Yes I meant 93 octane in the RM/2 method which is done here in the US.
I don't see 93 octane as a step backwards. Its what the vast majority of high performance road cars are setup to run on. In fact, in California, I believe they only offer 91 octane (RM/2).
No race gas wars as it makes no sense from a road-going perspective.
all these Octane numbers are of limited value anyway, they can't 'compare apples with pears'
there's no way to measure detonation resistance like measuring temperature
and they disregard the effect of modern '3-way catalyst' mixtures (2% richer than neutral, now even in F1 from 2014)
(detonation resistance is in some gasolines strongly dependent on mixture strength, and in others independent of mixture strength)
IIRC the USA uses mean of RON and MON, Europe uses RON
RON (500 rpm) gives higher numbers with a given real-world roadside fuel than MON (750 rpm)
but of course the same numbers with a given reference fuel eg 100 Octane, 0 Octane, or anything in between
so they tell us more about the limitations of the tests with our fuel than they tell us about our fuel
(this is how the US fuel is much closer to the Eu fuel than is implied by these headline numbers)
they don't tell us much about modern driving eg freeway, and less about 10500 rpm 2014 F1 or 18000 rpm 2013 F1
this current high rpm doesn't need high Octane numbers, eg according to Shell
but supercharged high mep does (at traditional rpm anyway)
with the FIA waiving any maximum ON limit, and we may never know how 'road capable' 2014 F1 is
VVT facilitates early exhaust valve closing to allow high exhaust recovery
by isolating the cylinder charging process from the high exhaust pressure needed for high recovery
without this need it would be unimportant (ie with so many gears)
but early engine freezing at a point advantageous to some of the current 'gang of three' is the plan
I would limit the number of gears to 5 (the reason here is that many MT cars have 6 speeds now, and 6th is an overdrive) but allow for ratio changes between tracks. This would make the powerband more critical and torque more important, both of which are *more* road-relevant. I know this is racing and a 1/5th of a season-lasting engine is not the same as a production motor, but I fully believe it is possible that a set of rules could be developed that would allow for enormous engine design freedom but retain a large degree of road relevance, hence *hopefully* attracting more manufactures and allowing for technology cross-over.
For example, TC is now on almost every car in some form. Obviously there is a difference between a racing TC program and a road-going one, but the technology is basically the same.
We all know that VVT can make an engine more efficient, especially when coupled with DI allowing for things like stratified charge. If F1 really wants to "clean up its act" (which is laughable, but anyway...) VVT is a truly 'cleaner' technology.
I am in favor of the turbos, although I would have liked to have seem some kind of 2:1 displacement rule for NA engines. I also greatly dislike the fact that the turbo mounting (axially) is so restrictive. The TERS seems very gimicky, just like KERS, especially because they will not allow it to be unlimited.
KERS could have been very interesting had they not limited the amount of energy that could be harvested... I suspect Mclaren had the best early KERS system and they could have won even more races if the system was not so restricted.
I think because the engines run at such high rpms its not much of an advantage to introduce VVT,as far as I understand VVT gives you a good low end torque,not much of a relevance to F1.
In many respects, production autos are more highly engineered than F1 cars. Most people fail to appreciate just how much engineering effort goes into making automotive components/systems reliable enough and economical enough for mass production. Bringing a new auto engine design into production can easily cost an OEM more than $1B.
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
If you're so insistent on road relevance, why not just force them to use production based engines, as is done in some categories of endurance racing?
But in all honesty, I don't really see the point of trying to make race engines road relevant. They're fundamentally very different beasts, designed to accomplish very different and often conflicting goals. You can superficially try to force them into similar conditions, but unless your racing series involves an awful lot of sunday driving, the things that consumers want in an engine and the things that race teams want in an engine are just too different.
It's not just your opinion, it's mine too. The whole "make F1 relevant to road cars" is just a stupid idea dreamt up by people who don't understand that F1 cars are nothing to do with road cars. Nothing.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
F1 has regularly been driven by road-relevance factors in rule making (1948,54,58,61,80s,00s)
pre-F1 GP racing was founded as an exercise in road-relevance (9.4 mpg unlimited engines), then 4.5 litre, 3, 2, 1.5 litre
the 650 hp mid 30s cars (750 kg) came from an attempt to eliminate the road-irrelevent early 30s libre cars
The whole "make F1 relevant to road cars" is just a stupid idea dreamt up by people who don't understand that F1 cars are nothing to do with road cars. Nothing.
Well I think a number of manufacturers would dispute your opinion; at least in public they say road relevance is important to them in F1.
Why was KERS introduced? The aims are twofold. Firstly to promote the development of environmentally friendly and road car-relevant technologies in Formula One racing; and secondly to aid overtaking.
Not saying I agree that KERS is road-relevant, but that's the explanation F1 gives. Or ask manufacturers who have went to LMP because they feel there is more road-relevance there.
It seems to me like we have two options: either F1 is a technology-fest with no consideration for road-relevance, or F1 is designed in some way to translate to road-relevance. In either case, variable valve technology is a) old hat, b) found on most road cars and c) is clearly superior technology. My understanding is that VVT is banned due to costs. Really?? What would it cost to add VVT while you are developing a whole new engine formula anyway?
tuj wrote: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.
The problem is that what prevents team from varying the valve timing from the pits or using some track position algorithm not related at all to road cars?
Maybe they should allow an extremely simple mechanism that varies timing only depending on rpm?
Just an FYI--UnoCal (Standard oil of California) holds the patent for the 93 octane clean air fuel required here in the Golden State. Instead of paying patent rights, other refiners chose not to offer high octane fuel; ironically, nor does Unocal.
Maybe they should allow an extremely simple mechanism that varies timing only depending on rpm?
Road car systems are perhaps more complicated than you might think. For example, BMW uses its VVT to replace the conventional throttle plate.
Well that's their valvetronic system. Not their Vanos system which is a standard VVT unit.
Valvetronic is more a VVL system as it can vary the valve opening continually. This removes the need of a throttle body.
Fiats multiair system works like that as well.
The whole "make F1 relevant to road cars" is just a stupid idea dreamt up by people who don't understand that F1 cars are nothing to do with road cars. Nothing.
Well I think a number of manufacturers would dispute your opinion; at least in public they say road relevance is important to them in F1.
I'd call BS on them, in large part or entirety. It's all just marketing spin.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
