No I4 in 2013; V6 in 2014 instead!

If anything, they should be going back to the proper V10 howl, not dropping to some stupid tiny four-pot.

I assume this is to appease the hippies and GW sheep? :/
 
This is great news. I hope more engine makers are attracted to F1 now, would love to see what the likes of VW or even McLaren could do with this new spec
 
I dont see this as a good think, ultimately they should just limit fuel and not engine regs. realisticly the purposals where pretty good, but should have had an extra 100 bhp.
Manufactures arent interested in big engines. It should be about engy recovery and engine effeciency while maintaining if not increasing bhp.
 
They updated the BBC post

1.6-litre, four-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s
Fuel efficiency to increase by 35%
Maximum revs of 12,000rpm
Power of energy-recovery systems to double
Overall power to remain at approx 750bhp
Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable
Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years
Click to expand...
 
Tweaker said:
This is great news. I hope more engine makers are attracted to F1 now
Click to expand...

They won't be, there are more financially viable ways to test bed this stuff these days. Even as an engine supplier to team in a works deal is too expensive.

Honda did a lot of work on Kers and the engine prior to pull out. That work was quickly removed and relocated back to Japan.

I doubt you would see the likes of them and Toyota returning when it's quicker and cheaper to run round their own tracks gathering data and making changes.

The F1 developement cycle would be too slow based on how quickly everyone wants to get on with getting this stuff on the road.

Uppping the Kers limit is good, all you will see is more cars having Kers failures for quite a while. I read a while back that the company that makes Mclarens are struggling to get more power out of the system.
 
I do think it would Bering in new sponsors and technical partners though if done right. Have the biggest hp fuel efficient engine in the top sport. It coukd have some braging rights. But whilst the fia try to force identical cars, I can't see much bringing rights. Still think it's the right direction though, but could do with combined 950bhp. They don't spin the wheels up enough as it is and to many flat out corners.

Would a fuel cell be better than a battery? Or does it suffer with similar problems. Aren't they more power to weight efficient.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Would a fuel cell be better than a battery? Or does it suffer with similar problems. Aren't they more power to weight efficient.
Click to expand...
A fuel cell is an energy conversion device, not a storage device - you put hydrogen and oxygen in and get electricity out. Fuel cells are good devices, just not the right thing to use in KERS.

Todge said:
Can anyone explain to me why a straight 4 1.6 turbo is worse than a v6 1.6 turbo. I honestly don't understand and I imagine the majority of fans wont either.
Click to expand...
There's nothing inherently better with V6s vs I4s - last time round BMW and Hart ran I4s while everyone else (bar Alfa) ran V6s. There might be a packaging advantage in a V6 with it being shorter but if the rules stipulate a single turbo then an I4 might be better (rads one side, turbo the other a-la Benetton B186).

However it may simply be Ferrari being unwilling to lower themselves to building a straight 4....
 
rpstewart said:
A fuel cell is an energy conversion device, not a storage device - you put hydrogen and oxygen in and get electricity out. Fuel cells are good devices, just not the right thing to use in KERS.
Click to expand...

And a way of Storting energy just like a battery. Fuel cells work both ways, take energy out by using the hydrogen/methanol or what ever fuel your using and you can also supply electricity to change the end products back into the fuel by the same process. Bit I'm not sure if it can be fast "charged" or what issues if any there are.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
And a way of Storting energy just like a battery. Fuel cells work both ways, take energy out by using the hydrogen/methanol or what ever fuel your using and you can also supply electricity to change the end products back into the fuel by the same process. Bit I'm not sure if it can be fast "charged" or what issues if any there are.
Click to expand...

The amount of kit needed to capture the water produced, split it, separate it, compress it and store it would make it completely impractical due to size and weight alone. Plus the charge and discharge rates are unlikely to be anywhere near what could be gained from a high density battery like they're using now.

It's a nice idea, but the tech just wouldn't suit the use... yet.
 
You wouldn't split it, or separate it. That's what the fuel cell does when you reverse the process by suppling electricity to it.
But yes I have no idea what current ca city's our or charge rates.

Lithium-ion which I assume they are using is 250w-h/Kg
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
You wouldn't split it, or separate it. That's what the fuel cell does when you reverse the process by suppling electricity to it.
But yes I have no idea what current ca city's our or charge rates.

Lithium-ion which I assume they are using is 250-650 kw/L
Click to expand...

Would you really want to store them together though? Especially in the temperature ranges that they would likely be at being that tightly packed into the cars.

Plus with the design of cell they would likely be using they would (as far as I know) need to separate the two gasses, as each is needed at a different side of the cell and is designed for a very pure hydrogen input. You could just discard the oxygen produced from the water and use input from the air as most cells to now, but you'd still have to separate and store the hydrogen.
 
They combine to produce water, they then split on two different electrodes, so they are separated naturally.
Best fuel cell at the moment is 1500w/kg
Where lithium ion is anywhere from 70-18000/kg but those high ones are at like 300+c.

I was just wondering if any one new anything about fuel cells. But probably not, would need someone who deisgns them.
 
AcidHell2 said:
They combine to produce water, they then split on two different electrodes, so they are separated naturally.
Best fuel cell at the moment is 1500w/kg
Where lithium ion is anywhere from 70-18000/kg but those high ones are at like 300+c.

I was just wondering if any one new anything about fuel cells. But probably not, would need someone who deisgns them.
Click to expand...

The designs are fairly simple really, until you get down to the details of the membrane and surfaces anyway.

If you split it via electrolysis in the car then yes the gasses will separated, but you'll use much more energy to split it and store it than you would just directly charging a battery. With enough research it's probably that the energy density and ease of use could be increased enough to beat out li-ion batteries, but that's beyond the scope of just the F1 teams. And as the packs are limited in capacity anyway, it would just be easier to design a battery pack to meet the requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom