What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[ACRO]

Turbo compounding either electric or mechanical is not a question of the past or the future IMO. It is a question of physics and engineering. Sooner or later F1 will do the reasonable thing. If not in 2013 it will come later.

well, nobody knows what will be later. and what time is "later".

so - before we beat this term to death - just for the current time lets take the solid fact that NO serious and proven engine maker,- VW, BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari and others- as well as the world leading industrial engine makers like caterpillar, cummins, MAN , MTU, Wärtsilä etc. even think in the direction of compounding. scania was the only one who tried it some years ago but refused - they all will have reasons...

[Pingguest]

Just a funny thought. No engine regulations would be necessary if Formula 1 1) get rid of wings and downforce, 2) abolish the minimum weight, 3) introduce durable, smaller, non-spec, all-weather tyres and 4) ban all remaining driver-aids. Technically the engine manufactures could make engines capable of producing 1500 bhp or more, but there wouldn't be enough grip and traction to use all power (properly). Therefore, engine manufactures would get a clear incentive to focus on drivability and fuel-efficiency instead of power.

But this is just a thought, not necessarily my opinion of Formula 1 should be.

[ACRO]

. Technically the engine manufactures could make engines capable of producing 1500 bhp or more, but there wouldn't be enough grip and traction to use all power (properly). Therefore, engine manufactures would get a clear incentive to focus on drivability and fuel-efficiency instead of power.

that would be challanging , no question, but probably would cause fatal accidents. after senna1994 formula1 went more and more teletubbies.

[WhiteBlue]

NO serious and proven engine maker,- VW, BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari and others- as well as the world leading industrial engine makers like caterpillar, cummins, MAN , MTU, Wärtsilä etc. even think in the direction of compounding.

Not true! John Deere has an electric compounding system. Mitsubishi has two systems, one with a steam turbine and one with electric compounding. Volvo and Scania have new engines with turbo compounding. Detroit diesel's DD15 has turbo compounding and the company is owned by Daimler. It kind of disputes your claim that turbo compounding isn't used by top manufacturers.

[Pingguest]

. Technically the engine manufactures could make engines capable of producing 1500 bhp or more, but there wouldn't be enough grip and traction to use all power (properly). Therefore, engine manufactures would get a clear incentive to focus on drivability and fuel-efficiency instead of power.

that would be challanging , no question, but probably would cause fatal accidents. after senna1994 formula1 went more and more teletubbies.

Why would such a set of regulations cause fatal accidents? Due to the lack of grip and traction not much power could be used properly. Hence, the engine manufactures would get an incentive to detune their engines and focus on drivability and fuel-efficiency. Due to the reduced grip the cornering speeds will be lowered too.

[WhiteBlue]

Just a funny thought. No engine regulations would be necessary if Formula 1 1) get rid of wings and downforce, 2) abolish the minimum weight, 3) introduce durable, smaller, non-spec, all-weather tyres and 4) ban all remaining driver-aids. Technically the engine manufactures could make engines capable of producing 1500 bhp or more, but there wouldn't be enough grip and traction to use all power (properly). Therefore, engine manufactures would get a clear incentive to focus on drivability and fuel-efficiency instead of power.

But this is just a thought, not necessarily my opinion of Formula 1 should be.

F1 in 2013 will not abolish downforce. That is completely unrealistic. So your proposal is more like a bit of speculative lateral thinking. It doesn't really cover the topic of the 2013 engine regulation. I see no chance for such a thing at all. Unlimited power also means unlimited fuel consumption, and that is not at all what the PTB in F1 are looking for.

[ACRO]

Not true! John Deere has an electric compounding system. Mitsubishi has two systems, one with a steam turbine and one with electric compounding. Volvo and Scania have new engines with turbo compounding. Detroit diesel's DD15 has turbo compounding and the company is owned by Daimler. It kind of disputes your claim that turbo compounding isn't used by top manufacturers.

just searched for it and you are right wih the DD15 and that scania indeed still uses it. did not knew it. john deere semms to project it. but c,mon dude, this are heavy duty diesel engines, the mitsubishi far beyond automotive use, and even here they are the very rare examples over this engine market. i dont know any petrol road engine with such a thing- and you are willing too see it in formula1...

@pinqquest: well- with 1500 bhp and no downforce you may on some tracks ( monza...) reach straight speeds that it will be a big bang when you miss the next corner or you even loose the car on the straight. but like said- it would be a real challange, the guys are paid millions for driving it !

[xpensive]

...
That is completely unrealistic. So your proposal is more like a bit of speculative lateral thinking.
...

Good Lord no, we can't have anything like that on this thread, can we now?

[ringo]

Before taking the historical reference of the Honda RA168E too far, we should try and analyse those graphs;

a) 460 kW for 1.5 liter at 12 kRpm and 2.5 Bar absolute (not boost!) is no more than 14 Hp per liter, Bar and kRpm.

b) A fuel consumption of 275 g of fuel per kWh of "clutch-energy" produced at 12 kRpm. If this would be regular gasoline, that's 12.5 MJ per mechanical kWh (3.6 MJ), a total efficiency of 29%, which I think is reasonable for the time.

Remember, this engine is technology from a quarter of a century ago, why I think the power would be far more today.

@riff_raff:
The biggest advantage for the pneumatic valve is that it operates with a constant force, hence it is not really a "spring".

I'm not actually using the engine graph, just the throttle opening graph.
However i don't think engine efficiency will sky rocket, even after 25 years.
I agree though that today's power would be way more.
Lighter parts, lower friction, more precise fuel management.

