
2014 regulations: F1's engine revolution - antr
http://www.f1technical.net/features/19037
======
x0054
I find it sad that people are so obsessed right now with small engines. Small
engine does not necessarily mean good efficiency. For instance, I have a C5
Corvette with a 5.7L V8 engine. It gets 29-30MPG on the freeway, and I usually
get combined rating for about 27MPG. My friend had an M3 with a much smaller
engine but same HP. It was getting maybe 16MPG combined, on a good day. Large
engine does not necessarily equal good efficiency.

That's why I find all these rules idiotic. I personally would like to see a
rule where each car gets X amount of fuel (adjusted in BTUs) per race. So say
you can get 100 liters of gas or 85 liters of diesel, because diesel has more
BTU/liter. That's all. Leave the rest up to the teams, let them figure out the
most efficient way to spend their fuel. For instance, maybe hydraulic or
nematic energy systems are better than electric. Let them try that. Maybe
someone want's to do an all electric car with a diesel generator onboard for
power, let them try that. Maybe someone want's to try going at it with
hydrogen generator / electric combo. Let them try that too.

Millions of dollars are spent on F1, and all that money is being wasted on
fiddling with exhaust positioning, rather then trying new and innovative
technologies. The "Prius" layout is old news, there are better solutions to
efficiency.

You can reword the most efficient cars by allocating an artificially low
amount of fuel per race, and then holding cars in the pits for additional
"penalty" time for each liter of fuel they take in over the baseline. That way
the most competitive car would be the fastest car with the best fuel economy.

~~~
bliti
They are limited to only a 100kg of fuel per race, and may only consume
100kg/h. Meaning that, as stated in the article, they may only consume 50kg of
fuel in a two hour race. Which is a very small amount of fuel for such cars.

I find it outstanding that an owner of a Corvette is complaining about a lack
of innovation in Formula 1. The LS-series engine in your Corvette shares the
same bore-center measure as the _original_ small block V8 Chevrolet (4.40
inches). It also places the camshaft inside the engine block. Which has made
the development of Variable Valve Lift systems more complex (and more costly).
Meaning that it has taken Chevrolet two more generations of Corvette after
yours to introduce this technology. Something that was introduced into
production vehicles by Honda in 1989, and later made its way into the U.S
market in 1991 with the introduction of the NSX. The C5 still used the leaf-
spring suspension, and balsa wood sandwiched between the floorboards as a cost
cutting measure. Meaning that innovation in those areas was done as a way to
cut costs down rather than to improve the efficiency or performance of the
vehicle.

It might sound like I'm a Corvette hater. Not really. I do appreciate the raw
and crude approach the engine provides. How the relatively light chassis with
a perfect 50/50 balance allows for the vehicle to excel in high performance
driving events. Even how the C5 matched the 0-60 times of the Porsche 911
Turbo (996 generation). But its a bit hard to read about how F1 is lacking in
technology when you drive a vehicle that lacks it. This coming from the guy
that corrects anyone that says that NASCAR is boring and does not feature any
innovative technologies.

~~~
zachrose
What's new in NASCAR these days?

~~~
ams6110
While I don't follow either NASCAR or F1 it's my impression that NASCAR has
much less focus on technology development. They strive to keep all the cars
technically identical, so that races are close and are won or lost almost
entirely on the basis of driver and crew skills.

F1 I think is much more about who can innovate technically within some
parameter limits (of course in addition to having skilled drivers/crew).

~~~
bliti
They do focus on technology, but the rules are strict, and hardly ever change
a lot. The basic ideas behind the Cup series has not changed much in a long
time. But the implementations are quite amazing. Just look at the engines
themselves. Or the safety improvements they have developed over the years.
Plus, NASCAR is about being good at cheating and being great at not being
caught.

