What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

Engine weight is mandated now at 95kg. WHy do you think they'll change it?

Because the current minimum weight limit applies to the old V8 formula. F1 would be more than dumb to downsize and keep the old weight limit.

[djos]

Engine weight is mandated now at 95kg. WHy do you think they'll change it?

Because the current minimum weight limit applies to the old V8 formula. F1 would be more than dumb to downsize and keep the old weight limit.

not if they include the turbo's and exhaust headers in that weight limit.

[rjsa]

...

The day that F1 creates engine regs purely around fuel efficiency is the day I lose interest and move on to another sport. Problem is, I'm fast running out of sports where 'proper' petrolhead engines exist. Top Fuel, anyone?

I move for at least 6 cylinders - any less and the cars just wont sound like F1 cars. Just think of a 1.6 V12 Twin-Turbo @ 11,000rpm. What a noise that would be. I really don't mind turbo-charging but would prefer N/A.

I'm glad an engineer is on the same page as me.

The good news for now is that the V8 will be around for 6 races and 2 complete seasons more.

One could hope for a sensible (and appealing) choice by the FIA but I'm not prepared to hold my breath.

I think so. You kill the noise you will see track atendance drop, and then who knows.

But this thread has been squatted and pretty well guarded since then. You say something other that a I4 Turbo and you will be bored to that with page long answers.

[xpensive]

@ djos;
There are however other limitations as well, 50 cc of gasoline per second is the equivalent of 1710 kW (2320 Hp),
why an output of 750 Hp would mean an efficiency of 32%, which probably is a bit much even for a V6-turbo?

[djos]

@ djos;
There are however other limitations as well, 50 cc of gasoline per second is the equivalent of 1710 kW (2320 Hp),
why an output of 750 Hp would mean an efficiency of 32%, which probably is a bit much even for a V6-turbo?

so increase the flow rate.

[rjsa]

If you want to know how it is being done read the report Turbo'd for Fuel Economy

In case you are still not getting it, I'm not arguing green.

Attaboy!

[WhiteBlue]

It's interesting how you try to toot your own horn by reading someting from bland statements like those from Michael and Lowe? Lowe never said McLaren supported any engine layout specifically, and Michael was obviously hesitating.

You are the one who is denying the available information about the engine formula and who is ignoring the statements of the quoted team members and the reports of F1 journalists to "toot your horn".

As early as April this year Andrew Benson from the BBC reported about the negotiations in the engine working group:

There have been recent reports, incidentally, saying that the engines will have a 1.5-litre capacity. My sources tell me that is not accurate - they are likely to be either 1.6- or 1.8-litres.

That report was nearly five months ago. It was confirmed when the Italian paper Autosprint reported a week ago that the engine working group made a recommendation for the 1.6L L4 format which was supported by the majority of teams. Autosport also carried those reports. This decision was also widely published by prominent F1 journalists and bloggers like Joe Saward, James Allan and Michael Schmidt.

Independently Ferrari's Luca Marmorini published the minority position of supporting a 1.8L V6. It is clear that the final choice in the engine working group was between the 1.6L L4 and the 1.8L V6 proposal as Benson predicted and that the working group rejected the Ferrari proposal.

So when Paddy Lowe says that he and McLaren support the decision of the working group it is obvious that McLaren supports the 1.6L L4. If any more confirmation was needed we have Tim Goss of McLaren rejecting Marmorini's dubious claim that there should be no time for the design of an L4 engine. With two proposals in the final for selection what else but the 1.6L engine should McLaren be supporting? Finally you ignore the report in Motorsport.com which explicitly says in the title that McLaren is in the 1.6L camp.

Sam Michael's statement is absolutely clear and unambiguous. He identified Williams' preference for the 1.6L four cylinder format. How much clearer can a statement be?

Those are the facts that I have posted in this thread by providing sources. You have made it clear that you support a V6 - which is represented by Ferrari's minority proposal - and a fuel flow limit of 50 ml/s. I believe that both ideas are unlikely to be implemented. I see it as unlikely that Ferrari will manage to have the recommendation of the engine working group overturned. Why should FOTA and FiA install an expert group to deal with such an important decision and disregard the result of the effort?

The fuel flow limit - if it is implemented - is more likely to be set at 35-40 ml/s in my view. A maximum flow of 50 ml/s is likely to result in a higher fuel consumption than that of the current V8 engines. It would be against all published objectives of the new formula.

Ultimately only time will tell what will be written in the new engine formula. There is little point to have a petty debate about personal estimates now. Why don't we simply wait and see what happens?

[Scotracer]

...

The day that F1 creates engine regs purely around fuel efficiency is the day I lose interest and move on to another sport. Problem is, I'm fast running out of sports where 'proper' petrolhead engines exist. Top Fuel, anyone?

I move for at least 6 cylinders - any less and the cars just wont sound like F1 cars. Just think of a 1.6 V12 Twin-Turbo @ 11,000rpm. What a noise that would be. I really don't mind turbo-charging but would prefer N/A.

I'm glad an engineer is on the same page as me.

The good news for now is that the V8 will be around for 6 races and 2 complete seasons more.

One could hope for a sensible (and appealing) choice by the FIA but I'm not prepared to hold my breath.

I'm a petrolhead first, an engineer second

[FW17]

@ djos;
There are however other limitations as well, 50 cc of gasoline per second is the equivalent of 1710 kW (2320 Hp),
why an output of 750 Hp would mean an efficiency of 32%, which probably is a bit much even for a V6-turbo?

32% was achieved in 1980's, but with engine tech able to rev upto 23000 rpm (reduction in friction) the engine efficiency should be atleast 20% more efficient to start with.

So with KERS F1 2013 will have 900 hp at their disposal to start with, which is exciting.

[djos]

32% was achieved in 1980's, but with engine tech able to rev upto 23000 rpm (reduction in friction) the engine efficiency should be atleast 20% more efficient to start with.

So with KERS F1 2013 will have 900 hp at their disposal to start with, which is exciting.

Now that I want to see! [-o<

[Scotracer]

@ djos;
There are however other limitations as well, 50 cc of gasoline per second is the equivalent of 1710 kW (2320 Hp),
why an output of 750 Hp would mean an efficiency of 32%, which probably is a bit much even for a V6-turbo?

32% was achieved in 1980's, but with engine tech able to rev upto 23000 rpm (reduction in friction) the engine efficiency should be atleast 20% more efficient to start with.

So with KERS F1 2013 will have 900 hp at their disposal to start with, which is exciting.

You are never going to add 20% overall efficiency.

By the looks of it, F1 2013 will be 800BHP max with KERS.

[xpensive]

@ djos;
There are however other limitations as well, 50 cc of gasoline per second is the equivalent of 1710 kW (2320 Hp),
why an output of 750 Hp would mean an efficiency of 32%, which probably is a bit much even for a V6-turbo?

32% was achieved in 1980's, but with engine tech able to rev upto 23000 rpm (reduction in friction) the engine efficiency should be atleast 20% more efficient to start with.

So with KERS F1 2013 will have 900 hp at their disposal to start with, which is exciting.

I very much doubt a total efficieny, from fuel to crank, of 32%. Moreover, internal friction increases by the square of rpm,
as shearforce on the oilfim increases linear and powerloss, as force times speed, by the square of speed.

But anyway, if we consider having 750 Hp from 50 cc/sec, let's hope WB is completely wrong with his Fisher-Price 1600 cc four-banger, yielding 525 Hp at 35 cc/sec?

[FW17]

Did not mean 20% more over all efficiency, but 20% additional on 32% which will be about 38%.

I very much doubt a total efficieny, from fuel to crank, of 32%. Moreover, internal friction increases by the square of rpm,
as shearforce on the oilfim increases linear and powerloss, as force times speed, by the square of speed.

I think the power/efficiency loss is function of piston speed than rpm which is only marginaly increased from say 27m/s to 28m/s.


I did not understand ferrari's idea of carrying the V8 to a V6, I always thought that the V8 and V6 did not have the same 'V angle' for mechanical balance, so how is this workable?

[xpensive]

In a perfect world, there is never metal-to-metal contact in a piston-engine, but shearing of an ever so thin oil-film.
But that's nothing new in itself, certain roller-bearings operate with an oilfim less than one micron.

Anyway, shear-force on this film increases proportional with speed;

Force (N) = Dynamic viscosity (Ns/m^2) * Speed (m/s) * Area (m^2) / Film thickness (m)
Where; Dynamic viscosity = Kinematic viscosity (St) * Density (kg/m^3)

Xample, a 90 mm dia. piston, 30 mm long, at 20 m/s with 40 cSt and 875 kg/m^3 density lube, will generate a shear-force of 300 N if the oilfilm is 20 microns. When power is always Force times Speed, the powerloss will be 6 kW.

As piston- as well as all surface-speed will be proportional to Rpm, powerloss will be squared to Rpm.

A increase from 27 to 28, m/s or kRpm all the same, will result in an increase in friction-loss as (28/27)^2 -1 = 7.5%

[FW17]

what is the air fuel mixture of a 1.5 l engine, @12000 rpm, @50ml/s fuel flow?

I am getting 0.06% which is too lean for any engine. something is wrong