2011 engine proposals

The_Clincher

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
431
ok some of these ideas are good, some not so much:

-powerboost: is a good idea, i will make overtaking more exciting (imagine 2 cars flying down the gilles-villeneuve straight on boost fighting 4 position, crazy shit)...but the time u can use it for should be diff

-biofuel: i think thats a good idea, it will cause more oil companies to put effort into developing it and dont biofuel cars produce more power with it anyways?

-2.2V6T...i like the idea of the engine, but not so much the rev limit...10,000 is WAY to low for an F1 car..you cant just change revs from 19K to 10K and imagine how much slower the cars will be because of the gearing, unless they have more gears? and i really dont think there is going to be anyway that one engine, especially a turbo will last 5 races...unless they want LOTS of malfunctions

-4WD...doesnt that use more fuel?

-im suprised they sent it only ford, and considering their financial situation at the moment, i dont think F1 is on their priorities list...i thought if any american company they would have sent it to GM...i would love to see them go into formula one...aswell as VW/Audi!! (mayb in the form of lambo?)
 

justvisiting

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
642
Location
california and boston
Car(s)
e46 bmw
to make f1 more competitive, why don't they just restrict the budget for aero dynamics, its not like improvements in that sector will translate much to the market.
They should boost r&D in engine efficiency by either these new green paths or a fuel restriction, while reopening tire development.

The problem is that they can all run around the same basic pace, but once something goes wrong with the aerodynamics they are lost. They also cant draft too much due to the affect on the aero. I guess theres also the issue of when the cars are maxed out, and the drivers are maxed out.. they will all stay in the same positions.. except for the start.
 

The_Clincher

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
431
to make f1 more competitive, why don't they just restrict the budget for aero dynamics, its not like improvements in that sector will translate much to the market.
They should boost r&D in engine efficiency by either these new green paths or a fuel restriction, while reopening tire development.

The problem is that they can all run around the same basic pace, but once something goes wrong with the aerodynamics they are lost. They also cant draft too much due to the affect on the aero. I guess theres also the issue of when the cars are maxed out, and the drivers are maxed out.. they will all stay in the same positions.. except for the start.
well driver skill/ error is a major contributor, cant forget that
 

ArosaMike

Resident Kart Racer
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
883
Location
Leamington Spa
Car(s)
Mk5 VW Golf GTI, Aston Martin Vantage GT4 Race Car
Ah good old FIA and their crazy crazy ideas. I wonder what piece of software they've got their hands on this time?! Read an article in Racecar Engineering Magazine about some research done by a Williams engineer on the 'Centre Downwash' rear wings proposed to increase overtaking by the FIA (below). In their original press release, the FIA had made some pretty cross section pictures of the pressure trail of the proposed wing with air being thrown down on to the wing of the car below. The extended research by this guy at Williams basically illustrated that this FIA graphic was showing only part of the story. It was highly likely in fact that the 'Centre Downwash' rear wing propose would actually cause more loss of downforce for the car behind than a conventional one.....needless to say it's not being considered any more!

Artists impression


Tweaked CFD pressure slice that makes it look far better than it really is. Darker colours indicate lower pressure (hence downforce) Arrows indicate direction of flow


Whilst perhaps a few of those above are likely possibilities, a lot are also just red herrings. Bio fuel, energy recovery systems and power boost are all being looked into by a lot of teams in advance of rule changes, and these are in fact highly likely to be introduced. As for the others....I highly doubt it...here's why:

Turbo 2.2 V6s limited to 10k rpm - There is no way this would reduce cost at all. The engine manufacturers would run them at silly boost and limiting the engines to 10k rpm would do nothing for power. They'd probably be pushing 1000bhp in qually and whilst the engines would last 5 races, they'd be incredibly highly strung and very expensive to make. Furthermore, Bernie doesn't want to loose the trademark F1 sound (ie high rpm). I have a feeling he may well have actually trademarked it. For marketing reasons, I doubt they'll ever limit the rpm that low.

Return of traction control - Seems very bizzare they should suggest this, having just agreed on a standard ECU for 2008 made by TAG systems that is policed and sealed and hence can finally have absolutely no TC. The FIA hate TC, and the only reason it's around at the moment, is because it's impossible to prevent. With a standard ECU, they can dictate what the engine can do.

