What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[xpensive]

Fuel flow limit is good. It is directly designed to restrict power and somewhat engine speed.
It's not so much an incentive for Consumption, but it reduces consumption anyway.
....
Well i think we can safely say now that the engine will be a L4. It's the easiest and cheapest route.

As I tried to show in an earlier post today, I think this set-up with a high boost but restricted fuel-flow will give strong incentives for improvements in fuel efficiency, but something tells me that there will be 90-degree V6s after all.

[autogyro]

Ooops...sorry Jumbo, guess we are in agreement then, more importantly, so are Rory Byrne, Patrick Head and Gilles Simon.

What they have in common? They are engineers...

They all display something else as well.
The ability to sit on the fence without the guts to move F1 into the future.
The suggested regulations so far, are so obviously just paying lip service to the technical direction demanded by world public pressure and environmental issues, they will achieve but one result, they will make F1 a laughing stock.

[WhiteBlue]

Generally all teams will have the same amount of fuel at the race start.

Specific fuel consumption will virtually be the same, i don't see how much more efficient a Renault engine will be more than say a BMW engine.

I don't understand how you arrive at these two bits. They never had the same amount of fuel. They do not have the same amount of fuel now. How do you conclude they will have the same amount of fuel if the total is not regulated?

How can specific fuel consumption be the same if it is a competitive advantage and teams have different engines, different KERS and different aero?

This was the FiA position going into the discussion:

The primary area where sustainability in motor sport can be achieved is in the design of power trains. There have to be technical regulations to avoid useless costs and I think all the manufacturers understand this. One way to do this is by using longer-lasting components. It is possible to have some common items as well but it is very important that there is clear differentiation between the cars from each manufacturer. We have to try to push forward with fuel efficiency. If, as an engine engineer, I am given a maximum fuel load, I will try to give the driver the maximum horsepower possible, building the most efficient engine I can. It is a technical competition, and as efficiency is obviously good for road cars, that could be good for them as well. So we want to try to adapt the rules we have in the run-up to the new engine formula.

They want:

• promote sustainability in motor sport by design of power trains
• achieve cost efficiency by long lasting engines
• have clear differentiation between manufacturers
• maximize fuel efficiency and power with defined fuel load
• have a technical competition for fuel efficiency

At the moment it is not clear how those objectives have become watered down or compromised in the talks with the non manufacturer teams. Apparently Simon has been talked into accepting fuel flow instead of a total fuel cap. It is not the same and I believe they are now going for the second best solution as I have already explained. I would be very negatively surprised if the objective of a technical competition for fuel efficiency has also been given up.

Can you imagine that Peugeot or Audi would design their Le Mans cars for identical fuel consumption? No, this would be completely contrary to the idea of a technical contest for fuel efficiency. The specific fuel consumption in F1 needs to be an important discriminator between engine manufacturers in the future. It should be the main competitive advantage they can achieve.

[ringo]

I think i see what nsmikle is saying.
The total is not regulated, but you can bet most teams will use the maximum allowed flow rate and as little fuel as possible.
Really and truly the efficiency of the engines wont be drastically different. The same for the KERS. All teams will simply converge on the most optimal solutions.

Take this year for example, no considerable difference between renault and ferrari fuel consumption, even though we expected different before 2010. Technically the engines are so refined, the variance in efficiency is really minimal.

A fuel flow limit is time based. The race is for a limited time, KERS output is standard, all teams basically attain the same energy savings. It's not far fetched that the teams will carry similar amounts of fuel like this year.

The aero will also be much simplified, making the cars even more similar.

What i find amazing about F1 as well is that 2 teams from completely different backgrounds can make 2 completely different cars, with no knowledge of what the other is doing, and when it comes to qualifying, the cars are within 0.1s of each other.
It shows that optimization tends to have a convergence. The new formula wont be anything as flexible as you or I would like to think.

