planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:21 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1232
Broadly speaking people haven't really liked one engine manufacturer having a substantial performance advantage over the rest, and indeed pretty substantial gaps between the rest...

If you dramatically change and open up the regulations in the manner suggested in some of the posts above, with a few hard limitations but otherwise complete freedom to innovate in all likelihood you'd get fairly dramatic gaps in performance between manufacturers for a fairly long period of time.

Engines independently developed with broad regulations are likely to mean very different approaches. Barring a rather large coincidence that flies in the face of historical precedent, this will pan out as a right way and a/some wrong way(s). The manufacturer who gets it right will take a huge advantage and dominate. The rest will have to invest huge amount of time and resources to catch up. That is if they manage to catch up before there is another change of heart and regulations are changed to level the playing field.

I think the most likely scenario would be similar to Mercedes' domination from the introduction of the current era, except more so.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5320
wolfticket wrote:
Broadly speaking people haven't really liked one engine manufacturer having a substantial performance advantage over the rest, and indeed pretty substantial gaps between the rest...

If you dramatically change and open up the regulations in the manner suggested in some of the posts above, with a few hard limitations but otherwise complete freedom to innovate in all likelihood you'd get fairly dramatic gaps in performance between manufacturers for a fairly long period of time.

Engines independently developed with broad regulations are likely to mean very different approaches. Barring a rather large coincidence that flies in the face of historical precedent, this will pan out as a right way and a/some wrong way(s). The manufacturer who gets it right will take a huge advantage and dominate. The rest will have to invest huge amount of time and resources to catch up. That is if they manage to catch up before there is another change of heart and regulations are changed to level the playing field.

I think the most likely scenario would be similar to Mercedes' domination from the introduction of the current era, except more so.


While I generally agree, there is also another thing to point out here. That these things tend to equalise. When one team goes for a solution, one that actually works, then the others follow suit soon enough. Take Brabham and refuelling for example. It may be next year or the year after, but the other teams always follow. Let alone the very suspicious aspect of teams bringing the same solutions in one year, like the double diffuser.

This thread of course is not regarding gimmicks, but the engine. And what is "under the hood" is not visible like the refuelling or the f-duct, relatively easily copied. You cannot just dissect an engine just by watching the car from the outside. The example above though, teams bringing out solutions at the same time, makes a case that there's more going on behind the scenes that we get to know about. It could be a coincidence of course, but I don't buy it, not when it was 3-4 teams at the same time.

Anyway, a dramatic change - as you put it - may bring dramatic gaps in performance. But that won't stay like that for long. Whenever F1 shook the rules you got some upsets, but ultimately in the majority the big guns always rose to the top. This is a major change of course, opening the engine regulations, so I expect it to be messy at the beginning, but maybe we shouldn't dismiss it just yet. Maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle; a lot more freedom, but within a framework, some limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
[youtube][/youtube]
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
moby wrote:
There was a change of mind in the early 80's (About then ?) where the name of the game went from building a car that can go as fast as it can to slowing it down with regs. Since then, it has more and more lost its direction.


What was the direction?

Today, there is no point in going for maximum performance because the circuits and the drivers couldn't handle it.

What they could aim for now, is to produce the best racing cars in the world for F1.
That means power, agility, reactivity, controllability, fuel efficiency, aerodynamic efficiency (but in a way that provides the best racing). All characteristics which will make the racing better. Improve the circuits to make the racing better. Improve the tyres to make the racing better.

They can have a direction for F1 to make the racing better. That is very much not what they are doing now.

Getting the engine right for 2021 can also be aimed at making the best racing engine.

The best advert for a manufacturer, or turning it into a fuel conservation run at near maximum torque with about 12000 revs where the engine could run to 18000, are probably not going to result in the best racing car in the world.

The irony of the reality of F1 today is that had ANY team developed any one of those things themselves, other teams would have lobbied to have it banned on the grounds they'd find themselves at a disadvantage. Imagine if a team was able to take to the grid with 35% less fuel load than any other competitor? They'd immediately seek to have the difference in weight added back onto the car to "level" the playing field.