4WD - Unless it was made compulsory for some very weird reason, this will definitely not happen. 4WD track cars are fundamentally pretty useless as they're heavy and handle pretty badly. Whilst you could probably have 4WD with electric motors linked to the energy recovery, I don't see it being particularly viable, or of any advantage. Furthermore, IMO it would make overtaking even more difficult. The last thing the cars need is more traction!

Ford were in it up until very recently. I doubt we'll see them back there in the near future as they can't afford it. Furthermore, Cosworth, their easiest route in have no team to supply, and getting a new team to accept an engine deal from an unknown quantity is not going to happen.

VAG - They've said many times before they're not interested. They spend more doing LeMans and sports car racing anyway and don't feel F1 is at all cost effective apparently (their offical word is that the spend is disproportionate to the return in sales).

Hell...I'll probably be proved horribly wrong, but there's endless talk about rule changes in the Engineering Press, and I'm fairly sure most of it is justified.
 

maxorido

Active Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
334
Car(s)
AP2 S2000
I agree that engines screaming at 19,000+ rpms has become a bit of a trademark for F1. For them to cut the revs down so much and switch to a turbo powerplant, I find that highly far fetched. Switching to four wheel drive? That's the most retarded thing i've heard in a while. The only things I would be in favor for are the power boost buttons, and the hippie fuel.
 

HondaF1

Aussie Bastard
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
4,204
Location
SCOTLAND
Car(s)
First Aberdeen Bus Network
You know, if they went down the aero path that lead to that being designed, then I wouldnt mind at all. They look pretty damn good like that in my opinion. Notice it's wide track, with full slicks again!!
 

justvisiting

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
642
Location
california and boston
Car(s)
e46 bmw
air pressure rebound is never going to change.. so we are always going to have problems with the wake, meaning following disturbances on corner exit. That is if the drivers both take the same line. The problem could also be in the fact that straights are always preceded by a tight corner to which only one real line is applicable. Drivers have to space themselves before the corner to avoid wake understeer, leaving their straight draft attempts all but shot. Occasionally we see straightline drafting then a jump out of the slip to take the inside or outside depending on the next corner.. but thats only if they have a stronger engine capable of closing the corner exit gap.. that or use of backmarkers to disrupt lines tend to be the only overtaking we get these days. Id like to see racing like the villeneuve v. arnoux battle.
The goal of future development should be reduced aerodynamics, and a switch back to slicks and mechanical grip primary with downforce secondary.

"well driver skill/ error is a major contributor, cant forget that" -clincher
I think these days many of the drivers are very close skill wise in terms of overall race pace, they differ typically in terms of pressured driving, pulling things out... or defensive driving, but given open road and little chance of overtaking they all just run their similar laptimes (when the cars are near equivalent). They can only really capitalize if their strenghts are the weaknesses of the other teams. The race now seems to be more strategy of fuel loads and tire timing where they can capitalized on differences of cars to provide chances for racing.
 

ArosaMike

Resident Kart Racer
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
883
Location
Leamington Spa
Car(s)
Mk5 VW Golf GTI, Aston Martin Vantage GT4 Race Car
air pressure rebound is never going to change.. so we are always going to have problems with the wake, meaning following disturbances on corner exit. That is if the drivers both take the same line. The problem could also be in the fact that straights are always preceded by a tight corner to which only one real line is applicable. Drivers have to space themselves before the corner to avoid wake understeer, leaving their straight draft attempts all but shot. Occasionally we see straightline drafting then a jump out of the slip to take the inside or outside depending on the next corner.. but thats only if they have a stronger engine capable of closing the corner exit gap.. that or use of backmarkers to disrupt lines tend to be the only overtaking we get these days. Id like to see racing like the villeneuve v. arnoux battle.
The goal of future development should be reduced aerodynamics, and a switch back to slicks and mechanical grip primary with downforce secondary.

"well driver skill/ error is a major contributor, cant forget that" -clincher
I think these days many of the drivers are very close skill wise in terms of overall race pace, they differ typically in terms of pressured driving, pulling things out... or defensive driving, but given open road and little chance of overtaking they all just run their similar laptimes (when the cars are near equivalent). They can only really capitalize if their strenghts are the weaknesses of the other teams. The race now seems to be more strategy of fuel loads and tire timing where they can capitalized on differences of cars to provide chances for racing.
Well basically what you're saying is the conclusion they came to in the article I was reading. The main issues are the sensitivity of the Aero packages to running in turbulent air. Firing air down towards the car behind would most likely cause the angle of attack of the wing to be multiplied and as they're run so close to the limits, it would stall causing a complete loss of downforce. At the moment, all the extra appendages that tidy the air and feed it to the rear wing etc (like McLarens bunny ears) are useless when not working in undisturbed air. Furthermore, the continual moving of the front wing further and further off the ground has completely negated any ground effect they used to get and hence, it solely reliant on the air flow passing over it i.e. that which has just come off the car in front.

