1.5 Turbos for 2013?

[Zico]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83106

What kinds of technology? ALS? What characteristics are they likely to have in terms of power delivery? , max rpm's, engine longevity.. thoughts?

[Valve Bounce]

Short term high power bursts will make things very interesting. Of course, the bangs and huge clouds of smoke will be just as spectacular.

[gloomyDAY]

Seems like F1 wants to go green.

I might as well watch a bunch of Prius' do battle.

[Valve Bounce]

Seems like F1 wants to go green.

I might as well watch a bunch of Prius' do battle.

You must be kidding. A 1.5 turbo can easily put out twice the power of a 2.5 normally aspirated V8. I don't know where you get the green from!

[Jag_Warrior]

The 2.0 liter turbo 4 in my road car puts out close to 300hp. The 2.65 liter turbo V8's in CART put out over 1000hp (back before the sun was overtaken by a dark cloud). And some of the 1.5 liter turbos in F1 were putting out well over 1000hp... and that was 20+ years ago. Surely with the advancements that have been made in electronics, cooling, lubricants and ignitions & fuel delivery technology over the years, 670hp wouldn't be a stretch. My guess is the challenge is going to come down to fuel economy.

This is music to my ears. Bravo, Formula One! :up:

[call_me_andrew]

I had been pondering this isue for some time now.

But if turobchargers are used, I think it would be better to go wtih a 1 liter engine.

I'd also like to see a narrower bore and a ban on pneumatic valves.

[V12]

Well, nothing wrong with 1.5 turbos per se, think of the 1000 bhp BMW qualifying monsters of the mid 80s, the Honda and Renault V6s, and so on.

Sadly these mooted engines will probably be nothing of the sort, they'll probably have standardised components, ban on interesting technologies and be rev-limited and with push-to-pass buttons :grenade:

[call_me_andrew]

Turbochargers aren't interesting technologies.

[gloomyDAY]

Funny how Ferrari's CEO is trying to back green technology and Haug just says, "No way dude!"


You must be kidding. A 1.5 turbo can easily put out twice the power of a 2.5 normally aspirated V8. I don't know where you get the green from!


Well, nothing wrong with 1.5 turbos per se, think of the 1000 bhp BMW qualifying monsters of the mid 80s, the Honda and Renault V6s, and so on.

Sadly these mooted engines will probably be nothing of the sort, they'll probably have standardised components, ban on interesting technologies and be rev-limited and with push-to-pass buttons :grenade: What V12 said. Turbo technology is going to be neutered before it can even display its prowess on the grid. I got a boner just thinking of what the teams could do when exposed to such technical features, but then I remembered that the FIA would step in and nanny the teams.

[Hawkmoon]

670 hp sounds a bit piss-poor to be honest. The only restriction on the engine should the amount of fuel they can use for the race. The winner finds the best balance between power and economy. The teams get something to develop in these increasingly homogenised times and it's road car relevant. It's a good idea! Which means the FIA will rule it out instantly.

[ShiftingGears]

670 hp sounds a bit piss-poor to be honest. The only restriction on the engine should the amount of fuel they can use for the race. The winner finds the best balance between power and economy. The teams get something to develop in these increasingly homogenised times and it's road car relevant. It's a good idea! Which means the FIA will rule it out instantly.

I completely agree. It's not like anyone who watches F1 wants the cars to have less power, totally moronic idea.

[Sonic]

Lame!

I don't care what engine formula F1 goes down as long as we get rid of this crazy engine freeze (where equal engines are not equal!).

But alas we are going to get tame, restricted and standardised engines *groan*.

F1 cars should be difficult to drive and spectacular to watch, but with less than 700bhp on tap these things will have way more grip than power and any snot nosed 18 year old fresh out of F2 will feel right at home :rolleyes:

[UltimateDanGTR]

we've got to the point where safety has become right at it's pinnacle, there's not much more F1 could do without making it not F1 anymore. thus, V8 turbo engines please! 1000bhp, wide tyres and massive air intakes should be what F1 cars a like-beasts and a heck to drive!

so, 670bhp seems very lame for F1, the normally aspirated V8s are small enough horsepower terms, we need more!

