Potential F1 engines beyond the 2013 1.6L turbo L4

[machin]

To qualify for a 2016 or 2017 F1 primary engine....would have to run on 170 g/kWh fuel....

It would be nice if the future regs don't take efficiency of individual components in isolation, and in fact look at total vehicle efficiency.

Lets assume that a GT couldn't make the same specific fuel efficiency as a conventional piston engine. It might still fit into the "High Efficiency" format if the benefits of the GT give efficiency improvements in other ways... e.g. lower weight, lower aerodynamic drag, better transmission efficiency (note the Howmet TX, with its constant power output, didn't have, nor need, a multi-speed gearbox)....

That's why a GT should not be discounted as a future possible prime mover for F1 cars... or passenger cars...

[rjsa]

LOL...

GT are really heavy, ineficient fuel hogs. That's why an A380, with a dry weight around 340t carries another 250t of fuel to fly for 8000 miles at mach 0.85 taking 16 hours on the process.

Allowed all the development and research needed go get the right size and power turbine for racing (or other automobile)use GT can get there. And most likelly they will before any other new technology does.

http://www.gizmag.com/gas-turbine-elect ... ing/13995/
http://www.bladonjets.com/applications/automotive/

[747heavy]

+1 machin

it would be nice if F1 is not dumbed down, to a "you must use this" formula.
if GT´s are so inferior, why the need to ban them?
Normally they don´t ban stuff, which does not work anyway.

just that every other car at the moment uses a "conventinal" engine, does not make it the most efficent solution by default.
And that some concepts had there limitations in the past, does not mean, they want be the solution of choice for the future, with new developments in materials or control´s overcoming some some of the problems, they had in the past.

I would like to see a diversity of different engineering solutions in the "pinnacle" of motor racing. - May the best solution win.

I understand and agree with the aim to reduce energy consumption in racing.
But the aim was allways there, and a consideration, but this aim does not require forcing everybody down the same path, and thereby limit development on a broader scale.

This is just a political motivated move (using the save costs argument), not a technical necessity, the same goes for the direction of KERS developments.

It´s not only about GT´s, I would love to see for example Mazda (or somebody else) return with a Wankel/Rotary engine.

There is a lot more politics and lobbying behind the FIA decision, then just the aim to reduce energy consumtion.
Banning any form of variable turbine geometry with the GRE (WRC/WTCC) is another example for this.

So across all major FIA championships we see basicly the same primarily engine configuration i4 turbo, well very exciting for the technical minded spectator/customer.

Let´s hope the non FIA championships, are more sensible going over their business, in that matter,and not getting their priorities clouded by other considerations, which have nothing to do, with the aim to reduce energy consumption or the CO2 footprint.

[machin]

LOL...GT are really heavy. That's why an A380, with a dry weight around 340t carries another 250t of fuel

LOL back at ya; try replacing the GT's on an A380 with conventional piston engines; it would be so big and heavy that the total efficiency of the act of getting 853 passengers in relative comfort from one part of the world to another in the same time frame would be much much worse. there's a good reason why commerical airline carriers use GT's; they are very light weight compact engines and give very high performance.

Light weight? Compact? High performance? That's just what a performance car needs isn't it? (along with a few other things, before anyone adds that!)

[rjsa]

Sorry, I didn't put the wink for irony.. fixed.

[WhiteBlue]

Nobody denies that the huge turbo fan engines of the wide body aircraft are marvels of technology in terms of absolute power, reliability and fuel efficiency.

The point that is obvious is that turbo shaft gas turbines do not scale down so nicely to the power segment that is needed for F1 in the future and to land vehicle applications in general.

It is not even clear which development path would be taken. Fully ceramic radial or metallic axial rotors for compressor and the turbine have both been used for scale down projects. Ceramics have been used by Toyota for small scale stationary electricity generation and metallic materials by Bladon Jets axial flow turbo-shaft engine directly coupled to a high speed generator as range extender for hybrid electrical vehicles.

Freedom of design is desirable in principle but it is not embraced by the power that be in F1. Realistically the teams have insisted on very narrow specifications of the propulsion technology since they gained power with the first concord agreement in 1982. Alternative propulsion was outlawed and even the type of piston engine was quickly restricted to 12 cylinders followed by a restriction to 10 cylinders, eight and now four. It is not primarily the FiA which is behind such moves. With a realistic view of the historical process it is clear that the teams are interested to harness propulsion technology within very close limits to keep chassis technology as the dominant area of competitive advantages.