[ringo]

The primary area where sustainability in motor sport can be achieved is in the design of power trains. There have to be technical regulations to avoid useless costs and I think all the manufacturers understand this. One way to do this is by using longer-lasting components. It is possible to have some common items as well but it is very important that there is clear differentiation between the cars from each manufacturer. We have to try to push forward with fuel efficiency. If, as an engine engineer, I am given a maximum fuel load, I will try to give the driver the maximum horsepower possible, building the most efficient engine I can. It is a technical competition, and as efficiency is obviously good for road cars, that could be good for them as well. So we want to try to adapt the rules we have in the run-up to the new engine formula.

They want:

• promote sustainability in motor sport by design of power trains
• achieve cost efficiency by long lasting engines
• have clear differentiation between manufacturers
• maximize fuel efficiency and power with defined fuel load
• have a technical competition for fuel efficiency

At the moment it is not clear how those objectives have become watered down or compromised in the talks with the non manufacturer teams. Apparently Simon has been talked into accepting fuel flow instead of a total fuel cap. It is not the same and I believe they are now going for the second best solution as I have already explained. I would be very negatively surprised if the objective of a technical competition for fuel efficiency has also been given up.

Can you imagine that Peugeot or Audi would design their Le Mans cars for identical fuel consumption? No, this would be completely contrary to the idea of a technical contest for fuel efficiency. The specific fuel consumption in F1 needs to be an important discriminator between engine manufacturers in the future. It should be the main competitive advantage they can achieve.

Politics will water down any radical ideas. , Yep they are afraid of the future.
About specific fuel consumption, you are talking about really small fractions of a difference. Internal combustion engine are pretty much optimized to the limit, especially having 2 big companies like Audi an Peugeot with all the research and development at their disposal, you can expect both companies are getting the most out of a simple block of metal with some moving parts in it.
They wont try to equal each other, but they both will reach a point where the engines will inevitably be as optimized at contemporary technology allows.

As i mentioned earlier, we have seen this with F1 and the kind of cars each team can create from a given set of regulations. The cars and engines all come out about the same, assuming development is about the same for all teams.

[xpensive]

I fail to see what is so difficult to comprehend with this new proposal? Engine manufacturers will be given regulations where only fuel-efficiency is stopping them from delivering 1000 Hp, guess where the focus of development will be?

Ingenious regulations me thinks, a good xample of what can be accomplished when you leave it to the engineers.
But if WB has some kind of ESP-connection to Simon's head saying that he was coersed into accepting this against
his better judgement, then who am I to argue?

[ESPImperium]

I was thinking about the sporting rules side of things for the new engines, and if fuel efficency and durability are the only things stopping the 1.6L Forced Induction V4s reaching their peak HP, i think a standardised fuel tank of arround 100KG would be ideal, but with that unlimited KERS usage and power should be included, with the only "push to pass" system being 11 usages of increased engine revs and a mechanichal F-Duct together would increase overtaking.

On the engine number side of things, id like to see the constructors that have had a win in the last 2 seasons (in whatever guise) limited to 6 engines per season, winless constructors limited to 9 engines and new teams that have entred the sport in the past two years limited to 12 engines. With that, there would be more of an equal playing feild i feel, taking the example of Suzuki in Moto GP.

Id also like to see a mimit on transmissions as well, ideally 4 for the season, meaning each transmission has to last 5 GPs on a 20GP season, but using an engine type rule where the transmissions can be taken out and one used for practices after a certain number of GP would also be advantagous as teams could then have one short scale box for Monaco, Hungary and tracks where acceleration is paramount and one long scale box for Monza and Spa where top end speed is needed more would make teams happier, and also would mean costs could come down as well as teams wouldnt need to take up to 7 boxes (current per driver, a reserve for each driver, and a shared reserve if 2 boxes go on one car at a single event) to a race, they could get away with using just 4 (2 per driver, current and a reserve).

With the engine and transmission rule, after 2 years id like to see engines and gearboxes used concurrently, so Ferarri would have had to have parked the engines in both their cars after Bahrain Quali this year. This would increase pressure on making things relyable, thus reducing top end power as well.

In an ideal world id like to see all of that implemented.

[autogyro]

I fail to see what is so difficult to comprehend with this new proposal? Engine manufacturers will be given regulations where only fuel-efficiency is stopping them from delivering 1000 Hp, guess where the focus of development will be?

