10 replies to this topic

[desmo]

First, I cannot express how refreshing it is to have an F1 forum unpolluted by the usual pointless MS vs MH debate.
Just to get the ball rolling, how would you react to the suggestion, not original to me, that as a means of limiting engine output, using fuel limits rather than mandating the specification of the powerplant? If one were to limit the thermal energy of the fuel an entrant is allowed to use for race distance, then this would open up new technical avenues without, IMO, making the present investments in equipment obsolete. I expect it would take years to come up with anything that could outperform the current type of engines using a similar amount of fuel.
It might make sense to mandate, at some point, that F1 powerplants meet world emission requirements and require them to be run only on commonly available fuels. This would encourage development of innovations that would provide real world benefits, bringing more interest and prestige to the sport.

[Christiaan]

there was a suggestion on deisel engines during silly season. I am told currently engines run on almost the same fuel as you get at the gas station. I think limiting fuel specs won't change the principle philosophies of the engine. You see, you can design an engine relatively indepentantly from the specifics of the fuel. thats why you can put different octane rated fuels in your car. It might damage the life of your engine to put leaded racing fuels into your road car, but in F1 the engines already have a very short life.

[f1speed]

Limiting the amount and type of fuel should be part of any championship racing rules, a framework of limitations on most techicial innovations would have to be considered if fair competition is thought to be important to racing. Another important factor in competition is budget. If one team spends as much on pistions as another does on their entire engine program close competion is not likely. I would like to address Christiaan's comment on racing fuel. I belive it may be the other way with the low quality (low octane rating) causing damage to high performance engines because of it's rapid uncontroled burning. High octane racing fuel while needed for high compression engines will not harm passenger cars and also does NOT improve performance. Five percent of all pasenger cars require high octane fuel (not as high as racing fuel) but high octane fuel accounts for twenty percent of all fuel sales because people mistakenly belive it helps their engine. Methanol used in F1 and other high performance engines requires a slight modification to use instead of racing fuel.

[desmo]

Pardon my ineloquence, what I meant was not to limit fuel specs, but limit the energy content allowable for race distance. I say let the teams use petrol, methanol, ethanol, diesel whatever is commonly available. The idea being that if one limits the amount of energy available to finish race distance then leaves the powerplant unrestricted, it becomes a question of efficiency, who can make the most power over race distance from a given amount of energy. This, unlike the current rules, would encourage the development of technologies with potentialy tangible social and economic benefits, as well as make the sport more interesting and less predictable. I'm sure some sponsors and those politically invested in the status quo would hate the idea, but I think it might elevate F1's profile esp. here in the States.
Let's face it, no one will be talking about how interesting todays F1 cars were 20 years from now. They have become cookie cutter, near spec cars, they are so regulated. Innovation has been largely replaced with horrifically expensive detail engineering, attempting to wring the last increment of performance from technologies at the end of their development cycles.
One thing I guarantee, if you don't allow more fuel than is presently used for a race, the cars are not going to become significantly more powewrful anytime soon. This avoids the current scheme whereby it is necessary to constantly alter the rules to keep outputs from constantly escalating.

[This message has been edited by desmo (edited 01-28-2000).]

[f1speed]

I don't understand what you mean by limiting the amount of energy available, but certainly the term "limit" is going to play an important part in any racing series. If a level playing feild is not established where cars can race each other competively, the racing is over and then we have exibitions of sophisticated machinery running off from the slow cars not unlike the space shuttle running off from a 1973 Pinto. When a McLaren outruns a Minardi,(1999)what does that show ? It shows that McLaren had enormously more resources (a few million dollars worth of Berrylium pistons) than Minardi that allowed them to have one hundred horsepower more to blow them off the track. I like inovation as much as anyone but if there is no competition most Americans will tune out. Alright, try me on that energy content again if you don't mind, and thanks for putting up with my ranting.

[desmo]

By limiting the amount of energy available I mean that each fuel has a latent heat energy that can be expressed in BTUs or calories or what have you. Allow x BTUs of latent energy to be used per race distance. For example, methanol has roughly 1/2 the energy density of petrol, hence one would be allowed to use roughly twice as much methanol for a race distance. (Petrol still looks like the fuel of choice in this scheme).
Making the have nots of F1 competitive through the use of technical regs will not work. The slow teams are not slow because of the rules. They are slow because they lack the resources, both monetary and talent-wise to challenge the better teams. This is likely to be the case whatever the rules one proposes. If technical innovation is allowed the less well funded teams will at least have a chance to close the gap with the faster teams. Ferrari and McLaren have less incentive to innovate. The potential upside is not as justified for them against the risks.
If McLaren are running Be alloy pistons, the main advantage would be aero efficiency, rather than increased engine output. Be alloy pistons allow a hotter, more thermally efficient engine. Less energy is wasted out the backsides of the radiators, less frontal area, more options for routing the airflow to the rear wing or the diffusor. Small advantages here can translate to a significant performance advantage on the track. Like McLaren enjoys, perhaps.

[This message has been edited by desmo (edited 01-28-2000).]

[Christiaan]

desmo, thats an interesting idea, but the implemetation would be hard. It means that FIA would have to stringently check fuel samples before and after a race, and would also have to measure the amount of fuel each team used. I don't know if Max wants to go that way.

[Ray Bell]

Desmo -
When your very name has defied race car designers for so long, how can you think there are answers that suit everybody.
The fuel limit thing was brought in at the end of the turbo era - it ruined some races for a while, but they got used to working out ways to get around it in the end.

And Christiaan -
It doesn't damage engines putting race fuels into them. Or leaded fuels per se. The damage is to catalytic converters, and in fact the lead is a benefit in the lubrication of valve seats.
And isn't as carcinogenic as all the gunk they make us breath from unleaded.

[mtl'78]

You think allowing innovation will help the lesser teams? I would argue the opposite. Teams like Maclaren would have the budget to try everything Minardi is 3 times over. they could hire away any designer or engineer.

[f1speed]

I think it can be found that less reciprocating mass can be translated into more rpm's and horsepower and that heat above the normal operating temperature robs power.

[desmo]

Christiaan, You misunderstand me. What I propose would actually be freer as far as the make up of the fuel than the present scheme. And don't they already test fuel samples? Allotting a quantity of fuel for race distance to each car would, I think, be among the easiest aand least ambiguous rules for the scrutineers to enforce.
mtl'78, No, realistically I doubt that allowing innovation will help teams like Minardi. As I said above, the slow teams aren't slow because of the rules. The Minardi is likely to be a dog no matter how the rules are written. It would only allow the smaller teams to take risks that would be unpalatable to the big money teams. Might give them a slight chance to get to the front. They have NO chance now.
f1speed, yes Be alloy pistons would be slightly lighter than current Al based ones are. And yes that would allow higher piston speeds, all else being equal. The reason heat above "normal" operating temp robs power is that the materials and design of an engine are optimised for a specific running temp. The higher the temp that one can optimise the engine for, the more thermally efficient it becomes. More of the fuel's energy is translated into propulsive force and less is wasted through the coolant.
Take a look at a non-ferrous metallurgy text and see what happens to Al alloys at around the current operating temps of engines. Above around 250C, the physical properties of Al based alloys degrade alarmingly. Now look at Be, which retains it's strength at much higher temps.
The less obvious upside of running an engine hotter is aerodynamic in that one can use smaller radiators to dissapate engine heat. This frees the designer to more efficiently route the airflow to the rear wing and diffusor. I suspect that this would prove to be a bigger real world advantage in F1 than the reduction of recipricating mass or increased engine output.

[This message has been edited by desmo (edited 01-28-2000).]