To be serious: you want something that F1 has never been and never wants to be. You want something more akin to Formula Renault where the car isn't important.
Hmmm...
Formula Renault
The Zytek ZRS03 engine is a 3.4-litre normally-aspirated V8 racing engine, developed and produced by Zytek for Formula V8 3.5, a series 1st-tier division for World Series by Renault. The ZRS03's rev-limit to 9,500 rpm and produces its power output about 530 hp (395 kW) and torque about 447 N⋅m (330 ft⋅lbf).
Formula 3000
Formula 3000 replaced Formula Two, and was so named because the engines used were limited to 3000cc maximum capacity. Initially, the Cosworth DFV was a popular choice, having been made obsolete in Formula One by the adoption of 1.5 litre turbocharged engines. The rules permitted any 90-degree V8 engine, fitted with a rev-limiter to keep power output under control, including those from Judd (Zytek) and Mugen-Honda.
Formula One
Cosworth’s Double Four Valve was quickly known as the DFV - a water-cooled 2993cc capacity, 90-degree V8 engine with double overhead cams and four valves per cylinder, made up from a total of 3550 parts
First time in a long time that Gary Anderson made good sense....
This is exactly how I feel about it. A spec ICE which can be built by any manufacturer, producing about the same power and allot of noise. Combined with a electric power assist, which can be produce by the same manufacturer or the team itself, or even a 3rd party partner like Bosch or Magneti Marelli.
The battery pack can hold the energy for around 30 seconds of the lap! But that was 2012-2014 technology when these engine rules were being written!
Can't we move to a battery pack with larger capacity, to last more than 30 secs a lap, yet with the same size as today? The battery technology has moved so much the last 3-4 years that I find F1's battery technology old even in 2020...imagine until 2025 how they'll look!
I think that Formula 1 needs to almost freeze the ICE+Turbo development, as technology is moving towards Hybrid - Electrics, and let the manufacturers develop batteries and MGUs as much as they want to! Yes that means huge costs i know...but isn't new technologies what big manufacturers are chasing??
Maybe making more ICE parts spec, to reduce costs, is the way forward right now...
"The only rule is there are no rules" - Aristotle Onassis
The battery pack can hold the energy for around 30 seconds of the lap! But that was 2012-2014 technology when these engine rules were being written!
Can't we move to a battery pack with larger capacity, to last more than 30 secs a lap, yet with the same size as today? The battery technology has moved so much the last 3-4 years that I find F1's battery technology old even in 2020...imagine until 2025 how they'll look!
I think that Formula 1 needs to almost freeze the ICE+Turbo development, as technology is moving towards Hybrid - Electrics, and let the manufacturers develop batteries and MGUs as much as they want to! Yes that means huge costs i know...but isn't new technologies what big manufacturers are chasing??
Maybe making more ICE parts spec, to reduce costs, is the way forward right now...
The battery pack physical capacity is not the Issue. The constraint is the regulations on energy use. Currently the energy they process through the ES is constrained mainly by their willingness to burn fuel. In qualification they burn as much as they can, in the race the fuel they burn is limited either by the 110kg limit or, more often, a lower amount they want to carry to optimise Race performance.
I don’t think there is a single item in the energy flow regs that could be changed independently. It’s a package that’s designed to work in a particular way.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
Tighten up ICE development and open up the ERS side a bit more (yes I know there is a link but why not push the ers).
With the way battery technology has moved on since 2014 then I'm sure with the same weight and physical sized battery as we have now they can be set to 5-6MJ output and 2.5-3MJ charge per lap instead of the 4 out/2 in that is currently used.
Then lower the per race fuel limit to 100kg from the 105kg. We need to revert this trend of heavier and heavier cars.
*Yes I understand that just making the batteries to a higher capacity won't mean higher recovery but I wouldn't be surprised if the teams have excess recovery as it stands that has to be dumped into powering the MGU-H with partially open waste gates (less efficient than if it can be directly sent to the MGU-K)
Tighten up ICE development and open up the ERS side a bit more (yes I know there is a link but why not push the ers).
With the way battery technology has moved on since 2014 then I'm sure with the same weight and physical sized battery as we have now they can be set to 5-6MJ output and 2.5-3MJ charge per lap instead of the 4 out/2 in that is currently used.
Then lower the per race fuel limit to 100kg from the 105kg. We need to revert this trend of heavier and heavier cars.
*Yes I understand that just making the batteries to a higher capacity won't mean higher recovery but I wouldn't be surprised if the teams have excess recovery as it stands that has to be dumped into powering the MGU-H with partially open waste gates (less efficient than if it can be directly sent to the MGU-K)
If they decide to free up the ICE, what about a combined weight? Use it for the engine, or smaller engine more battery/regen
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
Bring back the frozen V8´s keep it the same as before, they were cheap.
Also make the KERS back again, human deployment, with more power since we have had a big evolution on that front.
this will make it lighter and hence better, and with a much better sound.
And add some f1 style, front brake recovery, smaller than a wiper motor.
What recovery do you think there would be from a device smaller than a wiper motor?