Ingenious regulations me thinks, a good xample of what can be accomplished when you leave it to the engineers.
But if WB has some kind of ESP-connection to Simon's head saying that he was coersed into accepting this against
his better judgement, then who am I to argue?

Yep engineers.
A Sopwith Camel engineer and a Supermarine Spitfire engineer advising a politician on how to structure regulations for a race series in the future which is to use Concorde and different energy sources.
The current operational condition of Concorde shows you what the result will be.

[autogyro]

The future of motor sport 'will be' electric.
The ic engine is on the decline.
In January this year I placed an official paper before the FIA Alternate Energies Commission. I have received no contrary opinion from the FIA to the points suggested in this paper, either from the reading at the Paris meeting or the later Monaco meeting.
I have suggested to the FOTA and the FIA that an official electric formula be constructed to run alongside F1 at all the series venues and that this formula be supported by cars from each F1 team.
The current deliberations over the 2013 F1 regulations conveniently side step these issues and simply pay lip service to environmental and economic issues. They hope to mask the futures demand for radical change that is inevitable.
Yet again it is the status quo and vested interest within F1 that is forcing conclusions on these regulations.
However this time the results will definitely be negative in the eyes of the world motoring public. F1 is risking shooting itself badly in the foot.

[WhiteBlue]

I suspect that there is a a difference of opinion between manufacturers and privat teams over the engine configuration and KERS in FOTA.

Privateers like Williams and Red Bull will probably be keen to see a GRE compatible I-4 format while the manufacturers probably prefer a V4 format which would fit their marketing ideas better and makes for a more rigid engine cross section. The privat teams will also have an interest that the ICE will not produce competitive advantages like more power or lower fuel consumption for works teams. They would be best pleased with a spec engine actually.

Williams, btw have announced that they will build their KERS from next year on in house. This seems to indicate that top privateers may use KERS as a source of competitive advantage. Currently the the ratio is 4:8 in favor of private teams. It is easy to see who will have the bigger voting power.

[autogyro]

I wonder if Williams will use a combination of batteries and flywheel storage as I suggested to them last year. It depends on the final regulations of course.
It will not use the flybrid toloroidal system that is certain.
I doubt there will be a sufficient budget available for my system.

[xpensive]

As I xpressed earlier on WB, I have a feeling that manufacturers would prefer to go with V6s, as those have a bit more resemblance to the automotive world for a high-performance engine, but I might be completely off in that respect.

Regarding Williams flywheel thing, perhaps longer sidepods from 2013 could give them room for installing a twin-thing, counterspinning within each sidepod for gyroscopic stability, if there is as much as 3.3 MJ up for grabs?

[747heavy]

I think I will side with Xpensive on the engine/marketing agument.
Why would any of the current engine manufacturers want to promote a V4 engine?
Thats not one of the commonly used concepts at the moment.

It´s either I4 or V6 IMHO.

V6 turbo engine could open up some crossover synergies with the new Indycar formula and LMP for a manufacturer if desired, thats not bad, and to take into consideration

However, I agree with the technical benefit of an V4 put forward by WB, but that would make for an engine exclusive for F1.

I4 would allow for the GRE cross over, and open the door for another manufacturer (e.g. VW). More manufactuers will be beneficial for private/independent teams. IMHO

[marcush.]

is the engine layout something to consider in F1 for marketing reasons? i think the idea of downsizing is what they will cry out loud ...
and btw I hear somewhere a 4cyl engine is in the makes that has more than1 cylinderhead..and its not a Subaru ..

[WhiteBlue]

I think I will side with Xpensive on the engine/marketing agument.
Why would any of the current engine manufacturers want to promote a V4 engine?
Thats not one of the commonly used concepts at the moment.

It´s either I4 or V6 IMHO.

Manufacturers will not like the GRE concept in F1 because F1 is supposed to be better and different. I agree that a six cylinder unit is unlikely because it would not be competitive in terms of fuel efficiency. Remember the Ferrari V12s never were with V8 and V10. So my guess is a V4 would be their compromise. But as I said before they may not have the power to push their concepts through anyway.