------
colletedavis
I probably found a good portion of the gear heads like myself on here -- I
wanted to reach out for your support in my campaign! I'm the ONLY female
racing driver in the world in pro development for INDYCAR -- I'm signing with
a top team in 2014, and recently launched my CHASING INDY campaign, and would
love your support!

www.ChasingIndy.com

Thank you!

~~~
fotbr
You're not the first. There have been several women in indy before you, and
there is at least one, Simona Di-something-or-other, who is already in the
series. Coming on a tech website with your blatantly false spam isn't the way
to make fans.

------
TwoBit
Can somebody explain how these 1.6L V6 engines have far more power than my
3.0L V6 car, and as much as many V10 and V12 super cars? All I can figure from
the article is the high RPM and the turbo.

~~~
TylerE
Insanely high RPM (18k+), crazy turbos, innovative valves, super high
compression ratios. Plus each motor only had to last maybe 1000 miles, and
they get essentially rebuilt every time they run.

~~~
fotbr
Actually, the engines (and gearboxes, for that matter) don't get rebuilt.
Breaking the FIA seal means they might as well replace the engine with a fresh
one, since the same penalties apply.

------
tambourine_man
Why not bite the bullet and go electric only?

They can be really fast, money is not a problem and it's where we need
inovation the most.

~~~
WalterBright
> electric only?

Boring.

There's something viscerally exciting about a reciprocating engine - the
sound, the smell, the vibration, the brutishness of it.

I once got a ride in a P-51. There's just something indescribable about that
V12 Merlin catching, and then digging in when the throttle is opened wide.

There's a reason for the title of this book: "Sigh for a Merlin".

~~~
tambourine_man
Have you ever driven an electric sports car? Instant maximum torque at any
speed.

Yeah, though I wasn't so lucky, I also love the sound and smell of a
combustion engine. But I think that's generational, not something inherently
more exiting. But I guess I'll have to wait and see what my grandchildren have
to say.

~~~
WalterBright
Sorry, dude. I'll drive an electric car to work, but I'm not going to the
electric car races.

As for generational, I've always been sorry that steam locomotives went off
the rails before I was born. Diesel electric locomotives are boring.

~~~
tambourine_man
Fair enough, you have a point there. Steam locomotives are awesome to this
day.

------
justinph
I don't follow F1, but this sounds pretty exciting. Hopefully the multiple
variables introduced here will produce innovation that will flow down into
normal production hybrid vehicles.

~~~
flyinglizard
The new regulations certainly step up the engineering game, going into
uncharted territories. I'm not sure that as a motorsport spectator I like
these changes, though; there's something about the sound of the V8s or their
predecessor V10s, revving at 20k RPM. It's a large part of what makes
motorsport exciting. Compared to that, a 15k RPM 1.6L V6 seems pretty dull,
regardless to how well it performs.

~~~
TylerE
I wish they got away from such tight regulation of the technology, and let the
teams really experiment. I'd like to see the F1 engine rules shortened to two
rules.

1\. Competitors have a total of XX GGE
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent))
of fuel per 100km of race distance. 2\. Competitors may not use a device that
prevents unusual risks to other drivers, spectators, or race officials.

Done. End of rule book.

The fuel mileage limit will encourage teams to optimize for effciency...beyond
that let them have at it.

~~~
jdietrich
Then you don't have a motor racing formula, just a spending contest.

If you look at the technical regulations in F1, they have two main aims -
ensuring driver and spectator safety, and controlling costs to maintain
competitive racing.

Most of the current technical regulations are just special cases of your rule
2. Moveable aerodynamic devices are banned to prevent sudden loss of mid-
corner traction (causing the car to violently roll off into the grandstands).
Many of the dimensional restrictions are there to prevent the use of ground
effect, for similar reasons. Wheel tethers reduce the chance of a wheel flying
off and killing a spectator (something that has happened in several motorsport
formulae). Restrictions on fuel composition prevent teams from using explosive
fuels or oxidizers. Limits on wing sizes and aspect ratios restrict downforce,
to ensure that the drivers aren't subject to intolerable g-forces.