The issue with a lot of FIA rules is they don't seem to do any justification when making rules. They see something that makes the cars go quicker, and get rid of it with the reasoning that removing it will slow them down again. Realistically, in my opinion they should reintroduce some form of ground effect. Whilst it would need to be strictly limited, perhaps even a standard underfloor design, some degree of ground effect that provides some level of down force when following another car (since ground effect is not so severely effected by turbulent air exiting the car in front), would be the way to increase overtaking. Whilst I believe a lot of teams are now investing a lot of money into researching how the air behaves when following another car, it's previously not been looked into much.

As for engines at the moment, the standard ECU is another ill conceived idea. As a concept it's great, making it impossible for teams to cheat traction control or other such things. It's execution however couldn't be worse. They're introducing it in a self imposed time of restricted engine development. So somehow, teams have to make super complex engines designed two years ago to run on bespoke electronics work with a standard ECU that probably offers only half of the functions they're used to. If they were able to mechanically change the engine, I wouldn't see this as being a problem, but.....what happens if for example, one team runs some function to wash the bores of the cylinders on the overrun to cool them and the new ECU doesn't support this! Kaboom! There is nothing they can do to prevent this at all, apart from redesigning the engine casting to improve conventional cooling routes or turning the engine down by 10% or something. But either they're not allowed to do this or they'd be a complete joke touring round the track 5s a lap off the pace! So basically, if any engine manufacturers run any trick things like this, that rely hugely on electronic functions, we could see a seriously embarrassing situation where the FIA are forced to allow the use of non control ECUs again due to continual engine failures. Add to this the fact that the company who have won the contract is TAG.....who are owned by McLaren and operate out of the McLaren technical centre, and it seems even more crazy. These guys have designed the electronics for all the previous McLaren engines, or at least have contact with those who have, so I'm fairly sure they'll have made sure they include everything on the ECU that will ensure their engine runs on power and reliably! So basically we could end up with everyone apart from McLaren spluttering along 5s off the pace blowing up here there and everywhere whilst McLaren absolutely walk it!
 

justvisiting

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
642
Location
california and boston
Car(s)
e46 bmw
The issue with a lot of FIA rules is they don't seem to do any justification when making rules. They see something that makes the cars go quicker, and get rid of it with the reasoning that removing it will slow them down again.
Thats a massively good point. The FIA needs to stop making decisions and regulations based on instant appeasement to upcoming issues or complaints. There are hundreds or brilliant engineers working on the teams f1 projects who should just have a meeting with the team leaders and FIA and Drivers Ass. to decide where the future of f1 should be going. The current lock on tires and engine and soon to be ECU and loss of traction control: all seem to be in a move to standardize the sport. Their next step is to probably regulate engines after the 2 years to a standard regulation or move towards Mosleys 2011 plans. All this is rather dumb, as f1 should be the pinnacle of technology and development to which should translate into other series and passenger vehicles. If they impose a lock with a goal towards standardization and cost cutting, where is the development? There should be regulations on power output and fuel consumption, but everything else should be free play. If a team discovers a new lightweight material to mold the engine good for them, their competitors should then be given the opportunity to match them within the next few races.The seamless shift box is a good example of advancement, where all teams now run them to maintain competition. Changes should focus on magnifying driver skill, increased overtaking ability, and advancements in technologies that matter; to make their enormous investments worthwhile. Nothing is going to change the cost of F1, so wasting the money trying to find shortcuts around the many silly rule changes is stupid.

They should just think of one large fix as a big investment into the future of the sport.
 

ArosaMike

Resident Kart Racer
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
883
Location
Leamington Spa
Car(s)
Mk5 VW Golf GTI, Aston Martin Vantage GT4 Race Car
I think that it could potentially be good, but of course if you have 'push to pass', you also have 'push to defend' and it then just becomes an exercise in power management and knowing when to press the button to pass and when to push it to defend. I guess the only way you can see whether it would work would be to test it out at a couple of races.

