DOF_power

Ground Effect, Turbos Set For F1 Return

23 posts in this topic

Ground effect, turbos set for F1 return

By Jonathan Noble Friday, September 3rd 2010, 13:33 GMT

Formula 1 teams are closing in on finalising all-new regulations for 2013 that will likely see a return of ground effect cars and turbo engines - as the sport witnessed in the early 1980's. Several think-tank Working Groups have been set up to get consensus on moves to improve the spectacle of F1 and ensure it becomes more environmentally friendly. On the engine side, draft regulations were circulated among teams a few weeks ago and the latest plan is for 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo engines to become standard.

...

Teams are keen for the cars to be better for overtaking than the current generation of machines - with ground effect being actively considered.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341

Edited by DOF_power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it - I do not like it. Having environmentally friendly motoracing is contradiction within itself. Let them race on tricycles, that would be most environmentally friendly.

What kind of F1 engine is 4 cylinder?!!?? Who's bright idea is that? Maybe they want to attract KIA, Zastava and Lada to the sport?

Ok. Let's calm down.

I do think that making politically correct F1 is the wrong way to go. I believe all limits which are not safety related should be removed, as free competition as possible with maximum freedom for constructors would bring most inovation relevant to the road cars as well. aerodinamics should remain being tightly regulated because it has no value outside F1 and uses wast resources. Engine and mechanics of the car should be directly unregulated. You can set maximum ammount of fuel car is allowed to start race with. That way you limit engine power and induce development of energy recovery systems thus you can make more powerful engine if you are able to recover more energy or if you use your fuel in a more efficient way.....

Green force should remain as external i.e. teams would want KERS in F1 not because F1 looks more green with it but because they want to develop it to be used on the road because there is demand for greener road cars....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 80s turbos had 4 cylinders like the BMW and it pumped over 1300 hp in qualy trim using WWII rocket fuel additives.

Freedom will not make F1 more relevant, in racing to win you need aerodynamics.

I agree that the 4 cylinder layout should not be mandatory, but the max. amount of fuel should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think turbos and ground effects will lure Kimi Räikkönen back to the sport? It would be fantastic for all things holy to return in 2013. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground effect should improve overtaking and the need to winglets and all of the other aerodynamic gadgets, because with ground the main source of grip will be the ground effect and teams will change the focus of aero packages from grip to less drag.

Turbos should be allowed with a fuel and air restrictions each team should decide the best engine for them. Each team must consume a certain amount of fuel and certain amount of air during the weekend. I would like to see a Ferrari V12 vs a Renault L4 Turbo vs a Cosworth V8. Engines relevant to each team and to the road cars they make

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground effect should improve overtaking and the need to winglets and all of the other aerodynamic gadgets, because with ground the main source of grip will be the ground effect and teams will change the focus of aero packages from grip to less drag.

Turbos should be allowed with a fuel and air restrictions each team should decide the best engine for them. Each team must consume a certain amount of fuel and certain amount of air during the weekend. I would like to see a Ferrari V12 vs a Renault L4 Turbo vs a Cosworth V8. Engines relevant to each team and to the road cars they make

The 08 cars had a drag of 1.2 in Monaco trim witch is 3.5x - 4x of a regular production car and an aero efficiency of 3 to 1.

With less power but more torque and less dragy aero vs. same downforce overall performance should be the same or higher.

I doubt V12s will be allowed, in fact they were more a prestige/ image thing really, as the V10s both out-powered and out-torqued them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V12's are to heavy for an F1 car. V10 engines proved that they are the best option for F1, they have the best weight to power output of any naturally aspirated engine F1 ever had. And that is not only because the science behind them advanced. The v8's vibrate far more than the v10's did.

I say go back the the 2004 engine rules, before the homolegation started and they were allowed to run at whatever rpm they wanted. In this respect I am very much like Enzo Ferrari, More Power!!! or Like Jeremy Clarkson says when drifting through a corner "Powwwwwweeeeerrrrrrr!"

But also, there needs to be less dependence on aero, ground effects are they way to go because they are not disturbed by the car infront. Along with that F1 cars need a wider track and wider tires with Perrelli's idea of 18 inch wheels the exact wrong way to go. Yes they would provide less flex in the tire wall but also cause a smaller window of being on the edge. Keep the 13" wheels and make them wider and stickier. Make it so teams need to change tires 2 or 3 times in a race and give them more than just like 4 sets for the entire week end.

Hell if anything tell the teams that they can bring any engine they want. All it needs to meet are a requirement of no more than 1000 Hp and no exotic jet fuels. A hydrogen fuel cell with a 1000hp electric engine would be totally legal. hell even a wood burning stove putting out 1000hp via a steam engine when burning kittens would be fine. And a lower weight limit of 650kg for the car when wet but without the driver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V12's FTL! They might have nice soundtrack but fairly heavy for an F1 car of today! V6 Turbo's FTW!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engines and other car mechanical parts are road relevant while aerodynamics is not. So I would limit aerodynamics as much as possible and make other things free.

