New F1 Rules

[Bill888]

"In its new regulations, the FIA aims to improve sustainability by using 'green' engines in two seasons' time.
These powerunits will be four-cylinder, 1.6 litre turbos with energy recovery systems and fuel restrictions, with the aim of increasing efficiency by 35%"

For me F1 seems to have come full circle, since (IIRC) they were running little motors when I first started getting interested in the sport (c. 1961.)
Here's a link to the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9275796.stm

 

[rshunter]

It wasn't all that long ago when F1 had 1.5l turbocharged engines that cranked out 1500bhp. What an era! They could also use the re-introduction of ground-effects, as it would allow the cars to run closer together. The movable rear wing seems like an overly complicated answer to the problem.

It's a shame they've hamstrung the engineering potential, with the 12K rpm and 750bhp limit. None-the-less, I say bring it on...

 

[j_mac]

Yeah, the whole reason I became REALLY interested in F1 was at the end of the 2002 season when I learned that they were using 3.0L V10's and turning them 18,000 RPM.
Later they peaked at 950hp and 18,000+ RPM in 2005. Man, you haven't heard an engine before unless you heard one of those. The 72 degree Renault in particluar. I used to go to all the F1 races at Indy. Too bad Bernie killed that one off.
The really amazing thing about the 950hp engines was that they were actually heavily restricted in the technology that could be used. The fuel was actually very similar to pump premium you buy at the corner gas station. No variable length intake systems, no supercharging of any type. Limits on materials to be used, and on and on. They were actually simple technologies taken to the extreme.
Then we had the V8's since 2006. They dont have the incredible banshee wail of the old V10's. But they were getting the RPM's on them up over 20,000 RPM (due to the shorter and stiffer crankshaft) and they were threatening to match the old V10's for power in a few more years. So they imposed artificial rev limits. I think they limit to 18,000 now. And engine development has been frozen. No more development allowed.

Its kinda made my intrest wane. It was a showcase of technology and knowledge making the 4-cycle engine do the most with the least. Now we are moving BACKWARDS. Don't know if I'm gonna like the new turbo 4's because they will be HEAVILY regulating their design. Otherwise They'll be running around with 2000hp.
The whole Idea of the regs is to keep the cars safe.
We'll see.
Hope the turbo 4's and electric assist turns out to be some cool stuff.
And I hope they come back to INDY DAMMIT!

 

[whip]

^ F1 won't be going to Indy, for a very long time. They will be in Austin Texas in 2012.
Every year the rules in F1 change. Every year, I say it will ruin the racing. 2010 was one of the best season in a really long time. I've never been able to hear a turbo four in an open wheel car. It should be interesting.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: whip
^ F1 won't be going to Indy, for a very long time. They will be in Austin Texas in 2012.
Every year the rules in F1 change. Every year, I say it will ruin the racing. 2010 was one of the best season in a really long time. I've never been able to hear a turbo four in an open wheel car. It should be interesting.

Google "BMW M12/13 Turbo"...

 

[j_mac]

Yes RShunter, the "Turbo Era" of the 80's was awesome. Like you said... BMW 4 cyl 1.5 liter with 1500hp! (in qualifying.) That is the power of the Turbo!
I think they dialed them back to about 900-1000 for the race so they would last till the end of the race. I missed that since I was an American kid at the time. Only as an adult did I slowly realize what Formula 1 was through the 90's. I've been an F1 junkie (hardcore) since about 2002 now.

 

[Shannow]

The turbo era was awesome. Rumours at the time of Brass qualifying blocks to get a little more heat out of the equation. Frozen fuel, , and cars playing Blackbird on the grid as they waited for the start.

NA could run against turbos, but the turbos were far and away superior at the time.

Racing improves the breed has been the catchcry for 100 years or thereabouts...

It used to be that way, where racing was testing emerging technologies,and the racer's edge could be marketted.

Nowadays, with pushrod V-8s, Car of the future (talking Oz here), standard 6 speed, 9" diffs etc. it's not improving anything for the public...they even delayed Bathurst by 25 minutes "live" to get the ad breaks right.

F1 has a rule change ?

