What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

Is everybody speechless or what?

[xpensive]

Perhaps the moderator is correct WB, the way you overwhelm threads like these, people get scared off?

Having said that, I believe introducing a 1.5 I-4 "world-engine" for f1 would be a mistake, when F1 need to be xclusive.
If they want to go turbo, chop off two cylinders, just like they did with the V10s earlier, make them mildly boosted 1.8 V6s,
that way perhaps the engine builders don't have to begin completely from scratch?

[010010011010]

Is everybody speechless or what?

Not really its just I only got half way through your seemingly endless post and it didnt seem to be going anywhere, so I couldnt bring myself to finish it. As I havent read it i wasnt in a position to comment.

[WhiteBlue]

If they want to go turbo, chop off two cylinders, just like they did with the V10s earlier, make them mildly boosted 1.8 V6s,that way perhaps the engine builders don't have to begin completely from scratch?

If someone sees an advantage in that solution I hope they don't make it mandatory. It could fit into a formula libre of 1.5-1.8 L with fuel load limit. This would allow the refinement of existing V6 engines but also development of I-4s. In that case I would put money on the I-4.

[xpensive]

I'm glad you can see things my way for a change WB. Another point would be that most of today's engine suppliers, like Renault, Ferrari and Cosworth, not to speak of a future VW/Porsche involvement, do have xperience of V6-turbos, Mercedes being just a breath away with their WTC machines.

If you add a metahol-pwoered fuel limit, flow or total, and unlimited use of KERS, F1 might be going somewhere.

[WhiteBlue]

If you add a metahol-pwoered fuel limit, flow or total, and unlimited use of KERS, F1 might be going somewhere.

I thought that methanol is a safety issue. You cannot see the flames and that makes the fuel unsuitable for racing. If they move away from the current petrol/bio fuel mix I expect a move towards HCCI ready petrol.

[xpensive]

Methanol has been used for ages in CART and in NHRA, with multiple pitstops at that. Besides, methanol from cellulose is a far more ethical fuel than ethanol made from various eatable crops.

[autogyro]

Methanol has been used for ages in CART and in NHRA, with multiple pitstops at that. Besides, methanol from cellulose is a far more ethical fuel than ethanol made from various eatable crops.

You realy should ask the people who live around the Gulf of Mexico what they think is or is not an 'ethical' fuel xpensive.
The arguments against ethanol are all a smoke screen for the oil companies and the greed system.

[xpensive]

The way you mix arguments and relevance is priceless gyro!

[WhiteBlue]

Methanol has been used for ages in CART and in NHRA, with multiple pitstops at that. Besides, methanol from cellulose is a far more ethical fuel than ethanol made from various eatable crops.

I'm aware of that but that does not mean that F1 would be satisfied with the safety of methanol. F1 used it long ago in the past and my understanding is they will not go back to something they have abandoned for safety reasons. CART as other US series have often taken more risks than F1.

[xpensive]

F1 used methanol and US series taking more risks? Do you make things up as you go, just to suit your current opinion?

[WhiteBlue]

F1 used methanol and US series taking more risks? Do you make things up as you go, just to suit your current opinion?

F1 until 1957 and GP racing in the pre war era. I do not make much difference there because F1 is really the continuation of the golden era.

Up until the end of 1957 it was possible to choose freely what fuel you used. Mercedes, for example, relied on the following recipe: 45% benzene, 25% methyl alcohol, 23% aviation fuel, 3% acetone and 2% nitrobenzene. The remaining two percent remain a secret until this day. The explosive mixture was so aggressive that remnants left over from training and races had to be drained off and the engine rinsed out with conventional petrol. This was the only way to prevent the engine from suffering damage overnight!

From 1958 to the end of 1960, teams were compelled to tank up with aviation fuel with an octane rating of 130, after their oil sponsors, above all Shell, had urged Formula One to stipulate a more usual form of petrol so that the product transfer between the fans and Formula One was more effective and more convincing and health protection guaranteed.

There is little doubt that US racing is more risk friendly. None of the classic road tracks like Road America and Laguna Seca have an F1 rating, the ovals often exceeds the safe banking criteria of the FiA and US top motor sport has had more casualties than F1 in the last twenty years. But this isn't really the issue. The issue is the danger of the invisible flames of methanol.

There are obviously pros and cons. The US series used methanol just because it did not produce smoke, but nowadays cars rarely burn as the in car fuel systems have become much better protected. The higher danger comes from handling fuel in the garages and not realizing where the flames are in a fire accident.

[xpensive]

Aha, a little bit of editing there? Wiki says the Alfetta was running on 98.5% Methanol, which is a bit strange when Methanol only have half the density of gasoline, could it have something to do with a post-war shortage of gasoline after the war? Nobody would voluntarily use methanol due to the energy-density anyway.

I think what happened in F1 50+ years ago is not really comparable to the situation of today, I am sure that the F1 teams will be just as good as the CART and NHRA teams in handling methanol.

I believe that methanol from cellulose could give F1 the "green" image that seems to be so desireable from the FIA and parts of FOTA.

[WhiteBlue]

I believe that methanol from cellulose could give F1 the "green" image that seems to be so desireable from the FIA and parts of FOTA.

That may be true or not, I haven't read a serious study about it. I guess it would mainly depend on the economical and ecological balance. How much of the natural forrest would be wiped out for monoculture production of wood? If a high yield production method from non fossil sources is economically and technically feasible Bio Methanol will probably become main stream and F1 adopt it. As it stands we still use mainly diesel and petrol for some reason. It would not help F1 to use an elite "green" fuel that people at the gas station find unaffordable or unavailable.

[xpensive]

That is a good point WB, but I have always thought the reason CART and IRL were running methanol/ethanol, has been to avoid critisizm from the Ralph Nader's of the world. With the current price of oil, neither of the current bio-fuels will ever be economically competitive without a relative tax-subsidiary however, but it's percieved to be environmentally correct by the public.