Regulations Roadmap 2007-2012

johny · Post 11 Dec 2006, 17:26

do you have something against turbos?

mx_tifoso · Post 11 Dec 2006, 19:49

I simply prefer naturally-aspirated engines over turbo or supercharged engines,and very much prefer Formula 1 cars to be naturally-aspirated,im not a big fan of forced induction

Scuderia Ferrari = 2007 WCC

West · Post 11 Dec 2006, 23:59

What's wrong with turbos? They are a great way to turn waste into energy. I used to hate turbos also until I understood that intrinsic value. Somebody correct me on this but they are less wasteful than just adding cylinders - look at what they do to volumetric efficiency.

Turbos would be exciting to watch as I never got to witness the turbo era of the 80's.

johny · Post 12 Dec 2006, 00:27

yes, turbos are a way to recicle wasted energy. That's why so many road cars uses it. The reason why they banned them was the highest power output levels, so with technology avaliable nowadays a 600cc or 750cc as sugested before could be a very decent engine

Ciro Pabón · Post 12 Dec 2006, 02:07

johny wrote:do you have something against turbos?

I don't have anything against turbos: it's Mother Nature who seems to have something against them.

Like everything in this life (except, perhaps, happiness, love and Alonso's WDC) they have their advantages and disadvantages.

First, turbo-lag: the turbocharged engines take some time to feel the effect of the compression. Second, the lack of power at low rpms and, hence, the lack of torque at low rpm, as the design presumibly involves a micro sized engine. That's not very good for an urban car, to say the less. Third, they compress the air (duhhh...) and when you do this, the air heats and you need an intercooler, which is another radiator throwing heat into the engine compartment. Of course, you can try to compensate somehow, but these are inherent features.

They have something good, of course: peak power 30-40% higher, lower fuel consumption compared with naturally aspirated engines that deliver the same torque due to the higher effiency of a smaller engine, less exhaust noise and emissions and less reduction of power on high altitudes because thinner air is easier for the turbocharger to compress.

I won't go again into explaining why the american engineering is superior

, but this defects can be partially compensated using a supercharger, that is, a mechanically driven compressor. This is what the fastest racing and most powerful cars in the world do (by "fastest racing and most powerful cars in the world" I mean dragsters, of course). Like everything on this Earth (except hapiness, love and Alonso's WDC, did I already say that?) then the advantages have to be weighed against the disadvantages...

mx_tifoso · Post 12 Dec 2006, 02:58

Ciro Pabón wrote:
johny wrote:do you have something against turbos?
I don't have anything against turbos: it's Mother Nature who seems to have something against them.

Like everything in this life (except, perhaps, happiness, love and Alonso's WDC) they have their advantages and disadvantages.

First, turbo-lag: the turbocharged engines take some time to feel the effect of the compression. Second, the lack of power at low rpms and, hence, the lack of torque at low rpm, as the design presumibly involves a micro sized engine. That's not very good for an urban car, to say the less. Third, they compress the air (duhhh...) and when you do this, the air heats and you need an intercooler, which is another radiator throwing heat into the engine compartment. Of course, you can try to compensate somehow, but these are inherent features.

They have something good, of course: peak power 30-40% higher, lower fuel consumption compared with naturally aspirated engines that deliver the same torque due to the higher effiency of a smaller engine, less exhaust noise and emissions and less reduction of power on high altitudes because thinner air is easier for the turbocharger to compress.

I won't go again into explaining why the american engineering is superior , but this defects can be partially compensated using a supercharger, that is, a mechanically driven compressor. This is what the fastest racing and most powerful cars in the world do (by "fastest racing and most powerful cars in the world" I mean dragsters, of course). Like everything on this Earth (except hapiness, love and Alonso's WDC, did I already say that?) then the advantages have to be weighed against the disadvantages...

Le agradezco mucho por su comentario Ciro,
no es que yo tenga algo contra los "turbos",si no que personalmente prefiero un motor sin ellos,un motor con aspiracion natural, perdon si ofendo a las personas que le dan preferencia a los turbos,
desde que he conocido de las carreras automobilisticas siempre me han interesado mas los motores con aspiracion natural,se me hace mas justo y divertido,especialmente en Formula 1,y personalmente no quiero que vuelvan a los estilos de los ochentas cuando usaban turbos,no es mi etapa favorita de F1,
pero como todo lo demas en esta vida,tienen que haber cambios o si no te quedaras atraz y perezeras

DaveKillens · Post 12 Dec 2006, 07:03

It's been eighteen years since turbos ran in Formula One, and the technlogy has advanced considerably since then. There are many new tricks to reduce turbo lag, and it will be interesting to see how Formula One engineers design a new generation of turbos. And they would have to survive four races, using bio fuels. Interesting stuff. Then you add the complication of having to use this kind of engine in a car with drastically reduced downforce while having to factor in being regulated by efficiency, I see this kind of technology having a direct transfer to production cars.
I'm sure that in places like BMW's product planning and development centers they are already laying the groundwork for a new "M" using this kind of drivetrain technology. And it must be appealing to Audi...... I would not be surprised to see them entring the F1 wars in a few years.

pRo · Post 12 Dec 2006, 08:18

DaveKillens wrote:There are many new tricks to reduce turbo lag, and it will be interesting to see how Formula One engineers design a new generation of turbos.

Turbo lag isn't much of an issue these days, ask any WRC driver.

I can't really understand why some say that they want F1 to be THE series with modern technology and then in the next sentence they say forced induction is out of the question. Surely a boosted engine is much more of a challenge than a N/A engine. Anything that applies to N/A engine still applies under boost, but you also get more stuff thrown into the equation.

