2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[GitanesBlondes]

Fuel is standardized in LMP1 and the FiA seeks to bring the sets of rules closer to each other. There is really no point in blowing out huge sums of money in fuel formulations. The main objectives should be promoting sustainability and fuel efficiency not spending millions of dollars for fuels that have no other purpose.

What makes you so sure the fuels would have no other purpose? If anything, it provides an excellent R&D opportunity for Total, Shell, Petronas, and Mobil to make fuels that would be quite useful for production vehicles. If the goal as you've stated many times is for F1 to have road relevance, fuel is sort of important to automobiles is it not? Why should we limit a potential benefit for road cars? It's more beneficial than having exhausts blowing on diffusers I think anyway, no?

[bhall]

Beyond that, each leading team has a significant tie to a major oil company, not to mention Petronas' title sponsorship of Mercedes. That's hundreds of millions of dollars that someone is going to have to cover before the idea of a standard fuel supply even begins to have a chance.

[GitanesBlondes]

Fuel is standardized in LMP1 and the FiA seeks to bring the sets of rules closer to each other. There is really no point in blowing out huge sums of money in fuel formulations. The main objectives should be promoting sustainability and fuel efficiency not spending millions of dollars for fuels that have no other purpose.

I also wanted to ask you about this since you had made this statement in the ying yang topic.

I love all this speculative chemical horse power chasing. Only that they have harvested all the low hanging fruits for ages. Here is nothing in the fuel regulations that would allow something they have not already done for a decade. Good luck.

Clearly such a move by the FIA is an admittance that there is in fact still low-hanging fruit to be found in F1.

So are you now admitting in the first quoted statement, that there is in fact something in the fuel regulations that would allow them to do something they've not done for a decade?

[WhiteBlue]

Fuel is standardized in LMP1 and the FiA seeks to bring the sets of rules closer to each other. There is really no point in blowing out huge sums of money in fuel formulations. The main objectives should be promoting sustainability and fuel efficiency not spending millions of dollars for fuels that have no other purpose.

I also wanted to ask you about this since you had made this statement in the ying yang topic.

I love all this speculative chemical horse power chasing. Only that they have harvested all the low hanging fruits for ages. Here is nothing in the fuel regulations that would allow something they have not already done for a decade. Good luck.

Clearly such a move by the FIA is an admittance that there is in fact still low-hanging fruit to be found in F1.

So are you now admitting in the first quoted statement, that there is in fact something in the fuel regulations that would allow them to do something they've not done for a decade?

Your logic is faulty. There is no such connection. The FiA simply tries to keep all the privileges they have traditionally owned and that are constantly being eroded by CVC and the F1 group. The FiA may exercise their right to tender the single tyre supplier and the fuel supplier. This does not mean they necessarily will do it next year or in three years time. They are simply flexing their muscles to make sure they are still there. Bernie needs to be shown the limits of his powers occasionally.

A fuel war makes no sense in the context of the FiA sustainability policies. So if the lab rats are spending too much money and the top teams get tired of another field of wasting money they have the proper answer to the problem. IMO Todt is just reminding everybody of his powers.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 93#p262893

We're keeping the same efficiency objectives that we had with the straight four, (it's) probably be a little bit more challenging with a six...

Ross Brawn in Valencia June 2011 about the fuel efficiency of four or six cylinder engines immediately after the turbo engine introduction was delayed to 2014 and the layout was changed from I4 to V6. Ross is not a noob.

[wuzak]

A fuel war makes no sense in the context of the FiA sustainability policies. So if the lab rats are spending too much money and the top teams get tired of another field of wasting money they have the proper answer to the problem. IMO Todt is just reminding everybody of his powers.

Before there was widespread advertising in F1 the manufacturers/teams were supported, at least in part, by the oil and fuel companies. And they still are, to a degree.

The teams themselves do not waste money on fuel and oil research. This is done by, and at the expense of, the fuel and oil companies. It is part of their R&D effort.

What's next - single lubricant supplier? The work done by the oil suppliers has led to improved lubrication qualities, and the demands of the new formula will push the boundaries even further.

By the way, Le Mans is not run to FIA rules - it is run to ACO rules.

[wuzak]

Beyond that, each leading team has a significant tie to a major oil company, not to mention Petronas' title sponsorship of Mercedes. That's hundreds of millions of dollars that someone is going to have to cover before the idea of a standard fuel supply even begins to have a chance.