[Sonic]

we've got to the point where safety has become right at it's pinnacle, there's not much more F1 could do without making it not F1 anymore. thus, V8 turbo engines please! 1000bhp, wide tyres and massive air intakes should be what F1 cars a like-beasts and a heck to drive!

so, 670bhp seems very lame for F1, the normally aspirated V8s are small enough horsepower terms, we need more!

BRAVO! Of course no one wants F1 to be deliberatly dangerous, but there must be a balance, or else we may as well go and get 26 VW Polo bluemotion thingymajigs.

The last of the V10's had nigh on 1000bhp and the cars were as safe as possible, so a pathetic 670 is just pants!

[UltimateDanGTR]

BRAVO! Of course no one wants F1 to be deliberatly dangerous, but there must be a balance, or else we may as well go and get 26 VW Polo bluemotion thingymajigs.

The last of the V10's had nigh on 1000bhp and the cars were as safe as possible, so a pathetic 670 is just pants!

exactly. F1 cars should be the ultimate racing machines, not ultimate racing chassis with puny engines...

[markabilly]

What V12 said. Turbo technology is going to be neutered before it can even display its prowess on the grid. I got a boner just thinking of what the teams could do when exposed to such technical features, but then I remembered that the FIA would step in and nanny the teams.

not me i think re danica

No more HP to be allowed.

There is NO point in it over what we have, just change for the sake of change.

[Saint Devote]

Turbos would be an excellent way to go. Even if it is standardised engines, the power is governed by the boost. And regulating F1 that it remains F1 does not need 1000 hp.

If the weight to power ratio is good then cars at any agreed bhp will do the job. Teams could be allowed limited options that they could work with.

It would be cleaner as the exhaust boost is used to power the turbos and engine efficiency as well as fuel is far better today because of the materials and engine mapping.

Just look at F3. The cars are standard - basically - but teams compete, and it is very difficult to set up a car because so many things can be changed or tweaked. Its not a case of buy the car, keep it clean, change the tyres and get up and go each weekend.

We have to recognize that we are in a world that is hostile towards sports like ours. The leftist swing in world politics and the pressure from the so-called "green" entities is not going to go away.

And maybe, just maybe, this sort of radical change, with a tyre war, less aero - MUCH less, and standardized turbo engines, will return the formula to where it makes it affordable for specialist racing teams to compete and most important for me, where the DRIVER makes a difference as it used to be.

I admit to being a Williams fan. If not Mclaren, then Jenson winning in a Williams Cosworth would be just perfect.

Under regulations as above, wouldn't it just be ideal if Williams could take on Ferrari and Mclaren once again and triumph?

[ioan]

The 2.0 liter turbo 4 in my road car puts out close to 300hp. The 2.65 liter turbo V8's in CART put out over 1000hp (back before the sun was overtaken by a dark cloud). And some of the 1.5 liter turbos in F1 were putting out well over 1000hp... and that was 20+ years ago. Surely with the advancements that have been made in electronics, cooling, lubricants and ignitions & fuel delivery technology over the years, 670hp wouldn't be a stretch. My guess is the challenge is going to come down to fuel economy.

This is music to my ears. Bravo, Formula One! :up:

What he said.

[call_me_andrew]

It just occoured to me that if the 670 horsepower rating could have included the reduction in bore size I mentioned before. In this case, the reduced horsepower would come with a significant increase in torque.

[gloomyDAY]

It just occoured to me that if the 670 horsepower rating could have included the reduction in bore size I mentioned before. In this case, the reduced horsepower would come with a significant increase in torque.Reminds me of the WRC. Horsepower cap with unrestricted torque. How's that working out for them?

