What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[flynfrog]

I still don't see it becoming an economy contest if you limit fuel. It will still be a speed contest to get track position then back the revs down and hold position for the rest of the race. Pretty much like we have now.

The contest will be about reaching the finish line first like it has always been. There is not much point in having track position half way through the race if you have gained it by over spending on your fuel budget. There will always be someone who takes that position from you by virtue of a more efficient car. He can run higher engine settings in the end when you have no fuel left. So I think that an efficiency contest will be just as entertaining as an rpm or turbo pressure contest.

The races today with a fixed fuel amount in the car would tend to disagree with you. It all about being fastest into the first tire stop then backing down the revs for the rest of the race.

[WhiteBlue]

I still don't see it becoming an economy contest if you limit fuel. It will still be a speed contest to get track position then back the revs down and hold position for the rest of the race. Pretty much like we have now.

The contest will be about reaching the finish line first like it has always been. There is not much point in having track position half way through the race if you have gained it by over spending on your fuel budget. There will always be someone who takes that position from you by virtue of a more efficient car. He can run higher engine settings in the end when you have no fuel left. So I think that an efficiency contest will be just as entertaining as an rpm or turbo pressure contest.

The races today with a fixed fuel amount in the car would tend to disagree with you. It all about being fastest into the first tire stop then backing down the revs for the rest of the race.

But they do not race with the same amount of fuel today. The fuel decisions are individual and different. Be prepared to see fuel caps that will convince all participants to carry the maximum amount of fuel allowed.

I expect that the fuel allowance will be reduced in such a way that a 60% full throttle track today has to be run with 55% full throttle by the average car in order to make the finish line. Of course it makes a huge difference if you can run 52% or 58% full throttle. So fuel efficiency will be the holy grail. The fastest will have almost the same full throttle rate as today but the poor efficiency teams will run slower as they do today.

[madtown77]

How about opening up the powertrain regulations so that teams can choose almost anything but make it compulsory for them to give the general details of what they are doing to the other teams.

Similar to IRL with aero?

+1

[ringo]

fuel efficiency will be marginal between the teams, as we've so far this year.
I remember last year we were making a big deal out of it. It ended up being a non issue. Reason being, as long as the teams are using the same technology, they will get a similar fuel efficiency.
Especially when most of these technologies will be made by a few companies and distributed to the teams. Companies such as bosch and delphi.

I don't know what kind of racing you guys want to see, but i like plain ol pedal to the metal racing. This cruising and saving fuel thing needs to end with this years formula.
It's not really exciting at all. No matter how in depth the technologies get.

Fuel effiency should be a requirement, but an after thought for the sport. I don't think it's something that should determine how the sport is presented to spectators. Just like how sports car manufactures don't tell car owners to drive slow and save fuel. They make the car save fuel by virtue of it's technologies alone, but it does not interfere with your perception of how a sports car should be driven.
This approach should be made with Formula1. It should never be reduced to granny driving. It should be louder, faster, seemingly more dangerous, while at the same time being less pollutive, more efficient and safer; these last 3 being the sub structure but not what the spectators perceive.

[flynfrog]

I expect that the fuel allowance will be reduced in such a way that a 60% full throttle track today has to be run with 55% full throttle by the average car in order to make the finish line. Of course it makes a huge difference if you can run 52% or 58% full throttle. So fuel efficiency will be the holy grail. The fastest will have almost the same full throttle rate as today but the poor efficiency teams will run slower as they do today.

[ChrisTipper]

Use 3.5L any size cylinders like in the 90's, but allow say LPG, TDI & alternitve fuels. Use K.E.R.S aswell because its a step to he cleen green F1.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't know what kind of racing you guys want to see, but i like plain ol pedal to the metal racing. This cruising and saving fuel thing needs to end with this years formula.
It's not really exciting at all.

I believe that you have the wrong perception of fuel saving technologies. When the drivers go to a leaner mix today they loose a bit of power but this isn't really perceived by the public at all. They still use full throttle and the engine sound doesn't get affected at all. This has nothing to do with cruising. All parties concerned with the new formula have always declared that the current performance level and lap times are supposed to be maintained.

The other thing I don't believe is that all teams will have equal solutions. It is not happening today when you look at different users of Merc and Renault engines. The engines are not the same although they all use the same suppliers and the teams build different chassis which impact together with engine performance on the speed of the car. This will not suddenly change when teams will focus on a different set of performance differentiators and create entirely new basic cars.

[mx_tifoso]

...

Fuel effiency should be a requirement, but an after thought for the sport. I don't think it's something that should determine how the sport is presented to spectators. Just like how sports car manufactures don't tell car owners to drive slow and save fuel. They make the car save fuel by virtue of it's technologies alone, but it does not interfere with your perception of how a sports car should be driven.
This approach should be made with Formula1. It should never be reduced to granny driving. It should be louder, faster, seemingly more dangerous, while at the same time being less pollutive, more efficient and safer; these last 3 being the sub structure but not what the spectators perceive.

Good stuff Ringo, thank you. Although it's not what 'efficiency extremists' like WB see, but seemingly the FIA and the teams are also keen on taking that route.

[tok-tokkie]

fuel efficiency will be marginal between the teams, as we've so far this year.
I remember last year we were making a big deal out of it. It ended up being a non issue. Reason being, as long as the teams are using the same technology, they will get a similar fuel efficiency.
Especially when most of these technologies will be made by a few companies and distributed to the teams. Companies such as bosch and delphi.

This part of that interesting post ignores the fact that teams have been allowed to 'equalise' their engines this year. If the engine development freeze is removed but number of engines per season & limited fuel per race is imposed then fuel efficiency will become much more of an issue. It certainly has not lived up to expectations this year but is that not because development has been frozen except for the trailing engine being allowed to catch up?

