More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by MJones94

Does the 15k rev limit mean a rev-cap limit set to 15,000rpm, like the limit we have at the moment at 18,000rpm? I hope engine development can push the revs higher, I like seeing the progress in revs, power and torque etc over seasons.

I doubt we will see very high reving engines as generally the higher the revs the higher the fuel consumption.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by MJones94

Does the 15k rev limit mean a rev-cap limit set to 15,000rpm, like the limit we have at the moment at 18,000rpm? I hope engine development can push the revs higher, I like seeing the progress in revs, power and torque etc over seasons.

I believe it's going to be a 15,000 RPM ceiling...

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by spider

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UcdQ...feature=relmfu - just had to share this. Amateur footage at a Monza test in 1992 - oh how i wish F1 engines sounded like that Honda now...

There is more "throat" were as now the pitch is a far bit higher, but still good...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by MJones94

Does the 15k rev limit mean a rev-cap limit set to 15,000rpm, like the limit we have at the moment at 18,000rpm? I hope engine development can push the revs higher, I like seeing the progress in revs, power and torque etc over seasons.

As said in another post, more rpm means increased fuel consumption. The original rpm threshold was going to be 12,000 rpm and yet the engines were going to develop just as much power.

But the thing with the current naturally aspirated engines is that you can only get meaningful power increases by increasing rpm. With a turbo engine, that just doesn't hold true. The 1000 plus turbo engines of the 80's never revved beyond around 12,500 - 13,000 rpm. Power was created by adding more fuel to more boost pressure until the engine blew up.

[MJones94]

Interesting, being a complete engine noob, I was not aware of all this, so thanks for the explanation.

[davyboy]

I don't know what the need is for GP engines to be revving at circa 20K. If revs are important, then just eliminate much of the reciprocating parts by moving to two strokes... if fuel economy and reliability are important, then there's no need to go above 10K-12K.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I don't know what the need is for GP engines to be revving at circa 20K. If revs are important, then just eliminate much of the reciprocating parts by moving to two strokes... if fuel economy and reliability are important, then there's no need to go above 10K-12K.

Couldn't agree more. It's getting beyond a joke, and they're all moaning about costs. Development being left unchecked....

[Marbot]

The current trend in the auto industry is precisely what F1 will be doing in 2014. Downsized turbo engines with electronic energy recovery systems.

Most manufacturers are realising that their monster V8, V10 and V12 engines are falling foul of too many emission regulations, and that the necessity for increasingly complicated emission regulation systems to keep them legal will eventually sound their death knell sooner rather than later. So enjoy them while you still can.

The other 'sop' to the 'green' image that F1 will be trying to win over new sponsors with, is that the 2014 engines will also be fitted, for the first time, with exhaust gas recirculation valves. Maybe further down the line they will also be fitted with 'cats', but hopefully not with silencers.

[Sodemo]

A single 747 on takeoff uses more fuel than the entire F1 grid over the course of a season.

Maybe everyone should stop flying too.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

A single 747 on takeoff uses more fuel than the entire F1 grid over the course of a season.

Maybe everyone should stop flying too.

Well, that's not really the point.

You'll have noticed that I mentioned the word 'sponsors' in my previous post. This is important because there is currently a shift in practically everything to be more efficient, and this is the image that sponsors in F1 want to be associated with - efficiency. 750 BHP pushing the equivalent of a barn door through the air is not anyone's idea of efficiency.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

750 BHP pushing the equivalent of a barn door through the air is not anyone's idea of efficiency.

Why not make the barn door aerodynamically more efficient, or is that too obvious a question?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why not make the barn door aerodynamically more efficient, or is that too obvious a question?

Actually, you could say that Red Bull's barn door is more aerodynamically efficient than HRT's barn door, but both are still barn doors, nonetheless.

Currently, the cars can carry as much fuel as they like to overcome that 'barn door' effect, and this is why the 2014 regulations will have more to do with engines and connected systems, and less to do with aero. Although, it will still be important.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well, that's not really the point.

You'll have noticed that I mentioned the word 'sponsors' in my previous post. This is important because there is currently a shift in practically everything to be more efficient, and this is the image that sponsors in F1 want to be associated with - efficiency. 750 BHP pushing the equivalent of a barn door through the air is not anyone's idea of efficiency.

Yep, I'm aware that the latest "fad" is fuel efficiency and renewable energy etc and all the car makers / sponsors want to be seen as being "green", however the point still stands. F1 cars don't really use all that much fuel in the grand scheme of things when you compare it to other pursuits.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Yep, I'm aware that the latest "fad" is fuel efficiency and renewable energy etc and all the car makers / sponsors want to be seen as being "green", however the point still stands. F1 cars don't really use all that much fuel in the grand scheme of things when you compare it to other pursuits.

Going off topic, how much fuel does an oil tanker use and is that cost effective or efficient?

[Peter Mallett]

It is quite relevant if we are looking at comparisons. An LNG cargo suffers "boil off" where the stored gas expands and either gets vented or, nowadays, is used to power the ship. A jumbo jet takes off carrying up to 400 passengers, so it is actually quite fuel efficient.

There are various examples where the product is used to transport the product. Pumping stations on oil pipelines need energy and in remote locations use dedicated generators. These are often powered by the crude oil that is being pumped through the pipeline.

In this context a Formula 1 car is quite inefficient, so it is conceivable that the governing body would want to be seen to be doing something about it.

[wnut]

A 747 burns 1 gallon a second, 36000 gallons on a 10 hr flight!

90 Gallons or 340 litres per passenger assuming 400.

A car at 5.6 l/100 would go 6000 kms on that.

So per passenger you are probably right its quite efficient - probably about the same as the car! ( am a bit surprised here! Learnt something!)

[Peter Mallett]

Add to that, the 747 is performing a public service whilst burning the fuel, whereas a Formula 1 car is not and you can see that there is a need for further consideration.

However, for the record my personal preference would be for the engines to burn as much fuel as they need to be the fastest and most powerful. But I guess that makes me a dinosaur.

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Fuel is any material that stores energy that can later be extracted to perform mechanical work in a controlled manner.

Perhaps it is time that F1 looks at other options. If we want cars that go fast and make the right sound and all that sort of stuff, then we need greener fuels to do it with. Why not look outside of petrolium based fuels and perhaps at bioethanol or other biofuel options? We don't have to use oil-based fuel to have an engine that sounds nice and performs well, surely?

[Peter Mallett]

Trouble with bio fuels is that you either grow crops to feed an ever increasing population, or you grow crops to provide fuel that won't be used because the population will have starved to death!

There is GTL which is an expensive but ever more popular process and with the advent of shale gas, would appear to be a way forward.

[garcon]

The comparison with the 747 taking off has another relevance.

The environmental impact of transporting the F1 circus around the globe every year is many times greater than that of the races themselves.

If the FIA and FOM genuinely want to ease their true environmental impact, there is far more scope for change in the logistics of a season's racing than in the F1 cars.

However, as with just about every environmental initiative out there, the emphasis always seems to end up on the high profile stuff that every idiot in the street can understand, creating a whole political furore for little or no actual environmental benefit.

Still, I don't suppose fiddling with the specification of Formula 1 cars could ever become as big a lie as hybrid road cars. Yes that's you, Toyota Prius owners. Thanks for helping to kill the planet.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by garcon

The environmental impact of transporting the F1 circus around the globe every year is many times greater than that of the races themselves.

This is of course true but ignores the fact that the largest impact of Formula 1 on the environment is the indirect one of contributing to a culture of high powered, high fuel consumption cars and further encouraging drivers to tend towards aggression rather than economy in driving style on the road. The new engines are aimed at making F1 a little less part of the problem and a little more a part of the solution in this regard. Much as I have loved F1 over the years I do think this change in approach is needed and to imagine it is to do with fuel burnt by the F1 circus itself is to completely miss the point.