Exactly.

[xpensive]

...

I love all this speculative chemical horse power chasing. Only that they have harvested all the low hanging fruits for ages. Here is nothing in the fuel regulations that would allow something they have not already done for a decade. Good luck.

Clearly such a move by the FIA is an admittance that there is in fact still low-hanging fruit to be found in F1.

So are you now admitting in the first quoted statement, that there is in fact something in the fuel regulations that would allow them to do something they've not done for a decade?

Indeed, it would be most interesting to learn about your reasons for changing your mind here WB, is it just because the FIA has spoken out in reverse of your previous opinion, or have you recently educated yourself within petrochemical engineering?

[WhiteBlue]

A fuel war makes no sense in the context of the FiA sustainability policies. So if the lab rats are spending too much money and the top teams get tired of another field of wasting money they have the proper answer to the problem. IMO Todt is just reminding everybody of his powers.

Before there was widespread advertising in F1 the manufacturers/teams were supported, at least in part, by the oil and fuel companies. And they still are, to a degree.

The teams themselves do not waste money on fuel and oil research. This is done by, and at the expense of, the fuel and oil companies. It is part of their R&D effort.

What's next - single lubricant supplier? The work done by the oil suppliers has led to improved lubrication qualities, and the demands of the new formula will push the boundaries even further.

By the way, Le Mans is not run to FIA rules - it is run to ACO rules.

There is no benefit for anybody in mobility from the research that fuel companies would do in a fuel war. There would simply be money been blown away for arcane technology that benefits nobody in the real world. Pretty much the same as engines that rev 20000 rpm or billions spend on F1 aerodynamics in artificial configuration changes.

I think that everybody here is aware who makes LMP rules and that the FiA is involved for the year 2014 onwards. That's why comparisons become interesting. All I'm saying is that LMP will do more relevant research, will be more technically exciting and will not waste money on arcane technology that will not even increase the entertainment. The kind of fuel research we are talking here is not even close to being useful IMO.

To give an example the diesel development for sulphur free fuel and engine technology by Peugeot and Audi based on such fuels is highly useful and is benefitting millions of motorist all over the world. It is also protecting the environment. That is what I call useful fuel technology. Dual fuel combustion with natural gas and diesel I would also find an interesting technology. Hydrogen fuel cells would make sense and many other related fuel technologies that would be worthier than 1 or 2 % more energy density of F1 fuel that would benefit the richest teams, which have partners that can afford to blow money on such items.

And btw down voting me for having an opinion will not change my mind about such things.

[WhiteBlue]

This opinion on the friction losses is not consistent with all the experiences we have had for 20 years in F1. V12 engines were not competitive with V10 because they were too thirsty. Each generation of F1 engines with fewer cylinders became more fuel efficient and in the general automotive industry downsizing and downspeeding is always improving efficiency of the engine. The participants of the EWG were by no means noobs with no understanding. One of the guys who made remarks I remember was Audi's top engine man Baretzki and I also remember Tim Routsis of Cosworth giving several comments about the process in the group.

The V12 was more thirsty because it was more powerful and that was because was revving higher (which is possible, amongst other factors, exactly because of lower losses at a given rpm).
For confirmation go ask Schumacher what he found after he drove the 412T2 at Fiorano, how he was impressed by the power of the V12 compared with the Renault he won the WDC with.

For some more technical information though you can read this SAE paper if you have access:
Boretti, A. and Cantore, G., "Comparison of V10 and V12 F1 Engines," SAE Technical Paper 983035, 1998,
or this one
http://not2fast.com/engine/sae1998-3036.pdf
which is publicly available and has a short summary of the results of the other in the introduction.

Just couple of examples of papers showing that result, you can find more by yourself.

BTW, the fact that evolution in F1 moved to less cylinders is pointless to this debate, few years after all went to V10 (some moving down from 12, like Ferrari, some moving up from 8, like Cosworth) the number of cylinder became fixed in rules.
And that was, just so you now, because Toyota wanted to enter with a V12 thinking that at that point the technology was improved enough to allow to fully exploit its advantages without suffering disadvantages.
For fear they could be right, which would have forced everybody else to design new engines, other manufacturer decided to preventively impose the V10.
The passage to V8 then was simply a matter of convenience, reduce total displacement (to reduce power, nothing to do with fuel at the time) but maintaining same unitary displacement pretending it would reduce cost of the transition.

Worth also mentioning that the above comparisons are about 10 vs 12, law of diminishing returns applies, the gains I mentioned are way more relevant passing from a 4 to a 6 because the difference is larger so the dominance over other factors is more evident. (incidentally, it's not coincidence if in the previous turbo era all the manufacturer that designed the engine from scratch went for the V6, the I4's were all derived from existing blocks, and were hardly competitive, bar BMW for a short period of time; that's when they used "particular", or should I say illegal, fuel though, not because their engine was really better)

Also some of the packaging disadvantages a 12 has compared with a 10 don't apply to the V6 vs I4, the former for example is shorter, not longer, and better suited from a structural point of view.

Last but not least, the past examples come (almost all) from an unrestricted fuel formula, now will be a regulated consumption one, in the former the advantage of more cylinders was exploited going for more power via doing more cycles in the unit of time thus ending up using more fuel, nowadays the target is different so the mechanical advantages would be exploited differently.

All of that then is about race engines which is was only counts for F1, what kind of choices the manufacturers make for their production engine is not necessarily related to engine performance per se, or best choices for a race unit, as much as marketing would make you think so. For instance the I4 is popular in road cars because less parts needed reduce cost of production and because being narrow and relatively short is well suited to small FWD vehicles gaining cabin room.

Anyway, that's it for me on this matter, if you aren't convinced so be it, maybe someone else found it useful.
For those who didn't, apologizes for going OT.

The point you constantly miss is that race technology is not necessarily different from mobility technology. It has been in the past, but it will not be necessarily in the future. The new fuel limiting formula is a game changer in that regard. It is illusional to believe that the engines will rev to 15.000 rpm if the fuel flow is capped at 10.500.
I'm getting very tired of hearing the old argument against I4 regarding packaging in a racing car. It is pointless. The vehicle has a huge length for performance reasons and an I4 is easily fitted into the available longitudinal space. The lateral rigidity is equally no problem. There are existing example pictures in this thread how you can design such engines. And if you are hell bend to use a V configuration you can use V4 as motoGP has successfully demonstrated. F1 with the artificial narrow spec will give us no real progress with fuel limited engine design. So it becomes pointless to argue one way or the other for 4 cylinders or 6 cylinders. It will not be possible to compare the concepts in competition. But it will be possible in LMP and there we will see the real test of engine concepts with unlimited design freedom. If Porsche come out with a V6 I will be prepared to reconsider. For the time being I believe they will go for four cylinders and they will beat the Toyota V8 easily in terms of engine efficiency.

[xpensive]

...
And btw down voting me for having an opinion will not change my mind about such things.

I very much doubt that any member downvotes you for an opinion WB, at least I would never do so, but perhaps some
members might consider it when you u-turn without admitting that your earlier so stark and vocal position was wrong?

Think about it.

[Tommy Cookers]

A fuel war makes no sense in the context of the FiA sustainability policies. So if the lab rats are spending too much money ....... IMO Todt is just reminding everybody of his powers.

There is no benefit for anybody in mobility from the research that fuel companies would do in a fuel war.

I think that everybody here is aware who makes LMP rules and that the FiA is involved for the year 2014 onwards. That's why comparisons become interesting. All I'm saying is that LMP will do more relevant research,

...... fuel technologies that would be worthier than 1 or 2 % more energy density of F1 fuel that would benefit the richest teams, which have partners that can afford to blow money on such items.

the scope for enforcing a single fuel supplier is bounded by the current rules on the stability of rules eg the current fuel rules ?
it's clear even to me that such a threat would have influence in the boardroom

IMO there is clearly 6-10% energy density gain available (relative to current F1 fuel), some/much of this is already in hand

regarding benefits to Joe Public there is a surprising amount of open and current research on the production of high octane fuel ingredients, eg Triptane etc
this is an independent activity, but clearly parallel to any real or imagined F1 fuel war
Joe Public needs high octane for efficiency ie fuel conservation

so Le Mans etc has or is about to have control fuel ???
and the fuel companies lose publicity value ?

[GitanesBlondes]

Fuel is standardized in LMP1 and the FiA seeks to bring the sets of rules closer to each other. There is really no point in blowing out huge sums of money in fuel formulations. The main objectives should be promoting sustainability and fuel efficiency not spending millions of dollars for fuels that have no other purpose.

