What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

So perhaps we can go back to the topic of engine technology. I believe that F1 will not adopt fuels that are far away from the fuels we use at a petrol station and take a pick from those fuels with criteria like suitability for the sport (noise, safety, energy density, greeness). In the past issues like avoiding lead or sulphur and adding bio content have been included in the F1 regulations. In the future it could be fuel with more standardized combustion properties that promote HCCI.

But all the future developments need a total fuel cap to take the right direction. Without that we will se the resources go into the wrong development projects. The sport should be producing performance from a energy budget and not from an open energy bill. I don't really care if the cars are noisy or not and I don't mind if people want as much power as possible to play with. All that can be done within a shrinking energy budget. The most important thing for me is getting development focussed back on engines, KERS, vehicle dynamics and generally propulsion technologies instead of aero, aero and aero.

[xpensive]

So perhaps we can go back to the topic of engine technology. I believe that F1 will not adopt fuels that are far away from the fuels we use at a petrol station and take a pick from those fuels with criteria like suitability for the sport (noise, safety, energy density, greeness).
...

I'm not so sure about that, WB. In the heydays of CART, the methanol didn't stop Mercedes, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Chevrolet,
Porsche and Alfa Romeo from investing in those engines. And as I said before, it kept the Ralph Naders at a distance.

[autogyro]

One thing is certain, petrol is way down the list of suitable fuels for ic engines.
Energy density may be high but this is a small benefit when you compare the other benefits available from methanol and ethanol.
I loved one of the previous posts which tried to say that these alternate fuels were dropped in the past because petrol was far safer to use.
Absolute BS, mixed with distilled water you can 'drink' ethanol.
Stopping companies investing too much requires good regulation.
If the amount of fuel is limited and the engines allowed to be free to choice within a cost cap there would be no problem.
The more complex the regulations are made to suit outside vested interest, the more loop holes are opened.
Just take a look at the silly aero regulations and what comes because of them.

[010010011010]

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.

You cant just blame the oil companys for everything to try and back up your argument.

The fact of the matter is in brazil they're clearing the rain forrest to make space for growing these crops. If im not mistaken the main argument for bio-fuels is that they take in the same or almost the same amount of CO2 when they are growing as they release when they are burnt. But which do you think takes in more CO2, the 1 meter high crops or the 50 meter high trees they replaced? This is just one of the reasons why bio-fuels the are made from specially grown crops are a joke.

[xpensive]

Which is very true my digital friend, brewing and distilling crops like sugar-cane and corn into ethanol, has an energy efficiency of some 10 percent. At the same time, competing with the regular use of eatable crops, driving prices up, is highly unethical. Producing methanol from cellulose is a different thing however.

....

[autogyro]

...

There is absolutely NO need to grow fuel crops at the expense of food crops.
This problem is a direct result of the way farm subsidies and grants are corruptly organised by governments.
Study the American economy in regard to the unfair support of American farming on the world stage (including the use and sale of bio genetic seeds and crops).
If you take the time, you will soon see where the guilt is in regard to the destruction of the rain forests and the state of third world agriculture.

[autogyro]

Good points taken WB but the type of fuel does have a marked effect on the choice of engine specification in F1, as does the source of the corruption that dictates the future regulations on these engines.
It is pointless debating all the sensible technical possibilities for future F1 racing, if the reasons behind future choices is already controlled from vested interest elsewhere.
At present it looks like the powertrain will be very much controlled at 1.5 liters turbocharged, with a controlled energy recovery system simply to meet the demands of the car manufacturers. IMO this will weaken the interest in F1 and risk its future.
We are all in an energy revolution like it or not. F1 needs to take this on board and structure its regulations to make the very most of it for F1, not for outside interest.

[010010011010]

That bell has never stopped ringing since the 1930's

Autogyro your suggestions about Israel, jews and america are completely unaccepctable and are offensive to many people on this fourm.

You've proved how much you think you know all aspects of F1 by this stage, feel free to stop constantly repeating your pompus self rightous remarks.

Its one thing to make rash suggestions about technical issues but to offend countrys and people is a whole other. You've crossed the line this time, and I hope you are appropiately reprimanded.

P.s. Your comment 'That must be one of the biggest immoral cop outs I have read in a long time' is very rich. Have you not been reading your own comments in a long time?

[alelanza]

I thought that methanol is a safety issue. You cannot see the flames and that makes the fuel unsuitable for racing.

I think you should be able to mix it up with something that would make it visible? they do it for the indycar's ethanol, perhaps a similar thing can be done with 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.

As i recall it, being oxidized, you don't need as much oxygen for the mixture. So even though the fuel itself does not contain as much energy, it allows you to effectively cram in more energy into a given volume by using up space that would normally be ocupied by air in a leaner mixture, i could be wrong though.

[xpensive]

Good points there Alejandro, Ch3OH, some interesting reading on racing applications and safety here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

[autogyro]

...
Re
My point was simple.
F1s future powertrain specifications are already well thought out by the outside controlling influences that dictate all things energy motivated.
A tightly controlled 1.5 turbo engine with a controlled KERS system, agreed to suit the finances and future sales requirements of the bankrupt but bailed out car industry, this is what it will be. Because they say so!
If you want anything different including dumping the silly moveable rear wing and halving DF, then you will have to get Max back.

[rjsa]

If we are getting politically correct the IC should be banned. Damn inefficient piece of machinery. Everything electric, from wind and solar farms. Not even hydroelectrical be cause the dams are so bad for the environment.

Not a good idea, right? Because there is no way racing can be green. F1 is energy waste, no fixing it.

So we get back to the problem at had: something will change in engine regulations, what we think best?

I think limited amount of fuel, reciprocating ICE and restricted materials for some cost control. I haven't seen anything to demote me from this idea yet.

[Steven]

Right... off-topic posts have just been removed, I haven't bothered PM'ing anymore. If any of you dare to dwindle back to where we were, a warning or temporary ban will be issued.

i.e. I do not want to see further discussions on corruption, Israel or "Americans" here anymore.

[xpensive]

And about time, good job moderator.

[andrew]

Here's a crazy idea. Why not just keep the engines to the same spec? The teams know the technology to make it work well for them and can make 2.4 V8s last several races. Change is fine as long as it improves something, but change for changes sake is just mindless. I think they should work on the aero instead of changing the engine format.