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

This is of course true but ignores the fact that the largest impact of Formula 1 on the environment is the indirect one of contributing to a culture of high powered, high fuel consumption cars and further encouraging drivers to tend towards aggression rather than economy in driving style on the road.

Perhaps we should film the M25 for 2 hours at rush hour every 2nd week & show this on the TV.

Funnily enough I agree with you, however the F1 circus needs to clean its whole act up not just the cars that are racing, as it uses aircraft make sure that they are the most fuel efficient, on the most economical routes (not taking a detour because Bernie wants something), as it uses trucks make sure they are the most econonical & the trailers are fuel efficient to tow, etc, etc.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

This is of course true but ignores the fact that the largest impact of Formula 1 on the environment is the indirect one of contributing to a culture of high powered, high fuel consumption cars and further encouraging drivers to tend towards aggression rather than economy in driving style on the road. The new engines are aimed at making F1 a little less part of the problem and a little more a part of the solution in this regard. Much as I have loved F1 over the years I do think this change in approach is needed and to imagine it is to do with fuel burnt by the F1 circus itself is to completely miss the point.

An interesting point that I hadn't actually considered. It would be fascinating to see a broad survey on that. Does F1 feed the 'need' for high performance road cars and do F1 fans tend to drive less economically? I admit I'm not sold, especially on the latter. I know many owners of high performance cars who have little or no interest in motorsport in general, and less still F1. And I know even more motorsport fans who sacrifice the possibility of a nice car to follow their sport, and are mostly adult enough to understand that racing is for the track not the (public) road.

Surely 'fuel burnt' is as relevant as any other measure of actual environmental impact? I agree that F1 should be seen to be more environmentally responsible, but this all harks back to my main point. Across the whole environment debate we see all sorts of high profile eco-friendly marketing initiatives that have no substance to them, at best they have negligible impact, at worst their impact is actually negative. Do these initiatives actually make people think more about their own environmental footprint? In a world where everybody thinks it's everybody else who should make the sacrifices I'm really not sure.

I would far rather F1 led by example, by doing something tangible about the actual impact of its globe trotting circus than make some token gesture that'll have a negative effect on the F1 spectacle for no measurable gain.

[Marbot]

It's all about the perception of efficiency, rather than the actual reality of efficiency, as far as F1 is concerned. If an F1 car is perceived as being efficient, then that's all that needs to happen in order to get the message across to the punters.

The Toyota Prius is really no worse than any other car in respect of its getting its parts from all around the world. I believe that BMW, for example, sends all of its bumpers to Australia for some reason, only to have them sent back to where they originally came from. This sort of thing happens quite a lot in the car industry, it's very rare for any car manufacturer to do everything 'in-house' these days. Logistics plays a very important part in making car production a feasible thing to do, and it's often more cost effective to have nuts and bolts, etc, sent to you from halfway around the planet than to make them yourselves or even to have them sourced locally.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by garcon

Surely 'fuel burnt' is as relevant as any other measure of actual environmental impact? I agree that F1 should be seen to be more environmentally responsible, but this all harks back to my main point. Across the whole environment debate we see all sorts of high profile eco-friendly marketing initiatives that have no substance to them, at best they have negligible impact, at worst their impact is actually negative. Do these initiatives actually make people think more about their own environmental footprint? In a world where everybody thinks it's everybody else who should make the sacrifices I'm really not sure.

but surely the benefit comes from reduced consumption. obviously moving to the new engines are costing the teams more money, but in general terms, reducing the number of man hours at the factory, using less electricity for the wind tunnels, building and using less components/less waste, shared transport to flyaway races, better truck transports etc are all ways the teams can create more profit for themselves...pleasing their sponsors is also an added benefit.

totally i agree that this desire to make people more environmentally friendly has not worked (even creating more backlash) but for me its not so much about living in an eco-friendly way rather its just about saving money.

probably missing the point but anyways thats why i think its relevant to pursue these policies.