No I4 in 2013; V6 in 2014 instead!

Glaucus · 22 Jun 2011 at 17:55

Just found the battery specs.
Saft are supplying 5 teams, based on their vl range. Their f1 batteries are 5300w/kg so a fair way to go even before it compares with batteries.
There we go, learnt a bit more today.

Jonnycoupe · 22 Jun 2011 at 18:02

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.

That would involve a storage tank for water and gas generation would really struggle to be created at significant rates. The fuel cell would need a massive surface area aswell. Batteries are a far better proposition. If you wanted to go for maximum round trip efficiency then hydraulic hybrids are the way to go.

Theres nothing that fancy about the current electrical KERS though, pretty much auto OEM cells that are pushed far harder due to the shorter expected life. Mercedes are using A123 cells AFAIK.

DBT85 · 22 Jun 2011 at 18:24

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.

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).

So these people that are now so glad that we don't have "crappy" straight 4s are happy for no good reason?

godinman · 22 Jun 2011 at 18:34

Who cares how the engine is configured? Just give them a fuel limit (maybe a c02 limit if you're feeling hippy), but give them a fixed maximum budget for the engine r&d/overall cost so that the smaller teams can keep up a bit.

Skeeter · 22 Jun 2011 at 18:35

Total farse from the FIA. They need to grow a backbone and stand up to the teams.

And total crap shown from all the teams too. All the teams (except Ferrari) were going on about not wanting new engines due to the cost of developing them. So how is a V6 cheaper to develop than a I4? Simple, its not.

I imagine PURE are also a bit peed off. They are a company setup soley to create I4 turbo engines for 2013 F1 cars... something that no longer will happen.

Typical FIA tbh.

Skeeter · 22 Jun 2011 at 19:14

Any news on the 12k RPM rev limit for these? The only major issue I had with the I4 engines was this limit.

Glaucus · 22 Jun 2011 at 19:16

BBC are saying

1.6-litre, six-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

Still has to be voted in by the world council which is set for Monday.

Skeeter · 22 Jun 2011 at 19:34

Whats a compound Turbo?

Duke · 22 Jun 2011 at 20:05

V6 doesn't really help either camp, but least it will sound a little better

dannyjo22 · 22 Jun 2011 at 20:11

Skeeter said:
Whats a compound Turbo?

When one turbo charger blows into the inlet of the next one in series I think. Where as twin turbo charging is in parallel.

That's my limited understanding of compound turbos. Benefit being one is smaller instead of running two larger chargers.

Glaucus · 22 Jun 2011 at 20:14

Yep one low pressure and one high pressure in series.
So you get boost from idle all the way, as I understand it.

mrgubby · 22 Jun 2011 at 20:28

If they want to save money/go green why don't they just

1 Cut race distance down to 50 laps
2 Have 1 set of tyres for qualifying & 1 set for race (unless punctured)
3 Drop the size of the fuel tank with no in race refuelling
4 Organize the calendar so there is less Continent hopping
5 Reduce the number of engines/gearboxes & all spares allowed for the year

Whatever they come up with that wins & lasts will do nicely for my car

and give Hamilton a broom to collect & recycle the carbon fibre

Glaucus · 22 Jun 2011 at 20:35

3 and 5 they already do. 2 there is a limit, be stupid going lower. And tbh none of those ideas save money compared to the expense of developing and any money they do save will be ploughed back into development anyway.

DBT85 · 22 Jun 2011 at 21:00

Skeeter said:
Any news on the 12k RPM rev limit for these? The only major issue I had with the I4 engines was this limit.

From the little we know thus far literaly the only change from the original proposal is to make them V6 instead of I4. Everything else is staying as it was so still a 12,000 rpm limit, still the same pressure turbo, etc.

