why no variable valve technology?

[tuj]

We continue to hear that manufacturers want road relevance. Well virtually every road engine now has some form of variable valve technology, be it cam phasing or variable lift or both. So why the ban on this technology in F1? Seems to me that it is one of the most road-relevant technologies.

[Holm86]

We continue to hear that manufacturers want road relevance. Well virtually every road engine now has some form of variable valve technology, be it cam phasing or variable lift or both. So why the ban on this technology in F1? Seems to me that it is one of the most road-relevant technologies.

Because FIA. They have their own sense of logic.

[Jersey Tom]

We continue to hear that manufacturers want road relevance. Well virtually every road engine now has some form of variable valve technology, be it cam phasing or variable lift or both. So why the ban on this technology in F1? Seems to me that it is one of the most road-relevant technologies.

IMO, the thought that road-relevance really has anything to do with F1 is a complete misconception. Barring maybe a very few exceptions (and none are really coming to mind) F1 is not, and has never been, about developing new technology - certainly not for consumer markets.

Maybe manufacturers and suppliers would like auto racing to not be throwing money out the window purely for marketing exposure - get some return on investment - but I don't see how that's really plausible. The two worlds, the design intent and requirements, are just polar opposite in many respects.

If anything, at this stage opening up the rules like that would just mean more development cost for little if any real impact on the sport / experience.

[Holm86]

We continue to hear that manufacturers want road relevance. Well virtually every road engine now has some form of variable valve technology, be it cam phasing or variable lift or both. So why the ban on this technology in F1? Seems to me that it is one of the most road-relevant technologies.

IMO, the thought that road-relevance really has anything to do with F1 is a complete misconception. Barring maybe a very few exceptions (and none are really coming to mind) F1 is not, and has never been, about developing new technology - certainly not for consumer markets.

Maybe manufacturers and suppliers would like auto racing to not be throwing money out the window purely for marketing exposure - get some return on investment - but I don't see how that's really plausible. The two worlds, the design intent and requirements, are just polar opposite in many respects.

If anything, at this stage opening up the rules like that would just mean more development cost for little if any real impact on the sport / experience.

In previous years F1 was about using every trick in the book to be faster. If you wanted a more powerful engine you just added more fuel, revs whatever. Efficiency didn't really matter. That isn't and has never been road relevant.

But now here comes a new engine regulative that applaud efficiency. The fuel flow really makes next gen F1 engines exciting. The most efficient engine will be the most powerful engine. And turbo technology, ERS etc. will benefit from the testbed that is F1. This can be brought directly over to roadcars. That's why it makes no sense to have a regulation that applauds efficiency but rules out one of the most used tricks to do so?? Every car today has some sort of VCT system. Even the cheapest.

[tuj]

JerseyTom: In the BMW F1 paper on their engines, they wrote:

The development of a DLC carbon coating technology allowed us to break away from a monopoly supplier. This expertise is now also used in the BMW production network.

The original F1 foundry has long since become BMW’s Innovation and Technology Centre for light alloys.

The P85 also marked a big advance in thermodynamic terms. In parallel with conventional manifold injection, BMW also developed a direct petrol injection system, with corresponding combustion process. This was abandoned, however, when it was announced that the regulations would limit injection pressure to 100 bar.

Certainly DLC and DI, as well as casting technologies are road-relevant technologies. I understand that F1 is obviously a lot different in many respects, but if the FIA/teams want to really pay more than lip service to the idea of 'road-relevant' technologies, they could come up with a set of regulations that would work and foster development of road car engines.

[Jersey Tom]

As I said, for the most part there isn't road relevance in F1 - though sure there are probably some examples.

In any event, I'd say the majority of the time technology development flows from the consumer world to racing and not the other way around. Way way way way more money and people involved in the former than the latter.

For that reason, I can see the logic in restricting the rules. If it's totally open.. it's just more $$$ you have to burn to stay competitive.