I believe there is some sort of engineering department at the FIA, or at least they use consultancies. The problem is, they don't have the experience. It would be better perhaps if a number of the engineering staff from each F1 team were required to attend a brainstorming meeting every year to look at different ways to solve the issues. They would have the knowledge and ability to think of ideas that would actually work, and could then go away to investigate it in more detail. Politically it may be hard to get it to work, but anything would surely be better than the current 'stab in the dark' suggestions.

There definitely needs to be a push towards fuel economy and hybrid technologies. I personally don't think the removal of wings is really the way forwards. It would be a big step backwards technologically and would be akin to an over powered Formula Ford. The issue is getting the balance between technology and racing. As I said...perhaps some sort of standard under floor design to provide some significant ground effect to avoid the current car following car problems, and the banning of all aero tidying devices like bunny ears and side pod winglets would worth while.
 

maxorido

Active Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
334
Car(s)
AP2 S2000
I think that it could potentially be good, but of course if you have 'push to pass', you also have 'push to defend' and it then just becomes an exercise in power management and knowing when to press the button to pass and when to push it to defend. I guess the only way you can see whether it would work would be to test it out at a couple of races.
The way to prevent this from becoming a exercise of button pressing timing, it to restrict the powerboost button to say only one or two shots of boost. Having watched the A1GP races utilize it, I can definately say i'm a fan of it.
 

justvisiting

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
642
Location
california and boston
Car(s)
e46 bmw
Since f1 doesnt use turbos anymore, the push to pass should just be an allowed amount of time to run at higher revs per race. I'd actually really enjoy watching a race with this feature.

Don't Champ cars have molded ground effects to contribute something like 40% of its downforce with the rest being the wings? F1 should definitely bring them back.
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,552
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
I however also do mind about the rev limit, they should just let the engineers go wild on the revs. Remember the old saying, 'Horsepower sell cars, Revs wins you races.' :)
The quote was "Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races." Get your quotes right.
 

ArosaMike

Resident Kart Racer
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
883
Location
Leamington Spa
Car(s)
Mk5 VW Golf GTI, Aston Martin Vantage GT4 Race Car
I do think it would be a major loss to see revs capped down to 10,000. From an engineering point of view I think it's simply fascinating that you can engineer a 4 stroke engine to run that fast. There's no other 4 stroke in the world that revs that much, and to loose it would be like loosing an 8th wonder of the world! LOL
 

AnGuRuSO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,295
Location
Sydney, Astraya
I don't like all these inhibitions placed on F1. Whats this about Traction Control? I thought it was being banned in 2008, why bring it back 3 years later?
 

ArosaMike

Resident Kart Racer
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
883
Location
Leamington Spa
Car(s)
Mk5 VW Golf GTI, Aston Martin Vantage GT4 Race Car
I don't like all these inhibitions placed on F1. Whats this about Traction Control? I thought it was being banned in 2008, why bring it back 3 years later?
It's crazy isn't it? I'm not sure they FIA know they're head from their arsehole!
 

HondaF1

Aussie Bastard
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
4,204
Location
SCOTLAND
Car(s)
First Aberdeen Bus Network
The FIA's head is Max Mosely, He's also their arsehole!!
 

Paul

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
322
The future is very scary, i'm worried too if the F1 cars in the future would not have any individuality :lol: I think the power button is a great idea, engine and biofuel also, but 4WD and limited revs is a bad idea. I think Max would not listen, and maybe he has no choice? F1 seems to have more manufacturer team than teams like Williams F1. So, this may be the only way he can get the current or future manufacturer team to commit in F1 in the long term. I am wondering is there any way to get our views read by him? Anyway, if the future F1 car is bad, i would just simply find a new motorsport to be a fan of. :)
 

Karoug

Techno Viking
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
6,471
Location
Sweden
Car(s)
Scooter power!!
I do think it would be a major loss to see revs capped down to 10,000. From an engineering point of view I think it's simply fascinating that you can engineer a 4 stroke engine to run that fast. There's no other 4 stroke in the world that revs that much, and to loose it would be like loosing an 8th wonder of the world! LOL
The MotoGP bikes are revving that high aswell... And The factory Ducatis where rumoured to rev above 20 000rpm...

ed. I think MotoGP is where F1 should be! High tech and amazing racing!!
 
Top