I also wanted to ask you about this since you had made this statement in the ying yang topic.

I love all this speculative chemical horse power chasing. Only that they have harvested all the low hanging fruits for ages. Here is nothing in the fuel regulations that would allow something they have not already done for a decade. Good luck.

Clearly such a move by the FIA is an admittance that there is in fact still low-hanging fruit to be found in F1.

So are you now admitting in the first quoted statement, that there is in fact something in the fuel regulations that would allow them to do something they've not done for a decade?

Your logic is faulty. There is no such connection. The FiA simply tries to keep all the privileges they have traditionally owned and that are constantly being eroded by CVC and the F1 group. The FiA may exercise their right to tender the single tyre supplier and the fuel supplier. This does not mean they necessarily will do it next year or in three years time. They are simply flexing their muscles to make sure they are still there. Bernie needs to be shown the limits of his powers occasionally.

A fuel war makes no sense in the context of the FiA sustainability policies. So if the lab rats are spending too much money and the top teams get tired of another field of wasting money they have the proper answer to the problem. IMO Todt is just reminding everybody of his powers.

I'm still not understanding your defense of such an outright ludicrous fuel policy that the FIA seems interested in imposing. This has not been linked to CVC, but the FIA. As such, saying flexing their muscles to see if they are still there is not in my opinion a valid justification for such a narrow-minded rule.

You are presupposing that the lab rats would be spending too much money and that the top teams would get tired of it. There's nothing to indicate the top teams would be tired of spending money that has a great deal of benefits to their on-track performance. Todt has no business playing around with such things as it violates --as do a great many things currently in the sport-- the fundamental ethos of F1 in not allowing the best engineering to shine through.

[xpensive]

As discussed on this thread a while ago, the energy density of regular pump-fuel can vary with +/-4% according to the US EPA, though some members dismissed and almost ridiculed the concern, some of them seem to have changed their minds however.

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

Xcerpt;
The bulk of a typical gasoline consists of hydrocarbons with between four and 12 carbon atoms per molecule (commonly referred to as C4-C12)

Just imagine what Shell's and Total's lab-rats can with this, literally puzzling together the 2014 F1-fuel molecule by molecule.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm still not understanding your defense of such an outright ludicrous fuel policy that the FIA seems interested in imposing. This has not been linked to CVC, but the FIA. As such, saying flexing their muscles to see if they are still there is not in my opinion a valid justification for such a narrow-minded rule.

You are presupposing that the lab rats would be spending too much money and that the top teams would get tired of it. There's nothing to indicate the top teams would be tired of spending money that has a great deal of benefits to their on-track performance. Todt has no business playing around with such things as it violates --as do a great many things currently in the sport-- the fundamental ethos of F1 in not allowing the best engineering to shine through.

I should really not answer posts that fail to recognize the basic concepts or come from a different set of values toatally incompatible with mine or the FiA. But I will give it a last try.

1. Cost and distraction to teams
Did you think for a moment that new fuels and lubricants have to be tested by the teams and their engine suppliers? So forcing a fuel war will not be without cost for the teams and their engine suppliers. This field of engineering has nothing to do with the ethos of the driver championship or the constructor championship and will do nothing for manufacturers or Joe public. It is simply another spending field which all top teams will have to support by their available financial and human resources similarly to competitive tyre supply. Typically they all get distracted from the main job and get tired of this. So they eventually request the FiA to get rid of the problem by appointing a common supplier.

2. Commercial interest
All teams with fuel sponsors and FOM love to see the fuel suppliers sink money into F1 by sponsoring and tweaking the products. But there is a limit to what is positive and what is over all distractive. If the fight for a competitive fuel is absorbing too much resources and attention of the public as tyres did some time ago the contribution of money is not worth the hassle for the sport as a whole. The sport is better of in that case to use a common supplier as the ACO does.

3. The role of the FiA
The FiA via the ownership of the series has the right and the priviledge to appoint common suppliers by a tendering process if and when common supply is a better solution than competitive supply for the sport. They need to defend that priviledge against the commercial interest of FOM as history has shown. FOM has a tendency to grab every bit of power and influence and disregard the rights and ownership of the FiA championship. I'm reasonably sure that Todt will not introduce a common fuel supply against the broad wishes of the F1 commission, but he will make all necessary preparations that such a move can be implemented as and if it becomes prudent to do so.