z31maniac said:
loosecannon said:
In reply to RichardNZ :
With the new spending limits, manufacturers are going to have to weigh their engine options and not just thorw money at the situation
Engines aren't included in the salary cap rules, unless I've read something outdated or incorrect. I want V10s, because they sound amazing.
But the current rules are in place BECAUSE of the manufacturers. 20k rpm V8s aren't really applicable to road cars.
So remove the fuel flow limits, allow refueling, let them turn up the boost and see what happens.
Sorry, I just find the idea of "fuel efficient" F1 cars a little ridiculous. How many orders of magnitude more fuel is used flying these cars, tools, tires, staff, etc, all around the world?
System efficiency is as, or more, applicable than the 20k v8/v10's were not.
Making F1 apply some information to the real world makes the massive investment a lot more tolerable. In theory, the amount of fuel saved by the fleet of Renault, Daimler Benz, Fiat, and Honda more than makes up for the consumption of the whol circuis thanks the research found by the F1 rules.
Provide a limited quantity of fuel & battery energy + consumed or lost lubricating oil for the race and specify a bolt pattern for attachment to the back of the tub.
Displacement, boost, RPM, valvetrain or lack of same are all open. I predict that on a current F1 chassis with 100kg of gasoline to finish a race that a direct-injected two stroke V8 of about 5 liters would work well.
In reply to chaparral :
Thing is about the 2 strokes- I've not seen a single indicator that it would be a reasonable path forward in the real world. The same technical reasons it didn't work 20 years ago are still there, DI and better computers don't solve those problems. So a 2 stroke F1 engine would be as applicable as a 18k spinning V10, as I see it.
thatsnowinnebago (Forum Supporter) said:
Let's get wild and ban pistons. I want the cars to sound like a million murder hornets as they fly past.
If they banned pistons, I wonder how many of the teams would go with an E-turbo powered serial hybrid using a small capacity supercap.
It would sound kinda nuts I think, like airplanes!
In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :
One advancement that gets around micropollutant problems without actually passing emissions standards is in hybridization - a 2t engine whose crankshaft isn't turning whenever you're downtown wouldn't be pushing particulates and NMOG out the exhaust then.
In reply to chaparral :
We have that potential right now, with engines that can be incredibly clean. Two stokes can't do that- the clean part. That I am aware of, there has not been an advancement that has chenged that problem.
In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :
They have this method of using poppet valves operated by lobed shafts to precisely control when air goes in and exhaust goes out. It also has the benefit of being able to use the full displacement of the cylinder since there are no cylinder ports. And because of that, piston rings get a whole lot simpler.
Downside is it requires two revolutions per ignition event instead of just one...
*snrk*
I think two-strokes are neat from a simplicity standpoint, but everything people have come up with to make them competitive with four-stroke engines will also make four-strokes better.
Didn't Orbital give up on two stroke engines to focus on the direct injection system they invented in the process of trying to make two strokes viable?
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
yea, over 20 years ago. We gave up on 2 strokes 25 or so years ago.
On the other hand, DI is all over the place. Although, nobody is actually asking if it's really worth it relative ot alternatives. But that's for a different thread.