Today, if a team was able to develop a wing system that feeds air to one another via being able to connect atoms in a way that would create an ultra-low drag while increasing downforce through slow corners by 300% entirely compliant with the rules, it would be banned, yet the speed in which it's hit with the ban stick would depend on just which team(s) lodged the complaint. Therefore creativity in F1 has been reduced to what little bits designers & engineers can squeak by unnoticed.

I think the FIA can learn a thing or two from Liberty media and realize what they've been doing has stunted the sport's growth and hindered the its mass appeal for both fans and potential new teams. Would be nice if they could get back to limiting power, torque, wheelbase, ride height maximum surface area for wings and let the teams have at it so we once again get to enjoy variety.


You are right of course, but the protest has to have a 'rule' to which others can say is being broken/bypassed. If the rules were wide enough, there could only be protests on safety grounds, like using an after burning jet 8O

Around 1980's (not sure how much overlap exactly, but) there were straight 4 engines, V6 engines Flat v12 engines V8 engines etc in 1.5 and 3 ltr. The complaint could not be ' they have too many cylinders' or 'they have a turbo' as it was allowed within the rules.

Once it became clear the Turbo was the best option for the time, they all changed. However, Fia had by that time specified what everyones Turbo engine had to be, so they were all the same. Had they just let things run, we may have seen a completely different route to today and road cars running on Wankle hybrids or something we have nt considered. Hart was very poorly funded, and managed to get 7th in the championship one year.

Its not so much what we know works, but a reason for them to try something different. f everything is set, that means everthing else is ruled out. BTW, you like loud screaming engines? have you seen a good Wankle flat out?



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:58 pm
Posts: 15
I would like to see no engine design restrictions whatsoever but only a restriction on the amount of torque and max rpm say 18,000rpm and 450Nm torque. Then you max out at around 850kW. Then all engines will give similar power, but the cars and engines will be very different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
mnrvermaak wrote:
I would like to see no engine design restrictions whatsoever but only a restriction on the amount of torque and max rpm say 18,000rpm and 450Nm torque. Then you max out at around 850kW. Then all engines will give similar power, but the cars and engines will be very different.


Not even that is needed. Restrict flow and total load. You get around Torque with gearing. Rev restriction is limited by fuel flow.

If they want a grunt engine they can make one or combine it with electric or make a screamer that charges from high RPM. Or even a constant rev motor driving Electric


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
moby wrote:
mnrvermaak wrote:
I would like to see no engine design restrictions whatsoever but only a restriction on the amount of torque and max rpm say 18,000rpm and 450Nm torque. Then you max out at around 850kW. Then all engines will give similar power, but the cars and engines will be very different.


Not even that is needed. Restrict flow and total load. You get around Torque with gearing. Rev restriction is limited by fuel flow.

If they want a grunt engine they can make one or combine it with electric or make a screamer that charges from high RPM. Or even a constant rev motor driving Electric

I agree with the principle that they should be looking at maximum output (in whichever form), rather than determining exactly how that output is reached. I don't really get how mandating a 90 degree angle V6 is necessary, for example. Just seems like meddling for meddling's sake.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1300
@Moby and that Mazda, I take 2 please.

Edit: Two Mazdas, not two Moby.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1562
Location: Miami, Florida
moby wrote:
[youtube][/youtube]
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
moby wrote:
There was a change of mind in the early 80's (About then ?) where the name of the game went from building a car that can go as fast as it can to slowing it down with regs. Since then, it has more and more lost its direction.


What was the direction?

Today, there is no point in going for maximum performance because the circuits and the drivers couldn't handle it.

What they could aim for now, is to produce the best racing cars in the world for F1.
That means power, agility, reactivity, controllability, fuel efficiency, aerodynamic efficiency (but in a way that provides the best racing). All characteristics which will make the racing better. Improve the circuits to make the racing better. Improve the tyres to make the racing better.

They can have a direction for F1 to make the racing better. That is very much not what they are doing now.

Getting the engine right for 2021 can also be aimed at making the best racing engine.

The best advert for a manufacturer, or turning it into a fuel conservation run at near maximum torque with about 12000 revs where the engine could run to 18000, are probably not going to result in the best racing car in the world.