So people who blame the FiA for the rules we have are barking up the wrong tree. The FiA is primarily interested in keeping the sport safe, entertaining, affordable to many teams and making it fuel efficient. They will also look at attracting manufacturers because the FiA represents the motorists who all use cars made by manufacturers. Auto racing is only one side of the FiA activities which is often forgotten by the hard core fans.

So back to the issue of gas turbines in F1. We should conclude that there are probably better suited areas of motor sport where the introduction could be easier done than in F1. LeMans for instance does not have the aspect of a franchise that favors the narrow technical path which is taken by F1. The same goes for any other high level series which is not primarily controlled by the participating teams. It is a shame but it is true, F1 is not exactly a hot bed of innovation. The teams are addicted to their aero games and not primarily interested to promote propulsion technology. Unless more than half the teams on the grid have their own engine brand there is very little prospect that the attitude changes.

[manchild]

WB, F1 popularity is in constant decline since FIA started uniforming technology. Figures of number of TV viewers mean nothing, TV is just more available to more people, population has constant growth, more countries are transmitting F1 etc. Lady Gaga isn't more popular than Beatles, no, it's just that it can reach more people since it has become cheap and easy.

People were once climbing trees and billboard just to be able to sneak-peak at F1 circuit, because it was totally incomparable to their passenger cars or even sport cars.

Nowadays there are passenger cars much powerful and faster than F1 cars. Each A segment car can be bought with more sophisticated technology than what can be found in F1. There is just one thing keeping F1 alive, and that is famous historic names of some teams. Remove/rename them from F1 and most of the people who were fans for years and decades will loose any interest.

I personally find it totally boring, I was grabbing straws to try to keep informed since the way FIA interferes in championship outcome year after year, simply makes focusing pointless. If it wasn't for Newey's ingenious RB6, this season from the technical side would be as "amusing" as NASCAR.

Metaphorically speaking, concerning diversity of technology, F1 is heading to fashion as prescribed in totalitarian regimes, while once it was Paris, Milan, London fashion show. If all teams begin wearing Mao's blue collar outfit, believe me, fans will turn their heads completely.

To sum it up - F1 is not IN, it has become mainstream, politically correct global suck up to anyone who wants to host it, giving away it's basic tradition like champagne cerebration etc, lost all of its avantgarde and prestige, and becomes more and more soulless sport like professional soccer.

They should guide it to regain its glory and popularity, not to shape it up for the reason that have nothing to do with it's existence, and the purpose of existence of F1 was and should be - fastest cars with most advanced technology no matter what. Safety should be the only red light technology should face, not the costs, because costs story is BS, since nowadays you can find more superior technology in FIAT 500 Abarth, than in Ferrari F10, and that is absurdity.

If new Vayron has 1000HP and goes 415kph, than by my humble logic (based on supersport cars vs. F1 cars, in the glory decades of F1), modern F1 car should have at least 2000hp. Sounds crazy? Well, 25 years ago F1 cars had 1000-1500HP while top supersport cars (Lamborghini Countach, F40 ETC) hardly reached 500HP.

[747heavy]

So people who blame the FiA for the rules we have are barking up the wrong tree..

At the end of the day, the FIA writes the rules and polices them, it´s a FIA championship after all.

That they listen and follow mostly the recommendations of FOTA (read the manufacturers) is by their own choice, they don´t have to.
So, in part the FIA is to blame for the situation.

That the FIA does not allways follow FOTA, has been seen just recently, when they refused to allow V8´s for longer, then FOTA wanted.

F1's engine makers are banding together against the FIA's plans to introduce a radically new engine formula in 2013.
It was previously believed the bulk of the teams backed the plans for turbocharged 1.6 litre 4-cylinder engines, in accordance with a 'greener' image.
But the sport's engine makers Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Cosworth have now come to the conclusion that Jean Todt's plans will cost EUR100 million to develop, and are lobbying to be able to base the new formula on the existing V8 engines.
Cosworth has reportedly warned that it can develop 4-cylinder engines for EUR20 million but that the costs must be passed on to its small customer teams.
So the engine maker group wants the plans to be delayed until 2015, according to a report in Germany's Auto Motor und Sport.

They believe the FIA's ambitions can be achieved with the current engines, such as by restricting fuel flow and developing the KERS regulations further.

They met after the Singapore race and agreed that efforts should be made to retain the basic V8 layout beyond 2012.

