What comes after V6?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
650
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:
Tommy Cookers wrote:the first time there was a fuel quantity limit for turbo F1 (in the 80s) the rules immediately banned engines with less than 4 cylinders
I cannot remember to read anything about that before. I know that historically there were bans on maximum number of cylinders, for instance more than 12. And the fuel tank capacity limit in 1986 was very different to the fuel flow limit of 2014. Do you have a source for that minimum cylinder rule?
Turbos were officially banned in 1989 because they were deemed too expensive to develop and too dangerous due to their high power generation. I privately believe that was a load of bull. Ferrari simply had no chance against Honda's V6 turbo and they lobbied the turbo ban in an attempt to gain an advantage using their historic design competence of V12s. Power could have easily been limited by reducing the boost as they did in 1988 and V12s are not intrinsically cheaper than turbo V6. It was simply an exercise of political power to stop the Japanese domination which was massive in the McLaren MP4/4.
1948? 4.5 litre NA or 1.5 litre forced induction no fuel rules (FI dominated)
1952 WDC to F2 rules 2 litre NA or 0.5 litre forced induction
1954 2.5 litre NA or 0.75 litre forced induction (there was a 2 cyl NA Ferrari not raced)
1958 road-type fuel ie octane limit (100/130 Avgas used as equivalent)
1961 1.5 litre NA or 0.5 litre forced induction (there was a 16 cyl NA Coventry Climax raced)
1966 1.5 litre forced induction or 3 litre NA
1971 Lotus gas turbine 4wd tried
1973 tankage 250 l
1975/7? Renault turbo appears LeMans/F1 (WEC rules having for decades allowed 2.1 litre FI vs. 3 litre NA)
1984 tankage reduced to 220 l and refuelling banned, so fuel quantity limited
1986 quantity/tankage 195 l .... NA banned
1987 4 bar limit turbo, 3.5 litre NA (quantity/tankage 195 l for BOTH) (NA 40 kg lighter @ 500 kg)
1988 quantity/tankage 150 l 2.5 bar turbo, (NA quantity/tankage 195 l)
1989 turbos banned ...... NA quantity/tankage 150 l

so in 1988 (the best) turbos beat (less than the best?) NA and used a lot less fuel volume, but about the same fuel mass ?
(the turbos were using eg 84% Toluene fuel, surely the NAs only low % of Toluene)

2012 fuel quality now has no max Octane number, but a minimum number !! (to prevent backdoor dieselisation of F1)

not a pretty sight, all those different rules !
engineering logic says limit fuel mass or massflow (ie rate), (better Carbon mass ?) , otherwise no engine rules ?

when Cosworth went turbo they said they went V6 because 'the V6 couldn't be banned'
when the fuel quantities were cut Alfa Romeo eg went from 8 cyl to 4 cyl, other new engines were 4 cyl also

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

I would have loved to see no restrictions on the engine type and just a fuel mass flow limit, but it would have been to expensive without working development restrictions. We might see a more open development race after they have fixed the resource restrictions. So lets hope for the best there.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Jersey Tom
Jersey Tom
166
Joined: 29 May 2006, 20:49
Location: Huntersville, NC

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

Personally I'd like no limit on engine displacement, cylinder count, or RPM. No limit on fuel flow either. Just a fixed amount of fuel for the weekend (or perhaps each session). Do with it as you please!
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.

User avatar
AnthonyG
38
Joined: 03 Mar 2012, 13:16

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

Jersey Tom wrote:Personally I'd like no limit on engine displacement, cylinder count, or RPM. No limit on fuel flow either. Just a fixed amount of fuel for the weekend (or perhaps each session). Do with it as you please!
In favor of overtaking I wouldn't like to see a rpm limit, to many overtakes have been prevented by it imo.
Thank you really doesn't really describe enough what I feel. - Vettel

User avatar
FrukostScones
163
Joined: 25 May 2010, 17:41
Location: European Union

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

siskue2005 wrote:The next engine power plants will be all electric engine, with big speakers at the back, to play loud v12/10 engine sound recorded early :lol:
But the cars already have speakers in the back! :mrgreen:

I want to see 1.0 three cylinder turbos and 200kw ERS, 1,9m wide cars and wide rear tyres, skinny fronts, no speaker (is that possible) and large wings.
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

Jersey Tom wrote:Personally I'd like no limit on engine displacement, cylinder count, or RPM. No limit on fuel flow either. Just a fixed amount of fuel for the weekend (or perhaps each session). Do with it as you please!
Like it! But a problem with it might be that teams wont do any running on the Fridays, and only do a systems check on the saturday practice to save fuel
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

ScottB
ScottB
4
Joined: 17 Mar 2012, 14:45

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

Presumably a steady reduction in fuel flow and deregulation of ERS. Both would strike me as very road relevant directions to attract manufacturers to the sport...

Jersey Tom
Jersey Tom
166
Joined: 29 May 2006, 20:49
Location: Huntersville, NC

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

wesley123 wrote:
Jersey Tom wrote:Personally I'd like no limit on engine displacement, cylinder count, or RPM. No limit on fuel flow either. Just a fixed amount of fuel for the weekend (or perhaps each session). Do with it as you please!
Like it! But a problem with it might be that teams wont do any running on the Fridays, and only do a systems check on the saturday practice to save fuel
In that case, X gallons for practice, Y for qual, Z for race
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
650
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

ScottB wrote:Presumably a steady reduction in fuel flow and deregulation of ERS. Both would strike me as very road relevant directions to attract manufacturers to the sport...
IMO the existing limits on electrical power are ample
(ie it will be quite difficult to recover energy electrically at rates allowed by the 2014 rules without sacrificing any crankshaft power)
such a region (ie 'robbing the crankshaft 'to enhance/falsify 'recovery') exists beyond the balance in the 2014 rules
because of the above, reductions in fuel rate seems unlikely to demand an increase in capacity on the electrical side

unless people want 'creeping turbinisation' of F1 (and road cars, presumably ?)
(the 2014 rules are mandating piston engines nested within turbine-electric engines)
the next step is to lose the crankshaft, conrods etc but keep the pistons (it's been done!)

or go just turbine-electric
(the existing electrical limits suggests the rulemakers don't want this)

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

Jersey Tom wrote:
wesley123 wrote:
Jersey Tom wrote:Personally I'd like no limit on engine displacement, cylinder count, or RPM. No limit on fuel flow either. Just a fixed amount of fuel for the weekend (or perhaps each session). Do with it as you please!
Like it! But a problem with it might be that teams wont do any running on the Fridays, and only do a systems check on the saturday practice to save fuel
In that case, X gallons for practice, Y for qual, Z for race
I like it and it would be the perfect solution.

However who of the fans would want to see vastly different cars sporting different technologies? We all like 24 of pretty similair cars much more! :?
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

F1 could go AWERS. I would like to see that.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
Pandamasque
17
Joined: 09 Nov 2009, 17:28
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

siskue2005 wrote:The next engine power plants will be all electric engine, with big speakers at the back, to play loud v12/10 engine sound recorded early :lol:
...driven by autobots that would play pre-recorded "ringading-ding-ding" messages on a cool-down lap after winning the race :lol:

Gatecrasher
Gatecrasher
4
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 04:54

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:F1 could go AWERS. I would like to see that.
You want to see 4WD F1 Cars ? That would remove even more opportunities for driver error.

User avatar
dren
227
Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 14:14

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:I think the formula will last very long because it is not engine related. It is primarily fuel flow related. It could be possible that they will even liberate the V6 requirement and let the manufacturers decide what they want like they do in LMP. I would like to see that. But having said that I have also to say that the V6 100 kg/h formula will probably run for at least as long as the new Concord Agreement.
I can see the regulations opening up in this way IF Bernie gets his team wide budget restriction ideas implemented.
Honda!

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: What comes after V6?

Post

Gatecrasher wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:F1 could go AWERS. I would like to see that.
You want to see 4WD F1 Cars ? That would remove even more opportunities for driver error.
What is your thinking behind that statement. I would primarily like to see kinetic energy being harvested from the front wheels. That would not necessarily mean that you would also allow the front wheels to be powered. But I don't see how driving the front wheels would reduce driver errors.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 29 Oct 2012, 22:04, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)