One thing though i don't think all the fancy energy saving stuff will be in F1 in 2013.
I think a simple KERS unit, L4 twin turbo, direct injection and that about it for the engine.
It has to be manageable for a reduced team size and lower costs. Which is the direction F1 is going. HERS doesn't add much more to entertainment value so that's not likely.

[xpensive]

I agree ringo, I believe that the 2013 engine formula will follow the cost-limiting path, why I should be surprised to see some of WB's more fancyful contraptions such as VVT, 4WD KERS and turbo-compounding, but perhaps DI?

Anyway, while today's 2.4 V8's are at 17.4 Hp per liter, Bar and kRpm, the 1988 Honda RA168E was at 14.6, the short-stroke 1983 3.0 DFY, actually delivered 520 Hp at 11.0 kRpm, meaning 15.8 Hp per liter, kRpm and Bar.

[WhiteBlue]

If your predictions are true F1 must be absolutely mad. Turbo compounding yields more hp/$ and more hp/kg than KERS. We are not talking percentages here but factors. Without variable valve timing and lift there will always be throttle losses. The coming generation of road car engines from Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Fiat and most other manufacturers will be better than F1. F1 has to ask the question what it wants to be, the "bottomless pit" or the "pinnacle"?

The whole purpose of spending €400m collectively between engine manufacturers is the application of the latest and the greatest in fuel efficiency. If F1 wants to be serious about this new formula is has to take the lead and not only adopt known engineering solutions that can be found in $30,000 road cars by 2013. I hope the forces that want to dumb down engine development will be over ruled and we go back to free and open competition for engines, HERS, KERS and other drive train components within the constraints of fuel limitation. The domination of aerodynamics in F1 development is boring and without purpose. F1 should spend more on the engine side than on the aero side. At the moment it is the other way around. A new balance is needed which will at least equalize the ratio of drive train to aero budgets.

[ACRO]

One thing though i don't think all the fancy energy saving stuff will be in F1 in 2013.
I think a simple KERS unit, L4 twin turbo, direct injection and that about it for the engine.
It has to be manageable for a reduced team size and lower costs. Which is the direction F1 is going. HERS doesn't add much more to entertainment value so that's not likely.

yepp, exactly that what i also think.

formula1 today is not only a sport, its a big business.

so they simply search for the best balance between development costs and efficiency. a "simple" twincharged 1.6L L4 may do here the best job. everything beyond that would not match the balance between costs and result. we also discussed far and long the very questionable use of other systems in an engine with quick load changes.

the normal spectator does not see and understand the technology, so they do not want to spend tremndenous money in the engine- it somply has to do the job.

i bet ,like already said, that they will hard regulate the engine up to bore and stroke dimensions and the turbo by itself , no team shall spend big money in gaining an advance further developing its engine. all teams should stay equal and FIA does not want "surprises" from one season to another regarding power output and laptimes.

they learned from the past and the tricky engineers with damaging development costs. they learned from seasons like 2002 when one team had such an advance that it was clear that ferrari would win.

well, very very sad from the sports view. in 2013 we will see a formula that with minimum effort will try to reach maximum financial result and an formula in which every team will use the same hard regulated technology without any chance of introducing something new by itself.

but this has been already discussed here...

[WhiteBlue]

we also discussed far and long the very questionable use of other systems in an engine with quick load changes.

There was no discussion. You simply decreed that turbo compounding an engine with quick load changes was rubbish. That opinion is completely unfounded IMO.

I believe that it is far more important that an engine runs predominantly on high power settings for turbo charging or hybrid turbos to be successful. The compressor will be kept spinning by the electric motor or the CVT during off throttle phases so responsiveness will not be a problem. The core issue is a high specific mass flow from the engine which is true for F1. With a profile that achieves an average power of 75% of maximum power there is a lot of exhaust gas energy to exploit. F1 is better suited to that type of recovery than any other automotive application that I know. Which road going car is going to run consistently on such high power settings?

[Pingguest]

Just a funny thought. No engine regulations would be necessary if Formula 1 1) get rid of wings and downforce, 2) abolish the minimum weight, 3) introduce durable, smaller, non-spec, all-weather tyres and 4) ban all remaining driver-aids. Technically the engine manufactures could make engines capable of producing 1500 bhp or more, but there wouldn't be enough grip and traction to use all power (properly). Therefore, engine manufactures would get a clear incentive to focus on drivability and fuel-efficiency instead of power.

But this is just a thought, not necessarily my opinion of Formula 1 should be.

F1 in 2013 will not abolish downforce. That is completely unrealistic. So your proposal is more like a bit of speculative lateral thinking. It doesn't really cover the topic of the 2013 engine regulation. I see no chance for such a thing at all. Unlimited power also means unlimited fuel consumption, and that is not at all what the PTB in F1 are looking for.

It seems that you completely missed the essence of my post. I wasn't speculating as if 'zero aero' was being discussed within Formula 1's working group. As I said it was just a thought, sadly.

However, I disagree that such a proposal would mean unlimited power and hence unlimited fuel consumption. Due to the lack of grip and traction it wouldn't make any sense to seek for unlimited power.

[WhiteBlue]

So let us assume that all stake holders would accept zero downforce. What would be the reason for doing that? Downforce generates performance. In order to keep F1 at the top of the heap all other formulae need to agree to a ban of downforce as well. Acceleration, deceleration, cornering performance would all be drastically reduced. The entertainment value will be seriously affected as all performance categories are slashed. IMO it makes a lot more sense to aim for a reduction of drag and improvement of fuel efficiency on a constant performance level. If there is a case for reducing downforce, power and performance it should be done gradually in an experimental way so that one can reverse the decision without much consequences if it is found that the reduction is too much.