But also despite some F1 purists' fears about the benign sound the smaller engines will make, FIA president Todt is reportedly adamant the new formula one will be imposed on time.
http://newcarupdate.com/car-news/engine ... 1-v8s-2012

Therefore your claim that FOTA writes the rules is wrong - sorry.
They can make their wishes known, and come up with recommendations, if it sounds sensible the FIA will perhaps follow suite, but it don´t have to.
Sure the FIA will listen to suggestions, why would they not, but at the end of the day, the FIA has the last say in any FIA sanctioned championship when it comes to the rules.

And there are many examples in the past, when FIA enforced rule changes against the wishes of the manufacturers, and not all where on safery grounds.

So, no, we are not barking up the wrong tree.
It´s also FIA who decided to not allow variable turbos in the WRC/WTCC.
Sure I understand why, no need to explain it to me, but it´s FIA who signs off the final rules, so they take responsibility for them.

As does ACO for the rules in LeMans/LeMans series and other non FIA championships for their respective rules.
Chances are, that some of them are more sensible in their future rules then FIA is with F1, and still achieve a reduction in overal energy consumption, without imposing artifical limits on the technology used to achieve it.

[MadMatt]

Completely agree with what was said here. F1 is getting more and more like a "fashion-show" than a "men-sport". Seeing how many people speak about F1 and think that they are fully into it is getting more common and this is just a farce. Really sad, but can we do anything about it ? I don't think so.

FIA wants : spectacular > technic
We want : technic > spectacular

I'm not saying that watching a boring race with no overtaking is interesting, but still, I would prefer to be amazed by the cars, than amazed by nothing (because the overtakings have not been improved). Poor F1.

So let's hope the other categories won't suffer from these stupid regulations, or let's start out own league !

[machin]

I can't argue WB with the 'teams rule F1' arguement; and therefore we almost certainly won't see GT's in F1 in the near future...

Re-phrasing the question to 'can GT's compete with piston engines in a total efficiency race formula' is still a worthy conversation and one which I find interesting. Personally I don't think its a foregone conclusion either way...

[rjsa]

Nobody denies that the huge turbo fan engines of the wide body aircraft are marvels of technology in terms of absolute power, reliability and fuel efficiency.

The point that is obvious is that turbo shaft gas turbines do not scale down so nicely to the power segment that is needed for F1 in the future and to land vehicle applications in general.

It is not even clear which development path would be taken. Fully ceramic radial or metallic axial rotors for compressor and the turbine have both been used for scale down projects. Ceramics have been used by Toyota for small scale stationary electricity generation and metallic materials by Bladon Jets axial flow turbo-shaft engine directly coupled to a high speed generator as range extender for hybrid electrical vehicles.

Freedom of design is desirable in principle but it is not embraced by the power that be in F1. Realistically the teams have insisted on very narrow specifications of the propulsion technology since they gained power with the first concord agreement in 1982. Alternative propulsion was outlawed and even the type of piston engine was quickly restricted to 12 cylinders followed by a restriction to 10 cylinders, eight and now four. It is not primarily the FiA which is behind such moves. With a realistic view of the historical process it is clear that the teams are interested to harness propulsion technology within very close limits to keep chassis technology as the dominant area of competitive advantages.

So people who blame the FiA for the rules we have are barking up the wrong tree. The FiA is primarily interested in keeping the sport safe, entertaining, affordable to many teams and making it fuel efficient. They will also look at attracting manufacturers because the FiA represents the motorists who all use cars made by manufacturers. Auto racing is only one side of the FiA activities which is often forgotten by the hard core fans.

So back to the issue of gas turbines in F1. We should conclude that there are probably better suited areas of motor sport where the introduction could be easier done than in F1. LeMans for instance does not have the aspect of a franchise that favors the narrow technical path which is taken by F1. The same goes for any other high level series which is not primarily controlled by the participating teams. It is a shame but it is true, F1 is not exactly a hot bed of innovation. The teams are addicted to their aero games and not primarily interested to promote propulsion technology. Unless more than half the teams on the grid have their own engine brand there is very little prospect that the attitude changes.

Winning arguments by rendering every oponet tired of answering won't make your sponsored idea/technolgy the good one.

I once was studying Naval Engineering and had all the formulas and answers to get into the kind of napkin calculations I see running around here, but that time is unfortunately (for me) gone.

The what-if scenarios with the gas turbine are the same as with any other miracle formula still to be track tested. GT has never been tried properly. It does not mean it won't work. The few times it was track tried it was banned.