For reference. The MGU-K recovers @ 120kW weighs 7kg, runs up to 50,000 rpm and down to 25,000 geared to the crank at roughly 4:1. The Front wheel speeds when non traction limited in braking speeds run from 5500 to 1800 and would need a gear ratio of around 9:1.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
Tighten up ICE development and open up the ERS side a bit more (yes I know there is a link but why not push the ers).
With the way battery technology has moved on since 2014 then I'm sure with the same weight and physical sized battery as we have now they can be set to 5-6MJ output and 2.5-3MJ charge per lap instead of the 4 out/2 in that is currently used.
Then lower the per race fuel limit to 100kg from the 105kg. We need to revert this trend of heavier and heavier cars.
*Yes I understand that just making the batteries to a higher capacity won't mean higher recovery but I wouldn't be surprised if the teams have excess recovery as it stands that has to be dumped into powering the MGU-H with partially open waste gates (less efficient than if it can be directly sent to the MGU-K)
3MJ charge per lap implies 25 seconds recovery from the K mostly from part throttle driving against the K, which rather goes against your reduced fuel limit. To get to 6MJ total recovery they’d have to prioritise charging from the H rather than driving the K, at least in race conditions.
*Where you think the excess recovery would be come from?
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
And add some f1 style, front brake recovery, smaller than a wiper motor.
What recovery do you think there would be from a device smaller than a wiper motor?
For reference. The MGU-K recovers @ 120kW weighs 7kg, runs up to 50,000 rpm and down to 25,000 geared to the crank at roughly 4:1. The Front wheel speeds when non traction limited in braking speeds run from 5500 to 1800 and would need a gear ratio of around 9:1.
Front hub motors would be nice, but I'm guessing it could also be half-shafted to a front mounted motor/diff. (I believe Honda had a similar setup sans motor in the 2006-2008 range...)
Could use a 3/4 radius hub motor in the front with the brake caliper filling the other 1/4. Maybe integrate the motor into the rim itself?
Manufacturers are in this game for two reasons; marketing and R&D for road car technologies, both of which are linked. Any future rule sets should have synergy to road car tech, which, in regards to ICE tech, the short term is down sizing and down speeding. Medium term hybridisation and long term is full electrification. Without road relevance, part of the equation for manufacturers to spend $X00,000 is not there and therefore harder to justify.
The current regs meet the downsizing to some extent, but could go further, although the marketing for the likes of Merc and Ferrari (producers of high end performance cars) may suffer if cylinder count is reduced. Likewise down speeding; low revs don't make an exciting noiseless so with less cylinders, but it should not be ruled out. In terms of the ICE technologies developed (optimised) in F1, some have road relevance, others I'm not so sure about.
TJI (and similar tech): does this work effectively an the load/speed range of road engines typical use?
Fuels: Probably relevant.
Lubrication: Probably relevant.
Pneumatic valves: Irrelevant and maybe constraining development of other tech.
Friction reduction: Relevant.
There are ICE technologies which are available, but are not permitted such as variable cam timing. This would surly be relevant for road engines.
Hybridisation currently is kinetic recovery and heat recovery. The H side has questionable road relevance as it is of limited use in the operating rpm of road vehicle which spend most of the time at lower loads. It is also expensive technology. Something of a dead end in terms of road relevance IMO.
The K side could be considered underutilised. 120KW peak recovery is small in relation to the total (750KW) output. I understand this is limited by traction available on the rear tyres under braking and the short braking distance provided by the current braking system which it is unlikely to change on safety grounds.
Given the above, my proposal:
ICE:
No change to cylinders or capacity or forced induction.
Allow two turbos.
If TJI (or similar tech) is not appropriate for light loads, ban it. Stick with direct injection only.
Variable valve actuation. This should drive innovation relevant to road car uses.
Lower rev limit managed through the fuel flow limit, i.e limit peak fuel flow at 9000rpm instead of 10500rpm.
Fuels-move to increase in bio fuel content.
MGU-H:
Lose it. Costly do develop from scratch and not road relevant.
MGU-K:
Allow front wheel harvesting (no deployment). up to 300Kw
Keep rear harvest and deployment.
Increase SOC change per lap from 4mJ to 8mJ with a corresponding increase in storage, but with same size and mass. This will drive battery tech forward.
Then over a period of years reduce fuel flow/rpm and bio fuel content, and and increase SOC and storage in line with battery development.
Will it be cheaper, no. Manufacturers will spend whatever they can. Will it entice manufactures to take part. With increased road relevance, just maybe it will.
it's inefficient to work over such a wide rpm range - and over such a wide torque range
(the MGU-K system benefits from using the 8 gears)
FWH mechanisms can be suspected for hidden driver/car aid effects
(no front wheel interconnection effects are allowed eg front axle differentials were banned a few years ago)
Part of me thinks why not open the engine formula to one where the main requirement is the block is based on one the manufacturer commercial makes with a minimum homologation amount. Keep the fuel flow limit and a few more things to keep costs down.
I'll wilfully admit I'm just harking back to the days of seasoned BMW M10 engines being turned into M12 F1 engines, but it would create some direct relevance to road car tech and requirements.
How many manufacturers have dry sumped stressed engines in production?
Plus high displacement engines will be at a clear disadvantage with a fuel flow limited formula..