The culture of F1 is based around a belief that there is no such thing as the
spirit of the law, only the letter. Devious loopholes are applauded for their
ingenuity and characterise most development in the modern sport. On the other
hand, many people in the sport remember the dark days, when driver fatalities
were just part of the sport. Teams and drivers understand that in the absence
of regulation, the Nash equilibrium inevitably entails dead drivers and dead
spectators.

The F1 rulebook isn't an external imposition on the sport, it is a document
that is designed by mutual agreement between Bernie, FOTA, the FIA and the
GPDA. Every word of it has been hard fought and represents the least-worst
compromise between those various interests.

Unrestricted racing is a trope that is often raised by outsiders to
motorsport, but the reality is that without the technical regulations, there
is no racing at all, just a contest to see who can spend the most, with a
mortuary full of charred and mangled drivers as collateral damage.

~~~
TylerE
Yes, because of course the current regulations are doing SO well at keeping
the cost of F1 down.

I should point out that there was a time (not, coincidentally, imo, arguable
the greatest period in F1 history) when the constructors were given
substantially more leeway - look at the golden age when some builds came out
with mid-engined vehicles for instance, real innovation at the time, or other
innovative layouts like the Tyrell P34 6-wheeler, or the fan cars, or the
turbine cars that ran at Indianapolis (not F1, but close, and many F1 cars
were entered at Indy in those days).

------
plainOldText
So many regulations. You can't have that, and that. No, you can't have that
either. I wonder what kind of engines the F1 engineers could come up with if
they would enjoy the freedom to pursue more exotic designs.

~~~
grmarcil
They would come up with this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_X2010](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_X2010)

Adrian Newey (needs no introduction if you are an F1 fan, look up his
accomplishments if you are not) did exactly what you are talking about with
the RB X2010 and the car is incredible to say the least.

Much like my sibling comment says, a no-regulations formula league would be
financially un-viable for all but a few teams. As it is, F1 is struggling
considerably to balance development and testing costs with keeping the smaller
teams in business. And those back-half teams are still driving very
uncompetitive cars compared to the big 3 or 4 teams - we're talking 2+ seconds
off the pace per lap.

------
bliti
I'm hoping that the turbocharging system makes it into production vehicles.
Being able to utilize the energy wasted by the exhaust system is a big boost
(pun very intended) in efficiency. If the turbine is able to always spin at a
given RPM, then it can generate enough electricity to forgo the alternator,
maybe the mechanical water pump and A/C compressor (replaced by electric
ones), and power an electric power steering motor. This would also help in
packaging.

------
erikig
I really hope this opens up the competition. The last couple of years have
been a little one-sided given Red Bull's dominance and while this has not been
strictly due to engines (Red Bull uses the same Renault engines as many of the
other F1 teams) it would be nice to make them work just a little harder to win
the title.

------
WalterBright
Ha, if I had anything to say about it, I'd outlaw anything on an F1 car that
had a transistor of any sort in it, except for safety equipment.

No radios, no software engine management, no data collection. Auld Skool
driver skill.

------
gil
And the fact that the engine development freeze has been lifted (for a few
years anyway) is equally exciting.

------
alexeisadeski3
F1 is going the wrong direction.

~~~
iaw
Why do you feel that way?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
_I_ , at least, want to see fast cars. I don't care about any of the green
stuff. It's a sport.

~~~
NDizzle
They are still going to be ridiculously fast cars.

~~~
NDizzle
Further on this, most people who don't really keep up with racing don't
realize just how fast F1 cars.

Here's[1] a fantastic overlay of a very famous corner at Spa. FIA GT cars are
not slow cars[2] but the differences are tremendous.

[1]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5dhhpSHCw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5dhhpSHCw)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_GT_Championship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_GT_Championship)
[BONUS IN CAR FOOTAGE]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0)

~~~
ericcumbee
I'd like to see that comparison between a F1 car and LMP1 car. considering
that the LMP1 actually produces more downforce than a F1 car it should be
interesting.