Skeeter · 22 Jun 2011 at 22:41

mrgubby said:
If they want to save money/go green why don't they just

1 Cut race distance down to 50 laps
2 Have 1 set of tyres for qualifying & 1 set for race (unless punctured)
3 Drop the size of the fuel tank with no in race refuelling
4 Organize the calendar so there is less Continent hopping
5 Reduce the number of engines/gearboxes & all spares allowed for the year

Whatever they come up with that wins & lasts will do nicely for my car

and give Hamilton a broom to collect & recycle the carbon fibre

The FIA have no interest in being green. They have interest in 'appearing' to be green, as do all businesses flying the 'green' marketing flag.

F1 has been carbon neutral since the 90's, its all about image now.

However, with all the car makers 'going green' and all the car buyers 'wanting green'*, F1 needs to keep up with the latest marketing cool kids to stay relevant.

*an all to commonly held generalisation.

Skeeter · 22 Jun 2011 at 22:44

Todge said:
From the little we know thus far literaly the only change from the original proposal is to make them V6 instead of I4. Everything else is staying as it was so still a 12,000 rpm limit, still the same pressure turbo, etc.

Having recently found out that GP2 cars are 10k limited, and thinking they don't sound to bad, I will hold judgement. 12k could be ok.

MissChief · 23 Jun 2011 at 02:26

problem with turbocharging and high revs is that turbos lose efficiency the higher the revs go.

I still agree with acidhell. Mandate a stock fuel pump and say $10 million for a years engine supply to whoever wants them from the engine manufacturers with a maximum of three teams to be supplied. Two manufacturer specified teams and one drawn by lots if more than one team wants the supply. Also mandate stock mounting points for the engine and then tell them to come up with whatever the hell they like. V6? V8? Flat 6? inline 4 cyl? Go for it. Would be interesting to have different engines on the grid again, but I agree this could get expensive. Hopefully the rule that you have to supply other teams would keep costs down.

Jonnycoupe · 23 Jun 2011 at 11:38

Hmmm

i wonder what noises are going on between Williams and Jaguar now a V6 is on the cards for F1 rather than an I4 and its effect on C-X75.

DBT85 · 23 Jun 2011 at 13:29

Jonnycoupe said:
Hmmm

i wonder what noises are going on between Williams and Jaguar now a V6 is on the cards for F1 rather than an I4 and its effect on C-X75.

Hopefully it just means they push ahead and release them all with the turbines in. Sadly that wont happen

Skeeter · 23 Jun 2011 at 16:21

MissChief said:
problem with turbocharging and high revs is that turbos lose efficiency the higher the revs go.

I still agree with acidhell. Mandate a stock fuel pump and say $10 million for a years engine supply to whoever wants them from the engine manufacturers with a maximum of three teams to be supplied. Two manufacturer specified teams and one drawn by lots if more than one team wants the supply. Also mandate stock mounting points for the engine and then tell them to come up with whatever the hell they like. V6? V8? Flat 6? inline 4 cyl? Go for it. Would be interesting to have different engines on the grid again, but I agree this could get expensive. Hopefully the rule that you have to supply other teams would keep costs down.

There already are limits to the cost of engines.

And standard engine mounts will have a 'best case' which everyone would use. Standardising the engine mounts would actually limit engine designs.

The 'open formula' that everyone keeps spouting on about will not work any more. With unlimited development you will get massive field spread between the top and bottom teams, and sky high costs. 2 things that will kill F1.

Back on the V6 turbos, I went to Beaulieu today where they have the 1988 McLaren MP4/4. It had a 1.5l V6 Turbo that revved to 12,500rpm, and destroyed everyone. Maybe the new rules wont be so bad.

However, I do agree with Duke, a V6 turbo is of no use to anyone. Its not the large capacity multi cylinder engines that the high performance car makers want (Ferrari, Merc, etc), and its not the small directly transferable straight 4 turbo that the mass market car makers want (Renault, and all the other companies lined up in the wings). Its pretty much useless to everyone, but hey, as long as we keep Ferrari happy!