What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[xpensive]

And yes, we have a winner! With you all the way on that one axle, right WB?

When Gasoline is some 30 MJ per kg and Methanol and Ethanol are 20-something, this should make for interesting technical developments as well as race strategies, I think we need some sort of equivalency formula however?

[Scania]

I think they should open up the rules again.

You have this many Kj of energy (fuel - different fuels different Kj ratings per L).
Make that energy last for 300Km's using an engine that weighs 90Kgs.

Ban any system that can't make it onto a road car. Pneumatic valves. But allow anything else and any fuel. This could see a road car usable electro-magnetic camless valve train (see http://www.grouplotus.com/engineering/research.html) get developed more quickly to the benefit of all.

The winners are the ones that are most efficient with the Kj's they have and the packaging they choose.

Simple and gets the engineers thinking.

That's a good suggest [-o<

[Scania]

Ban any system that can't make it onto a road car.<<<<for example?

[Michiba]

I think they should open up the rules again.

You have this many Kj of energy (fuel - different fuels different Kj ratings per L).
Make that energy last for 300Km's using an engine that weighs 90Kgs.

Ban any system that can't make it onto a road car. Pneumatic valves. But allow anything else and any fuel. This could see a road car usable electro-magnetic camless valve train (see http://www.grouplotus.com/engineering/research.html) get developed more quickly to the benefit of all.

The winners are the ones that are most efficient with the Kj's they have and the packaging they choose.

Simple and gets the engineers thinking.

wouldn't this just lead to a team like ferrari putting whatever exotic technology they have into a special edition model and sell 5 of them, like they did in le mans gt

[Belatti]

All you guys saying F1 and fuel efficient in the same sentence make me nauseous...

Oh, c'mon.

Any race car with a less efficient engine than its opponent's will lose. Always has been, always will. 1 gallon is like 1 tenth.

F1 engines are among the more efficient engines in the world, they have to.

I agree with Ciro in this one, but will reform sentence to this:

All you guys saying F1 and road relevant technology in the same sentence make me nauseous...

Leave road relevant for F3, DTM, FIA GT, etc...
F1 must be ahead 20 years in road relevant technologies.

[Scania]

All you guys saying F1 and fuel efficient in the same sentence make me nauseous...

Oh, c'mon.

Any race car with a less efficient engine than its opponent's will lose. Always has been, always will. 1 gallon is like 1 tenth.

F1 engines are among the more efficient engines in the world, they have to.

I agree with Ciro in this one, but will reform sentence to this:

All you guys saying F1 and road relevant technology in the same sentence make me nauseous...

Leave road relevant for F3, DTM, FIA GT, etc...
F1 must be ahead 20 years in road relevant technologies.

I don't think the road cars 20yrs later will use a 18000rpm engine with no VVT & scream like a cocotte.

[axle]

Ban any system that can't make it onto a road car.<<<<for example?

Like I said, the pnematic valvetrain cannot become common place in road cars, I don't understand why they are still legal. But electromagnetic or similar systems can and will if there is a battle to make it as small and lightweight as possible (current test systems are a little too bulky).

Then there's materials for the engine. Don't allow any material you can't find in a mass produced engine.

As pointed out by the rules stopping development of the engines...the returns on research and development are diminishing...we should therefore create new avenues to research, but having a certain amount of Kj's to play with, yes we'll quickly see another pattern arrived at but people will try different things and new companies will get involved.

[axle]

All you guys saying F1 and fuel efficient in the same sentence make me nauseous...

Oh, c'mon.

Any race car with a less efficient engine than its opponent's will lose. Always has been, always will. 1 gallon is like 1 tenth.

F1 engines are among the more efficient engines in the world, they have to.

I agree with Ciro in this one, but will reform sentence to this:

All you guys saying F1 and road relevant technology in the same sentence make me nauseous...

Leave road relevant for F3, DTM, FIA GT, etc...
F1 must be ahead 20 years in road relevant technologies.

That's my point - F1 is currently BEHIND road tech in many ways. So why should we allow it to carry on down a road that's a dead end?

[Pingguest]

Leave the engines completely free, including the number of engines per weekend. Reduce the fuel consumption to 50 litres per race by banning refuelling and setting a maximum size for the fuel tank. Teams will have to reduce rpm, resulting in a better life span too.

[machin]

Leave the engines completely free, including the number of engines per weekend. Reduce the fuel consumption to 50 litres per race by banning refuelling and setting a maximum size for the fuel tank. Teams will have to reduce rpm, resulting in a better life span too.

Hhhmmmm, limiting the fuel (whether that fuel be petrol or something else) and leaving everything else free would be great in an ideal "money no issue" world... but in reality this would lead down the current path of F1 being too expensive....

I'd disagree that it would reduce the revs... it would certainly reduce the average power during the race, but I'd have thought that the teams would develope very small capacity engines running even higher revs (if the rules are free)... the engines would then be very light... but very expensive.... The revs would only drop if you limited fuel AND forced all the teams to use the current 2.4 litre capacity.....

[Pingguest]

Leave the engines completely free, including the number of engines per weekend. Reduce the fuel consumption to 50 litres per race by banning refuelling and setting a maximum size for the fuel tank. Teams will have to reduce rpm, resulting in a better life span too.

Hhhmmmm, limiting the fuel (whether that fuel be petrol or something else) and leaving everything else free would be great in an ideal "money no issue" world... but in reality this would lead down the current path of F1 being too expensive....

I disagree. First of all, it's not about reducing costs but allowing manufactures to fully justify their large budgets. This can only be done by making Formula 1 more road relevant and hence allowing manufactures to develop clean and fuel efficient engines.

With a massively lowered fuel consumption teams would be forced to detune their engines, making them to last a much longer distance. For the smaller teams this could have a cost cutting effect, as they wouldn't need to change their engines after only two or three weekends.

I'd disagree that it would reduce the revs... it would certainly reduce the average power during the race, but I'd have thought that the teams would develope very small capacity engines running even higher revs (if the rules are free)...

A fuel formula would probably make teams to use turbochargers. In that case it would be easier to increase engine power by increasing the boost instead of running with higher revs.

I remember Cosworth becoming the sole engine supplier in the Champcar Series and the first thing they did was asking CART's permission to turn up the boost and reduce revs, because the engines would last longer and keep the same power.

[Scania]

only 2 rule
1.carry energy limit
2.budget cap

[jddh1]

They're talking about the "World" engine now.

[Scania]

could you explane it in simper english?

[jddh1]

could you explane it in simper english?

Are you asking me? If you are, well, Max "Spanky" Mosley wants a universal engine, namely "world" engine, which would power F1, WRC, GP2, and the lot.
If you follow the link you can read the story.