperium]

You are again defining a spec formula ESP and leaving the aero guys to carry on playing with their model aeroplanes.

What im saying is have the engines rules open again, eg V111 and V70 degree engines again as opposed to the V90 we currently have. Also i didnt put a size on piston size as well. So plenty of room to move in what id like to see. Not to mention the fact that diesels would be allowed, posibly making Peugoet want to come in.

As long as both petrol and diesel engines weighed the same and fuel was ballanced out, and all cars had to be a minimum weight at the start of the race and at the end of the race, whares the loss???

But one things for sure, this thread aint over. Plenty of opinions and avenues to explore for this thread.

[autogyro]

Interesting WB.
If there is a specified fuel amount however, it would make no difference having a regulated engine capacity or set number of cylinders.
The result would be that the most efficient would win.
IMO the regulations should be carefully structured to encourage ic (and hybrid) engine makers to develop and promote new and ultimate powertrains based on IC technology.
I would not even restrict valving to poppet valves or engine operation to four stroke. It is time engine makers stopped resting on their status quo established configurations and began stretching the technology to its ultimate limits.

The cost of this should be placed on companies wishing to sell ic engines to the public. Cost restrictions can be placed on materials not suitable for road ic use and through forcing reliability by limiting the number of engines used.

[domdogger]

How about a nice Quad-turbo, 8 litre W16?

[ISLAMATRON]

Islam is right. I would tweak the figures slightly but the basic principle is correct. Instead of 2 L it should be 1.5L and the basic cylinder pitch of the GRE to get a wider manufacturer base.

Instead of 10 engines it should be five engines per year as already targeted by FOTA and the price should be 3 mil $ per year.

Unlimited KERS for 1.5 mil $ per year is ok but the supply of the whole homologated power train inclusive KERS should be mandated. The much more important developments are supposed to come from KERS and manufacturers must supply the total power train to all customers exactly as they use them in their own team. No backward specs for customer teams.

Limited fuel per race is also OK but the limit should be low enough to make excessive drag prohibitive. Ideally fuel should be so much restricted that cars should reach 350 km/h top speed with just 200 kW instead of 650 KW. I would allow movable and adaptive aerodynamics to achieve that figure. I would not limit the power under the 650 kW they run now but by the fuel limit they would not be able to waste it on drag as they do today.

Today an F1 car uses approximately 2L per minute and 180L per race. The vast majority of that fuel is used to produce downforce and drag. I would say that they need to cut the fuel allowance to 90L or less. The power at full speed should be tested and if it exceeds 200 kW the fuel limit should be further reduced.

With such a formula passing would not be an issue. Drivers would pass all the time to get into the slipstream and save fuel. The decisive moves would clearly come in the last minutes of the race when the leaders fight it out. To make the fight even more interesting I would carry a reserve fuel tank with 5L of fuel that should prevent cars to totally run out. If a car goes on reserve before the checkered flag a bright red light would go on so that all competitors know this car is out of fuel. The driver would be required to drive like a car one lap down and he would receive a 10 place penalty in the classification.

Why 1.5L when the GRE has been set at 1.6 @ 2L? 2L is perfect as most car manufacterers have a 2L I-4 in their line up.

I said 10 engines because as it is now 8 seems too few and the number of races is increasing, but if costs come down significantly with 5 then maybe, but lose 1 engine and you are double ?!^@ed for the rest of the season. I dont think the cost between 5 and 10 is that much of a difference as the majority of the costs are from R&D.

Hey if they could lower it to 3 mil then they should.

Yes KES shoud come packaged with the power/drive train but you go too far with those fuel regs... yes half the usage but the whole red light/blue flag/black flag/10 spot penalty is beyond what is needed.

[autogyro]

Why should Kers come packaged?
Where would the development incentive for future power trains come with that?
Open it right up to inovation.
The trouble is whether the FIA teams and all the others have the 'GUTS' to do it.
At present F1 is a spec series controlled by vested interest and those to scared to take on the responsibility for major change.
All fans do at present is watch aero people play with model aeroplanes, where is F1s fantastic engineering in that?

[WhiteBlue]

Why 1.5L when the GRE has been set at 1.6 @ 2L? 2L is perfect as most car manufacterers have a 2L I-4 in their line up.

I said 10 engines because as it is now 8 seems too few and the number of races is increasing, but if costs come down significantly with 5 then maybe, but lose 1 engine and you are double ?!^@ed for the rest of the season. I dont think the cost between 5 and 10 is that much of a difference as the majority of the costs are from R&D.

Hey if they could lower it to 3 mil then they should.

Yes KES shoud come packaged with the power/drive train but you go too far with those fuel regs... yes half the usage but the whole red light/blue flag/black flag/10 spot penalty is beyond what is needed.

GRE isn't about 1.5 or 1.6 L. The pitch and block defined for GRE can easily do 1.5 ot 1.6 but 2.0 is a bit too much. All prior manufacturers in F1 have made 1.5L turbos and all companies currently making small to medium cars can do that as well. Hell Fiat is dropping one of their small standard engines to 3 cylinder and less than one L. In line is pefect for turbo because you don't have to route the intake and exhausts to two different banks. As the intake and exhausts are connected by the turbo that is a distinct packaging advantage.

Re number of engines they will probably be longer lived anyway because the revs will be lower and the torque so much higher, but if they need to have more engines so be it.