[L5->R5/CR]

I'd love to see teams given a set quantity of fuel for the race distance and then be given relatively free reign on the rest.

Want to run a v10, best mind the fuel consumption.

If you want to pretend to be green reward fuel efficiency by making teams make the most of a set limit of fuel...

[ioan]

I'd love to see teams given a set quantity of fuel for the race distance and then be given relatively free reign on the rest.

Want to run a v10, best mind the fuel consumption.

If you want to pretend to be green reward fuel efficiency by making teams make the most of a set limit of fuel...

Fans came to this conclusion a long long time ago but the FIA and the teams somehow can't realize that this would be best for the sport.

[Sonic]

Fans came to this conclusion a long long time ago but the FIA and the teams somehow can't realize that this would be best for the sport.

Aren't we smart! :D ;)

Its best for the fans, its best for the teams, its best for the engine manufacturers; so clearly it will never happen!

[Saint Devote]

What some fans want and what is possible is not neccessarily synonymous.

F1 has to deal with what is achieveable in a world that is fundamentally hostile to motor racing or any other sport that results in carbon emissions.

In addition, the larger companies are publicly exposed to critical examination and have to amswer to boards of directors and stockholders.

The details proposed for 2013 including the possibility of 18 inch wheels are realistic, proactive and refreshing with new technologies and the excitement of a 670 bhp engine with an available "screwdriver" to 800 bhp.

There is no alternative and I think it is a great alternative to what exists now.

I want grand prix racing or formula one to continue. I grew up watching 450 bhp right up to the zany and laissez faire 1300 bhp qualifying engines and they were all great.

The next era of f1 cars will be as fantastic too.

[SGWilko]

F1 has to deal with what is achieveable in a world that is fundamentally hostile to motor racing or any other sport that results in carbon emissions.


Phooey. A trip in a commercial Jumbo jet from UK to Oz produces more C02 in one trip than all the F1 cars in an entire season.

All the C02 resulting from transporting the show from race to race is off-set by the FIA, and has been for some time.

[ArrowsFA1]

If you want to pretend to be green reward fuel efficiency by making teams make the most of a set limit of fuel...
The problem with that, as we saw in the mid-80's, was that the races became economy runs, not races.

Now obviously technology has moved on in the last 25yrs but I don't want to see F1 become the single-seater version of endurance racing. Make the engines themselves as 'green' as you like, using fuel which is as 'green' as you like, but allow the drivers to race from lights to flag.

[Saint Devote]

Phooey. A trip in a commercial Jumbo jet from UK to Oz produces more C02 in one trip than all the F1 cars in an entire season.

All the C02 resulting from transporting the show from race to race is off-set by the FIA, and has been for some time.

Sure, but this is a political issue and unless racing is looking for law suits or a reason to keep larger companies away, then it will act accordingly.

I did not say that it was all based on logic and reason.

Like everyone else, I would LOVE to have V12 Ferraris, wide slicks and so on return - its never going to happen.

And what must be done is guard against what is occurring in the LMP world for example.

[Bagwan]

Phooey. A trip in a commercial Jumbo jet from UK to Oz produces more C02 in one trip than all the F1 cars in an entire season.

All the C02 resulting from transporting the show from race to race is off-set by the FIA, and has been for some time.

Of course , you know that carbon credits are crap , and that the likelyhood is that those credits from F1 go towards enabling the emissions of items like that commercial jumbo jet you mentioned .

The don't pollute less , but rather pay the price to pollute more than average .
In essence , they can afford to pollute , and it's kinda hard to find anything noble in that .

[SGWilko]

Of course , you know that carbon credits are crap , and that the likelyhood is that those credits from F1 go towards enabling the emissions of items like that commercial jumbo jet you mentioned .

The don't pollute less , but rather pay the price to pollute more than average .
In essence , they can afford to pollute , and it's kinda hard to find anything noble in that .