Complete engine freedom limited by ammount of fuel to be spent in the race is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engines and other car mechanical parts are road relevant while aerodynamics is not. So I would limit aerodynamics as much as possible and make other things free.

Aerodynamics is not?

So that's why so many sedans/saloons are wedge-shaped? They don't do it just to make it a pain in the a## to see out the back when you're in reverse.

Aerodynamics is very relevant. I don't know much about it, but I know it's important. I imagine with companies trying to meet stricter fuel economy regulations, it becomes even more relevant.

Anyway, not in the mood to discuss what the regulations should be, because they aren't going to be. They could be better, but they could be worse. I find them more compelling than today's. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerodynamics is important to road cars, but I suppose there is less of a link between the development of aero in F1 and the aero requirements of most road cars. Most of the stuff they're doing in F1 probably doesn't really apply (despite the "developed in F1" that the marketing people like to use), at least that seems logical because they are not at all similar in shape or function. It's not like fuel, tyres or the transmission where there's probably more carry over from F1 to road cars.

Anyway, as is probably clear, I don't have any real idea about the technical side of F1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerodynamics is important to road cars, but I suppose there is less of a link between the development of aero in F1 and the aero requirements of most road cars. Most of the stuff they're doing in F1 probably doesn't really apply (despite the "developed in F1" that the marketing people like to use), at least that seems logical because they are not at all similar in shape or function. It's not like fuel, tyres or the transmission where there's probably more carry over from F1 to road cars.

Anyway, as is probably clear, I don't have any real idea about the technical side of F1.

In the road car design, aero comes at the end. The most important is that car is nice, so when designer does his job then aero guys can correct few details but not much. Nobody chooses car based on drag factor. Most of the time it is not published in car brochure/technical specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients

On this link you can find drag coeficients of many cars, there is no trend over the years. One of the most aero efficient cars was designed and produced in 1935! While one of the worst cars is designed in 2003.

That proves that for road cars, aero comes at the bottom of requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making F1 interesting is going to be very difficult unless the rules change to allow more technology and creativity thus becoming less boring. The engine deal is understandable and going with displacement of say 2.0 liters and no demand on how many cylinders is good for technology. Turbochargers OK and no boost limit, but a limit on total fuel quantity for each event and just change to methanol/alcohol that so everyone uses the same fuel as in Indy car. This looks green, makes more power, BUT the volume is increased by at least 50% due to consumption of alcohol verses a gasoline based fuel, thus leading to more creativity as to where to put it on the vehicle. Any transmission would be acceptable regardless of number of gears or even CVT. Aero is always an issue and it would be nice to make it wide open within given dimensions of the vehicle, then tied to this is tire size. Going to 18s on an open wheel car is not necessarily a good idea as it limits tire compliance and makes spring rates and dampers even more critical. 15" wheels seems like a better choice so the overall diameters can stay smaller. I would like to see a variety of tire companies involved to shake up the mix. So even if the racing is not as close as we would like, largely due to teams making sure it is not, the rest of the picture is more interesting. Lastly and very importantly, testing and practice days should be dramatically increased. This is good to make certain the cars are sorted and safe, plus it allows the younger drivers to get the experience they need to be competitive so they are not discounted as not up to it, e.g. Sutil. It becomes increasingly more difficult to bring on new talent with the current limitations. As we all know, F1 is driven by money in every aspect thanks to Bernie's devotion to the gold and not the competition, and this is why we have races throughout the middle east and asia where they accept that they are going to lose lots of money to Bernie, and they can afford it.......for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In aero design F1 cars and road cars goes in different directions, F1 cars aero is focus in grip and downforce this produce a lot of aero drag in road cars in contrast the focus is to have less drag with a bit of downforce to avoid going airborne at highway speeds.

I don't think limiting the aerodynamic development is teh way to go but to switch the focus from aero to mechanical grip will make aero less and less important a way to do this is with ground effect, wider and sticky tires and smaller wings in the front and back of the car.

I think F1 is not about limitations but FIA must guide the teams in invest in practical and more road relevant things than a winglet and F-duct that never will go to my car

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well 1.6L 4 cylinder engines will be interesting. I just want to know how open those regs will be to development. Will we just see inline 4's or will there be development like 180 Degree V4's that would really lower CoG. And what kind of boosts will they be allowed to run? Will they be allowed to run only a single turbo or will they be allowed to run staged turbos to compensate for turbo lag?

If they would allow real development of those types of engines that would certainly lure manufacturers back. Maybe even BMW, BMW's new focus are small, blown engines. This would play into their hands.