You also have to remember that the last time F1 had turbo engines, they didn't have too many rules binding them. There are many, many ways to limit the power of a boosted engine. I'm sure F1 won't go to the "max 500cc engine, no other rules" way. Take WRC cars for example. Now I haven't been following them too closely for few years, but I believe they are still 2.0l with turbo and are supposed to have around 300hp. Surely anyone doesn't believe they couldn't get more out of them? It's relatively easy to get 4-digit horsepower from 2l engines for street use and make it last years, it just requires money. I know because I build them. I'm sure no WRC team would have any trouble getting there with their budgets, if the rules only limited the engine size.

No, I'm sure we will see the output restricted by other means than silly small engine. Personally, the idea of limited fuel seems quite interesting to me. Ignoring the fact that it might actually produce something useful for road cars, which I don't really care about, but would be a big plus for many. They would have plenty of power, but couldn't use it most of the time, if they want to finish. Overtaking would become much easier, with extra power available. Get too carried away with overtaking and you find yourself driving slower to save fuel, while others in turn can overtake you, cause they took it easier in the early race. Heck, I can't see anything wrong with that approach.

That is, if we ever get the turbo in the first place, but I for one will welcome it though.

johny · Post 12 Dec 2006, 12:25

no creo que nadie se ofenda por eso mx_tifosi, para eso existen los foros, para debatir

The word that they're pretending to associate with F1 is efficience, using technology to gain performance and that's IMO the way to go, why using a larger normally aspirated engine if you can match it with a smaller turbocharger (or supercharged) one? If there're some issues like lag or low torque, that's when engeneers must come. Let's concentrate most part of budget in that usefull tech and forget those wind tunnel researchs for adding a few aero bits.

Also fuel limitation rule sounds good, if it goes with more freedom in engine rules that could be very worthy for automotive industry

Carlos · Post 12 Dec 2006, 13:09

When I posted about 600cc Singles for F1, it was as meant as sly humour. Is Ciro the only one who's humour is misunderstood? Ciro you have company. We will probably see an engine size that is comparible to world road cars. Have you noticed how many manufacturers in F1 produce big volume sellers of 1.5Litres for road use? F1 will be 4 0r 6 cylinders.
For those that think that is to small -- that think 2.4 to 3,5 litre is as small as F1 should go, well the first Gran Prix winner was Franz Zsiz driving a
13 litre Renault which was surpassed in 1907 by a 16.3 litre Fiat piloted by the great Felice Nazzaro. If you want the good old days and dislike the advancement in technology that small turbo engines offer, lets roll back tha clock to the days of gas lighting. I like old tech and I like new tech. In the mid sixties Honda built a 125cc-5 cylinder GP engine of 34 HP
You could build a 96 cylinder that produced 646 HP. Without Turbo for the natural organic crowd that likes atmospheric induction. It's rediculous to consider a 2.4 Litre- 96 cylinder atmos induction engine as it is rediculous to consider a 16,3 litre or a 600cc single for F1. 600HP turbos of 4 0r 6 cylinders
seems a pretty good solution for the requirements of 2012. Kind of fits the ecological and cross over to production cars that the manufacturers that participate in F1 will be producing for road use in 2012. I like the complexity of 125cc 5 cylinder 4 valve 125cc engines . I admire a large block American engineered push rod V8. But you know 2012 will have different requirements. It's not the 1900's, the 1960's but the 2010's. I hate to think that Max has had 1 good idea in his life, but I have to, grudgingly.

pRo · Post 12 Dec 2006, 13:39

Carlos wrote:When I posted about 600cc Singles for F1, it was as meant as sly humour.

Don't worry, I wasn't aiming my post towards you, just in general.

F1 will be 4 0r 6 cylinders.

I'd put my money on 6. 4 would be "too normal".

For those that think that is to small -- that think 2.4 to 3,5 litre is as small as F1 should go

I don't really see a reason why the engines would have to be under 2.4l. Champ Cars have 2.65l turboed engines running on methanol and they are supposed to have some 750-800 horsepower. I know you can't really compare these two, but that's just an example that you can have reasonable cc's and boost without crazy power.

davecooper · Post 12 Dec 2006, 15:14

I don't really care how they do it but I believe that for exciting racing, engine power should have a large premium over mechanical grip, and the mechanical grip should be purely derived from the chassis /tyre combination with no aero help at all. Maybe a current car, stripped of all downforce and running on slicks would be a start. Maybe, dare I say it, active suspension should be allowed again. There has never been an accident caused by a car being designed with too little downforce, but there have been plenty where the downforce that was there suddenly dissappeared, ie wing failure. I believe however, that there is no interest in ridding cars of wings as this would loose advertising (revenue) space and the public would not think they looked like real racing cars.
At the end of the day we want very fast close racing and not an economy run

Sawtooth-spike · Post 12 Dec 2006, 15:59

i am right in thinking they need some Aero Downforce otherwise the car would simply Fly off?

Front wing, Rear wing! thats all. nothing else.

Shaddock · Post 12 Dec 2006, 16:33

You could bring back flat bottoms, this would increase down force and cars would be less affected by running in dirty air of the car in front.

DaveKillens · Post 12 Dec 2006, 17:07

We are going to see a lot less aerodynamic downforce.
2008 - regulations as published but possible elimination of aerodynamic appendices (barge boards, winglets, chimneys, etc) forward of rear wheel centreline and behind front wheel centreline (subject to unanimous agreement of competing teams);
2009 - reduction of 50% of downforce- aerodynamic and other changes to facilitate overtaking
2010 - wholly or partially standardised aerodynamics (or, possibly, new rules to encourage road-relevant research into aerodynamics)

The cars won't fly off the track, they just won't be able to brake, accelerate, or corner as hard as in the present.
mechanical grip will become very important, while aero dependancy will almost disappear. With that in mind, I expect low noses to return, and all the suspension experimentation with keels to disappear.