Well, when the OTHER volcano blows and takes Iceland with it, the two year blackout from the ash cloud will result in 100% ban on flying, the ozone layer will heal, global warming will be snuffed out, icecaps will re-freeze....












....probably

[Bagwan]

Well, when the OTHER volcano blows and takes Iceland with it, the two year blackout from the ash cloud will result in 100% ban on flying, the ozone layer will heal, global warming will be snuffed out, icecaps will re-freeze....

....probably

That's a little harder to predict .

What's not hard to predict is outcry at such a gluttonous sport .


KERS was a step towards being relevent , but limitting power output put paid to it's usefulness on the track , and some teams didn't even bother .

Add unlimtted KERS to 670hp , and you might get somewhere with both the racers and the greens .

[Big Ben]

So what does this mean regarding fuel consumption?

[SGWilko]

KERS was a step towards being relevent , but limitting power output put paid to it's usefulness on the track , and some teams didn't even bother .

Add unlimtted KERS to 670hp , and you might get somewhere with both the racers and the greens .

I think that KERS was one of the best things to come to F1 in a long time.

It ticked so many boxes:-

A conduit to increase power output without affecting engine freeze/regs,

A relevant feed back to the motor industry re hybrids and battery advancement,

Passing opportunities created,

Assist in green issues - reduce consumption etc,

Spiced up the show.

It needs to come back quick. Do we have a spec system, or allow teams to develop and sell on their own products? Leccy or Kinetic power storage or both?

The allowable power and amount of time it can be used per lap can be increased as fuel allowances are reduced year on year....

[Bagwan]

The allowable power and amount of time it can be used per lap can be increased as fuel allowances are reduced year on year....


No , it must be unrestricted as I see it .


Lift all engine restrictions , give them a specific amount of fuel , and add KERS , and we'd sort out how efficient a car can run to the end .
There would then be distinct possibility we'd see a number of different solutions , maybe even with KERS supplying the majority of the power .

You could take it a step farther , and have a championship for efficiency , with measurements of surplus at each race .



No matter what they do , it needs to move to greener appearance , as it is only a matter of time until F1 takes more stick for being frivolous and polluting .
They need desperately to be proactive here .
That's why KERS was brought in in the first place .

[SGWilko]

No , it must be unrestricted as I see it .


Lift all engine restrictions , give them a specific amount of fuel , and add KERS , and we'd sort out how efficient a car can run to the end .
There would then be distinct possibility we'd see a number of different solutions , maybe even with KERS supplying the majority of the power .

You could take it a step farther , and have a championship for efficiency , with measurements of surplus at each race .



No matter what they do , it needs to move to greener appearance , as it is only a matter of time until F1 takes more stick for being frivolous and polluting .
They need desperately to be proactive here .
That's why KERS was brought in in the first place .

I'm with you on that, but....

You open up a can of worms that way. Gazzillions will be spent. The resource restriction will have no sway, because - no doubt - any KERS could be developed by the 'road car division' (certainly for the manufacturers).

One has to be careful we don't let the 'rich get faster', if you know what I mean.....

[Retro Formula 1]

So what does this mean regarding fuel consumption?

At the moment they use about 1L per mile where by changing the engines to 1.8 turbo plus energy recovery would give about 2 miles a L.

[Bagwan]

I'm with you on that, but....

You open up a can of worms that way. Gazzillions will be spent. The resource restriction will have no sway, because - no doubt - any KERS could be developed by the 'road car division' (certainly for the manufacturers).

One has to be careful we don't let the 'rich get faster', if you know what I mean.....


There's a big difference between "gazzillions" spent on relevent issues that can be applied to road safety and efficiency , and the same amount spent on the last tenth .
The monogrammed toilet seats have to go as well .
And , you can't do it with an "earth" livery , either .

They'd be wise to go with a bio-fuel as well , but you'd pi$$ off Petronas and Shell , etc , so that's not likely .
But , if they did , they might spur those guys along in development of such fuels .