Supporters of road relevance (which I'm not) should free the rules to see if some new technology takes over, not try to squeeze another 2% more efficiency from a damn boring 4 banger.

[WhiteBlue]

At the end of the day, the FIA writes the rules and polices them, it´s a FIA championship after all.

That they listen and follow mostly the recommendations of FOTA (read the manufacturers) is by their own choice, they don´t have to.
So, in part the FIA is to blame for the situation.

That the FIA does not allways follow FOTA, has been seen just recently, when they refused to allow V8´s for longer, then FOTA wanted.

Therefore your claim that FOTA writes the rules is wrong - sorry.
They can make their wishes known, and come up with recommendations, if it sounds sensible the FIA will perhaps follow suite, but it don´t have to.
Sure the FIA will listen to suggestions, why would they not, but at the end of the day, the FIA has the last say in any FIA sanctioned championship when it comes to the rules.

And there are many examples in the past, when FIA enforced rule changes against the wishes of the manufacturers, and not all where on safery grounds.

I'm sorry to say it but you are simply wrong. Since August 1st 2009 F1 is ruled again by the F1commission as I have pointed out time and again. All rule proposals are formulated by the working groups installed by the F1commission and have to pass the majority voting of the commission before they go to the FiA WMSC. The counsil can reject the rule proposal or approve it. It cannot modify it or make their own proposal. They have a simple binary vote to reject legislation which they think isn't in the interest of the sport.

This mechanism has also been followed with the 2013 engine proposal of the expert working group. The Commission obviously made some last minute changes like the higher rpm of 12,000. It is pretty obvious that the majority of the private teams voted the proposals through against Ferrari and potentially Mercedes. I'm not convinced that Mercedes was against the new formula but they would have obviously profited if the introduction had been further delayed. They will have the most powerful engine until 2013 and then they could be loosing that position.

The FiA mainly got what they wanted because they managed to line up their position with the wishes of the private teams and provided mechanisms that prevent a run away success of a manufacturer and a new cost race.

But back to the real issue. Unless we see a huge change in the political forces of F1 we can expect the same balance of forces to work when the next technical changes are due after 2014, 2015 or 2016. It really depends how fast or slow the convergence of turbo compounding and KERS will work out. Once there is not much left to be done in these fields I believe they will come back to the engine to drive fuel consumption even further down. I think it will be a process that will not stop once it has been started.

I have explained why I think methane engines with dual fuel ignition could be the next thing and some people have confidence that gas turbines would make the race that time around. I think GTs will only have a chance if F1 by then will be electric with GT electric power generation. That isn't such an exiting prospect and I think the option will be rejected as bad for the show.

[rjsa]

I have explained why I think methane engines with dual fuel ignition could be the next thing and some people have confidence that gas turbines would make the race that time around. I think GTs will only have a chance if F1 by then will be electric with GT electric power generation. That isn't such an exiting prospect and I think the option will be rejected as bad for the show.

Oh there is such an existing prospect. Four wheel kers harvesting and torque delivering is largely supported by the 2013 rules endorsers (you included, if memory serves me right). The guesses on the issue are that something between 15% and 30% of the total availiable power will be delivered eletrically.

Without running any math I'd guess that a GT running constant power would need no more than 300 to 400 HP to keep bateries full and deliver de energy needed to run the current speeds and distances.

[747heavy]

So people who blame the FiA for the rules we have are barking up the wrong tree.

The counsil can reject the rule proposal or approve it.

... but at the end of the day, the FIA has the last say in any FIA sanctioned championship when it comes to the rules.

well, what´s your issue here WB, did we not say the same thing in a different way?

They don´t need to write the rules, they just let somebody else do all the work, and reject them until they look the way, they want them to look like.

If they approve them, they have to bear the responsibility for them.
Simple - No?

[WhiteBlue]

They don´t need to write the rules, they just let somebody else do all the work, and reject them until they look the way, they want them to look like.

If they approve them, they have to bear the responsibility for them.
Simple - No?

You know very well that this is not the case. The WMSC almost never rejects anything. I cannot remember a single example since 2009 that legislation approved by the F1commission has been stopped by WMSC veto.

I think that the FiA will be very careful with the use of their veto. There are probably very few proposals that would be outright bad for the sport. So one can say that the FiA has some responsibility for the rules, but only in the wide sense that they are not abusive or bad for the sport and not about nitty gritty details like the majority of technical rules.