What I'm waiting for is the amount of development they are allowed. If they still don't see any testing or development freedom we will soon see an f1 that is a dry dead husk of it's former self. But if we can see development then we might be in for a real treat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bits and pieces on the car are something I can't really talk about, but the idea of having different tyre suppliers, while good, is something that can heavily influence an F1 season. I think they should have as many tyre suppliers as want to be involved, but sign deals only for one year, to allow a team to bounce back if they're not happy with the tyres they have. Otherwise it's costly and hard, and tyre suppliers get complacent. And contracts should all have the same price, the best tyre supplier would get the most deals because teams would seek them. (Ouch, perfect competition talking in me... but if it can help...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the cars sound something like the Turbo cars of old. Obviously not as powerful still the sound would be good :clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish every maker can opt for it own engine configuration. Every engine architecture has it pros and cons so why not to choose? I would like to see some flat 6 normaly aspirated engines, but... whatever config FIA choose it will work fine, the main problem are the rules regarding the chassis not the engine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having worked for RALT CARS back in the 80's when we built Formula Atlantic cars for the USA with the sliding skirts etc. all pretty primitive but they worked!

I would love to see a return to this form of aerodynamics, AND with the smallest engine possible, maybe a 1 Litre 4 cyl, turbo of course with added KERS and running on E85 Ethanol fuel.

Would have to LOOK GREEN in anyones eyes and would be so, and as the V8 Supercars in Oz have proven E85 is no drawback on performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with E85 Ethanol is that the majority of auto manufactures do not support it (the use of Ethanol, albeit E98, in IndyCar put VWAG and Fiat off; they said they'd supply engines in 2012 and beyond only if they got rid of Ethanol and used something more relevant). Cellulosic Ethanol would be greener; if they use the silly corn stuff, it would actually have a higher negative environmental impact than petrol (the production process is extremely inefficient; 1 gallon of Ethanol is essentially 1.2 gallons of petroleum, and because Ethanol leads to lower fuel economy, you'd be using more Ethanol than you would petrol, plus it would be more not-so-eco-friendliness per gallon...but that's the corn junk. I know little of cellulosic Ethanol, but, regardless, auto manufactures have not really embraced that, which is key).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethanol by means of foodstocks is a dead duck before it has really got going to be honest. Apart from oil spills, it does have a larger environmental impact than petrol/oil for the reasons Eric has stated. It's the whole people-are-sheep-and-believe-what-some-fancy-ad-on-tele-says that gives it any "green" credence.

If ethanol were to be commercially made from algae, as is being tested and heavily invested in by Richard Branson, then there is something worth looking at as being "green". Also, F1 teams could build their own plants! (or algae)

But they say there is only 20-odd years of oil left, so, at the end of the day, all this green this and green that is going to be moot, as before Eric is 50, there will be no oil generated pollutants to infect the world and cause a calamity. Kind of like the Y2K bug taking over the world and killing it by launching all the Iranian nukes at the USA.

There are alternative fuels out there, they just cost more to make than petrol, as they require huge capital investment at this point in time, so they make no economic sense. And the reason behind better fuel mileage in your everyday car is because the car manufacturers need to be able to keep selling cars with a petrol or diesel internal combustion engine for as long as they can, and with only a finite stock of oil, they need to reduce the consumption to make their current business model last another 20-25 years.

To make a race series "green" is just dumb. The carbon footprint is so small it is insignificant, even when you take into account planes and trucks, to what goes on around the world in a day.

Here in NZ there has been a push from Motorsport NZ to make all classes run with unleaded fuel, but of course older cars can not run unleaded fuel as the pistons would self destruct without the lead cooling and lubricating them. So to run unleaded, you put leaded additives back in...like duh... And couple that to the fact that in a weekend the average car on avgas/leaded fuel, goes through 25-30-litres, the impact is so small it's insignificant. There is more fuel spilled on a petrol station forecourt in a day....

As for engines in F1...flat angle or wide angle V setups don't work so well due to the weight imbalance of the pistons going from side to side, and the harmonics they create in doing so. These cars are so sensitive, that you would severely compromise yourself in one area to compensate for the flat angle in the engine. Renault tried the 110ish degree engine not so long ago, and they went south...most of these ideas mooted have been tried at one point or other in the history of F1 and formula racing, and left behind or not further developed because they simply did not offer any benefit, or in some instances made things worse, like 4WD for instance.

Some years ago, in an F1 Racing magazine, Patrick Head was asked what would be the ultimate car if there were no rules governing the cars, apart from open wheel and single seat....he came up with a 6x4 car with small wheels...the front would have two wheels, whilst the back would have four driven wheels...the smaller tyres would be used as they had less frontal area for wind resistance than one big wheel, and a larger contact patch with the ground to get the power down. His engine of choice was a turbo one, and he wanted some form of active suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now