The concept of having the fuel more open , with different compounds , like we had not so long ago with tires , is also a possibility .







As I see it , F1 needs to be at the forefront of development to stay relevent in today's world .
If that costs money , it will be money spent in the right place .

And , manufacturers will be happier spending money that the public sees as spent in the right place .

[V12]

I'm no environmentalist but if fuel economy and green issues can be a way of keeping the cars speeds in check while at the same time liberalising the regulations to get a bit of variety back in the sport (at least until all the competitors converge on the optimal solution), then it can be a neat way of killing two birds with one stone, even if I only care about killing one of those birds.

Agree with Bagwan on the whole cost issue. Ever since the economic crisis hit - which wasn't the first in history, won't be the last, and was nowhere near the worst, it seems to have become fashionable to KO any idea with "cost cutting, save money, the economy blah blah blah". Top line motor racing costs money, always has, always will. Nobody wants to see a spending arms race but a lot of that to be honest has been a function of ever-more strict regulations that stifle creative thought and require teams to focus solely on iterations and iterations of miniscule aerodynamic developments to gain performance.

Teams will always spend whatever money they have. Standard engine parts will solve nothing, money will get spent on developing around them. Freeze the engine? Everything spare goes into aero. Homologate the aero? They'll just pour that excess budget into developing next season's car. Ban testing and restrict windtunnel use? They'll invest in ever more sophisticated simulations and modelling. Before long the FIA will be sending spyware into Nick Wirth's CFD computers to make sure Virgin don't run them all the time.

Apologies for going off on a tangent but anyhow, the most important thing for a new engine formula should be one that is interesting and a technical challenge. And if that involves green technologies then that's a welcome bonus but not an essential one, but ultimately more efficiency = more speed AND more efficiency = less emissions, so the two different goals can fit together beautifully providing the FIA don't make a mess of the regulations like they did with KERS and the 6.7 seconds or whatever it was nonsense.

And instead of getting all OCD about cutting costs, try approaching from the other end and add value instead.

[Jag_Warrior]

And instead of getting all OCD about cutting costs, try approaching from the other end and add value instead.

I used to preach that on AOWR racing boards years ago. Clearly, it didn't sink in there. But I have higher hopes that F1 will (and does) take that to heart.

[call_me_andrew]

And instead of getting all OCD about cutting costs, try approaching from the other end and add value instead.

You mean giving the teams more money? Even if Bernie would listen to such an idea, too many races would stop being profitable.

[Malbec]

The only restriction on the engine should the amount of fuel they can use for the race.

I agree, and in order to be green the amount of fuel they can run with could be cut by, say, 5% year on year to promote greater efficiency too. They should be free to achieve that in any way possible.

That said in these economic conditions I guess 1.5 litre turbo means a cheap homogenised relatively unstressed engine so no return to the amazing days when engines ran well over 1000 Bhp and up to 1500 for quali.

[V12]

I used to preach that on AOWR racing boards years ago. Clearly, it didn't sink in there. But I have higher hopes that F1 will (and does) take that to heart.

I frequent that board as well and probably sub-consciously gleaned that phrase from you, apologies ;)


You mean giving the teams more money? Even if Bernie would listen to such an idea, too many races would stop being profitable.

I meant by making it more interesting and attracting more fans, sponsors etc. Far easier said than done I admit, but if you dumb things down to save money then you get less people watching and less money coming in.

As for those who say (rightly) that the emissions produced by F1 cars are a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger picture, it's not just about that. If F1 can push this technology forward it could feed into millions of road cars worldwide. Again I'm no tree hugger, but the pure technical challenge of doing more with less is something that can attract the interest of more technically minded F1 fans in much the same way as all the other advancements in car design since the birth of motor racing, from the detatchable tyres that won the first ever Grand Prix through all of Colin Chapman's famous exploits up to the present day.

Win-Win, as they say.