It will shuffle the board a little for a little while. Money will then come through.

People will still watch it, and follow their driver/team/hybrid.

And it's very unlikely that any true innovation will be in your or my cars for a long time,if ever.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: whip
^ F1 won't be going to Indy, for a very long time. They will be in Austin Texas in 2012.
Every year the rules in F1 change. Every year, I say it will ruin the racing. 2010 was one of the best season in a really long time. I've never been able to hear a turbo four in an open wheel car. It should be interesting.

Google "BMW M12/13 Turbo"...

I've watched the videos. I meant in person. Nothing compares to hearing them in real life.

Those 1,200 HP turbo engines were insane. The men driving them risked life and limb every time the hit the throttle.

 

[Scott_Tucker]

Originally Posted By: j_mac

The really amazing thing about the 950hp engines was that they were actually heavily restricted in the technology that could be used. The fuel was actually very similar to pump premium you buy at the corner gas station.


Interestingly, the rules state the fuel must have a minimum octane rating (R + M/2) of 85 AKI. There is no maximum. These engines use a very low octane fuel. Higher octane fuel would take too long to burn at 18k rpm +.

 

[A_Harman]

When you think about it, the duty cycle of an F1 (or any other road-race) car most closely resembles a city bus or garbage truck out in the real world. You accelerate for 10 seconds, then decelerate for 3 seconds. All day long. This is the kind of application that cries out for systems which recapture some of the fuel energy which the drivetrain has converted to kinetic energy of motion, and convert back to stored energy.

Some F1 teams used KERS in 2009, but they were not mature enough to use reliably, so they were banned in 2010. Now they are coming back in 2011. The teams found out that batteries had their limitations in terms of how quickly they could be charged and discharged and how many charging cycles could be endured, so there has been development lately on flywheel/generator units. Williams has the most interesting unit, which uses iron particles embedded in a carbon-fiber flywheel, so that the flywheel can also be the generator.

As an engineer, this is one reason that I'll be following F1 in the future.

I am a little bit skeptical about their heat recovery initiative. The one system I have read about which they are considering didn't seem workable.

 

[punisher]

Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
Higher octane fuel would take too long to burn at 18k rpm +.


Nope. Fuel burn rate is independant of octane/performance rating. Interestingly though at very high RPMs octane requirements decrease as there is no time for detonation to occur.

The fuel formulations of the turbo era were incredible. It was chemistry gone wild until blends were legislated.

 

[Scott_Tucker]

Originally Posted By: punisher
Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
Higher octane fuel would take too long to burn at 18k rpm +.


Nope. Fuel burn rate is independant of octane/performance rating. Interestingly though at very high RPMs octane requirements decrease as there is no time for detonation to occur.

The fuel formulations of the turbo era were incredible. It was chemistry gone wild until blends were legislated.


It is the ignition lag of the higher octane fuel that causes the entire cycle to take longer.

 

[j_mac]

Don't forget that cylinder pressure is lower the higher the RPM gets allowing for lower octane.
And I didn't realize the rules only had a minimum octane rating and NO upper limit. Interesting.

 

[punisher]

Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker

It is the ignition lag of the higher octane fuel that causes the entire cycle to take longer.


Nope. Pressure curves/burn rates are independant of octane. The only thing that octane measures (besides the obvious) is a fuel's resistance to detonation. If the fuel's "ignition lag" were the only determinant of octane/performance ratings, then ignition timing would simply be adjusted and fuels of any octanes could be burned with any compression ratio without negative consequence. It don't work like that.

Interesting about the no upper limit on performance ratings. In the last turbo era the "witches brew" was a really toxic benzene/triptane/magic blend that supposedly cost over $100 gal.

 

[calvin1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Nowadays, with pushrod V-8s, Car of the future (talking Oz here), standard 6 speed, 9" diffs etc. it's not improving anything for the public...they even delayed Bathurst by 25 minutes "live" to get the ad breaks right.


OT, but same thing here in the USA with NASCAR: pushrod carb'd V8s with spools in the back. Heck, they just dropped lead in the gas. You gotta love a "stock car" labeled Camry that has a tube frame, manual transmission and a carb.