[tuj]

Why not this?

-93 octane fuel, 100% identical to pump gas.
-direction injection allowed
-variable valve phasing/lift allowed
-no pneumatic valves
-5 engines per season
-multiple designs allowed (I4, V6, V8, H4)
-high minimum engine weight (equivalent to avg. road car engine weight)
-engine must NOT be a stressed member
-no unique alloys allowed
-no KERS

You could still have screaming engines but much closer to what is on the road. Don't get the wrong, I love F1 engines but we're going backwards by not allowing variable valve. Its like Nascar with their carbs...

[Lycoming]

The stressed member thing will not be taken kindly by the likes of Newey.

In any case, any opening-up of the engine regulations is an invitation to spend more cash on an already expensive billboard, and is thus viewed as undesirable. There's a reason engine design is virtually frozen these days.

[langwadt]

The stressed member thing will not be taken kindly by the likes of Newey.

In any case, any opening-up of the engine regulations is an invitation to spend more cash on an already expensive billboard, and is thus viewed as undesirable. There's a reason engine design is virtually frozen these days.

they have money to spend and they will spend it to get head, open of the engine regulations and they spend it on engines (to me that would be interesting and potentially useful), freeze the engines and they spend it on time in the wind tunnel and pointless tweaks of the aerodynamics

[wunderkind]

The stressed member thing will not be taken kindly by the likes of Newey.

In any case, any opening-up of the engine regulations is an invitation to spend more cash on an already expensive billboard, and is thus viewed as undesirable. There's a reason engine design is virtually frozen these days.

Absolutely, the cost of engines will go up exponentially but the quality of racing will pretty much remain the same. Hence the FIA's reluctance to introduce new engine technologies to F1. Also, VVT would not have helped dedictated race engine suppiers such as (the now defunct) Cosworth and Mecachrome which have little or no practical experience in this area and no resources to develop such technology on their own. I think the failure rate of engines will go up (more DNF's) and affects the quality of the racing.

To be fair, the introduction of KERS into the sport has had a positive effect with more overtaking and the technology is definitely being filtered to road cars of the future.

[FoxHound]

@lycoming

How long has Newey had an easy run?
Sure aero is more open and visible to be assimilated into individual concepts. But if we look at the last 4 years, its runs deeper than that.

Rake, attitude at speed and the associated gains when running trick geometry/suspension is a black art all the top teams have tried to replicate with no success, barring Mercedes-Benz and their efforts this year (ie just registering on the RB radar).

Variable valve technology is old hat. It will not add to the expense any more than what is already being burnt.
As a Honda fan, I deplore the new rule set.
However I see milage in having turbo's.
By having variable valve timing, you automatically make the engines relevant.
You also increase the prospect of more engine suppliers joining the party.
You also, incredibly, have a chance for engines to make a difference in terms of car performance.

Rene Arnout contra Gilles Villenueve?

You gotta make it even.
Who cares who gets what from whichever tech.
So long as the age old (cricketing) adage remains..... the contest between bat and ball should remain equal.

[FoxHound]

@wunderkind

With VVT do we want to see what the big boys have?
Of course we all want that.
And cosworth know a thing or two regards vvt, lets give them some credit.

[Just_a_fan]

Why not this?

-93 octane fuel, 100% identical to pump gas.

Wow, a step backwards there. Let's have 98 RON fuel if you're going to have "pump gas". It's widely available in the civilised world and most high performance road cars will like/require it.

[Holm86]

Why not this?

-93 octane fuel, 100% identical to pump gas.

Wow, a step backwards there. Let's have 98 RON fuel if you're going to have "pump gas". It's widely available in the civilised world and most high performance road cars will like/require it.

If he is from USA 93 octane is equivalent to 98 in Europe.

[SiLo]

The US petrol is of lower octane rating that is standard over here in Europe. Although Nascar run with 112 octane fuel. Would be nice to see that as standard