[Edis]

The "late" ignition is to make sure that you have sufficient evaporation due to the comparatively late injection. That is what they have found gives you the most efficient combustion. No, there is only one ingnition normally. Of course one can also go to laser based linear ignition, which is better but more expensive.

The reason why this is more efficient is the maximum use of the the fuel evaporation enthalpy for suppression of knocking. It means you can go leaner even at full power. At port ignition the evaporation happens in the ports and the cooling energy gets lost for the compressed charge. There is also fuel lost which remains on the walls of the intake system. As I have said before the direct spray guided injection gives a massive step in fuel reduction compared to port injection. At part loads it can be up to 20% and at full load I still reckon 5-10% .

To provide maximum torque and the lowest fuel consumption you have to ignite the charge so that peak cylinder pressure occur at 15-20 degrees after top dead center.

This is simply a question about piston movement vs. heat release rate. If you ignite the mixture so that the peak pressur occur later, you can't effectivly expand the gases and the torque produced during the power stroke decrease, and if you ignite the mixture earlier you will have too much pressure build up before top dead center where it will produce negative torque on the crank.

Spray guided stratified charge is also for part load operation, at high load, the fuel injection will occur during the intake stroke (after the exhaust valve have closed) with a homogeneous charge.

A later point of ignition will also require a richer air/fuel mixture to prevent excessive exhaust temperatures. That's why engine management systems are set to enrich the air/fuel mixture when the ignition is retarded. The retarded ignition itself reduce peak cylinder pressures and with that the risk for engine knock.

How about this?

Not really suitable for a modern direct injected racing engine where you want to avoid swirl which can lead to cylinder wall wetting. But this was the eightes when there was a bit of focus on just swirl. Then the focus shifted from swirl to tumble.

Of course, diesel engines are still swirl focused. So there you can find some similar solutions.

[autogyro]

...

Fuel effiency should be a requirement, but an after thought for the sport. I don't think it's something that should determine how the sport is presented to spectators. Just like how sports car manufactures don't tell car owners to drive slow and save fuel. They make the car save fuel by virtue of it's technologies alone, but it does not interfere with your perception of how a sports car should be driven.
This approach should be made with Formula1. It should never be reduced to granny driving. It should be louder, faster, seemingly more dangerous, while at the same time being less pollutive, more efficient and safer; these last 3 being the sub structure but not what the spectators perceive.

Good stuff Ringo, thank you. Although it's not what 'efficiency extremists' like WB see, but seemingly the FIA and the teams are also keen on taking that route.

Ringo Tiffosi

These comments provoke one very important question, which both of you need to address.
How should a sports car be driven on the road?

[flynfrog]

...

Fuel effiency should be a requirement, but an after thought for the sport. I don't think it's something that should determine how the sport is presented to spectators. Just like how sports car manufactures don't tell car owners to drive slow and save fuel. They make the car save fuel by virtue of it's technologies alone, but it does not interfere with your perception of how a sports car should be driven.
This approach should be made with Formula1. It should never be reduced to granny driving. It should be louder, faster, seemingly more dangerous, while at the same time being less pollutive, more efficient and safer; these last 3 being the sub structure but not what the spectators perceive.

Good stuff Ringo, thank you. Although it's not what 'efficiency extremists' like WB see, but seemingly the FIA and the teams are also keen on taking that route.

like its stolen
Ringo Tiffosi

These comments provoke one very important question, which both of you need to address.
How should a sports car be driven on the road?

[mx_tifoso]

Axis of Oversteer

Ground Effects, Turbos and Start Stop from 2013

Technical working groups headed by Rory Byrne,Patrick Head and Gilles Simon have, according to reports in Motorsport-Total leaked that while nothing is decided yet, they are leaning towards a 1.6 liter Turbo with 3.0 bars of pressure giving around 650HP and 30 second bursts of KERS worth an additional 150hp. The green fig leaf would come from regulated fuel flow and perhaps a requirement that the cars travel in the pit lane using only their KERS, with the engine off.

Motorsport-Total: Reglement 2013: Comeback von Ground-Effect und Turbo!

[WhiteBlue]

Some good and some bad things in this reported plan. Push to pass instead of true dual torque would be really dumb. Restricting fuel flow instead of total fuel load is not in the spirit of competition. It is equally bad as the castrated KERS from 2009, which came years too late. I-4 is a positive idea as the GRE supporting manufacturers will be lured into F1. Bottom line for me is negative. F1 could do better than this plan.

[autogyro]

I wonder if it is not Patrick Head waving his shock and awe motor head loud noise argument in a last bid attempt to maintain the vroom vroom status quo.
Totaly weak set of regulations based on a fear of the future.
Unless a radical change is made, formula one risks being ridiculed in the eyes of the world public, possibly badly enough to see its demise.
KERS should not continue as a 'push to pass' gimmick. It should be encouraged to develop and slowly overtake ic power output.
Fuel limit is the only sensible control option over aero downforce and is essential.
Weak rules will be seen as tinkering just to gain brownie, or in this case greeny points.
This type of thinking is not only stagnant it is obsolete.
I have suggested to Martin Whitmarsh that an official electric racing formula be run alongside F1 at all the meetings. This would help to strengthen the bond between the FOTA and the FIA against the pressure building at the FOM.
I believe that this hint on future F1 regulations proves they are all scared of progress into the future and wish to sit on the fence and not commit.
Bernie and Briatorre will know exactly what to do with that position.
The FOTA will not last into a new Concorde.