The irony of the reality of F1 today is that had ANY team developed any one of those things themselves, other teams would have lobbied to have it banned on the grounds they'd find themselves at a disadvantage. Imagine if a team was able to take to the grid with 35% less fuel load than any other competitor? They'd immediately seek to have the difference in weight added back onto the car to "level" the playing field.

Today, if a team was able to develop a wing system that feeds air to one another via being able to connect atoms in a way that would create an ultra-low drag while increasing downforce through slow corners by 300% entirely compliant with the rules, it would be banned, yet the speed in which it's hit with the ban stick would depend on just which team(s) lodged the complaint. Therefore creativity in F1 has been reduced to what little bits designers & engineers can squeak by unnoticed.

I think the FIA can learn a thing or two from Liberty media and realize what they've been doing has stunted the sport's growth and hindered the its mass appeal for both fans and potential new teams. Would be nice if they could get back to limiting power, torque, wheelbase, ride height maximum surface area for wings and let the teams have at it so we once again get to enjoy variety.


You are right of course, but the protest has to have a 'rule' to which others can say is being broken/bypassed. If the rules were wide enough, there could only be protests on safety grounds, like using an after burning jet 8O

Around 1980's (not sure how much overlap exactly, but) there were straight 4 engines, V6 engines Flat v12 engines V8 engines etc in 1.5 and 3 ltr. The complaint could not be ' they have too many cylinders' or 'they have a turbo' as it was allowed within the rules.

Once it became clear the Turbo was the best option for the time, they all changed. However, Fia had by that time specified what everyones Turbo engine had to be, so they were all the same. Had they just let things run, we may have seen a completely different route to today and road cars running on Wankle hybrids or something we have nt considered. Hart was very poorly funded, and managed to get 7th in the championship one year.

Its not so much what we know works, but a reason for them to try something different. f everything is set, that means everthing else is ruled out. BTW, you like loud screaming engines? have you seen a good Wankle flat out?


Not only have I heard it, I actually sat in it!!!

A couple of years before Mazda signed on with Skip Barber Racing School the 787B was making occasional appearances with the Indy Lights division and since I had VIP passes (miss all those perks) I got to sit in so many cars you wouldn't believe it. But this car was something special. The rotary design is precisely my point. It is a shining example of how an imaginative idea can change things. While it initially presented with issues, Wankel figured out how to overcome them to make an engine that was so impressive, Mazda decided to invest their money to further its development and eventually it was able to show the world (whilst proving many people wrong) it was indeed a superb piece of engineering. The power that motor put out at just 9,000RPM is on par with the current F1 PU at 11,000RPM and it still had more in the bag. How's that for the argument that the current PU is the most superior tech we've seen in F1 to date?… I beg to differ.

The main issue the Wankel engine was reliability and the road cars, particularly the last (3rd generation) RX-7 died a slow death because of it despite it holding the title of fastest production car over the Supra for several years, by just 1MPH. LOL. Being a Mazda owner for 9 years now, I can attest to them building a really solid engine and the Zoom-Zoom factor is definitely quite apparent, so if they ever decided to try their hand at F1 (which I highly doubt) I'd be really interested, but I'm positive they'd only be allowed to run a traditional engine type as opposed to a rotary.

From what I've heard, Mazda has never stopped developing their rotary, but reverted back the the one found in the 3rd Gen RX-7 as opposed to the one in the RX-8 because it was generally faster. Supposedly this new, still unreleased version is more efficient than any sportscar engine currently on the market and it could potentially be the most potent one in a production car while unseating Honda's HP per liter record with the S2000 (I cannot accept Ferrari's displacement of this record because the damn thing is a freakin race car for cryin' out loud! LOL), if and when they release a 4th coming of the RX-7.

This is a prime example as to WHY the FIA should change it's philosophy on imposed restrictions. If they simply set hard regs outlining max HP and RPM and allow free reign on all else, the variety everyone would get to enjoy would be amazing. Afterall, variety IS the spice of life!

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
But where better to iron out all the faults than F1?

My next door Neighbour had an RX, not sure what designation, was a long time ago, and I had a supra. TBH The Supra was a better car in every department except acceleration and speed. It stopped better even though it was heavier. (And I got a chunk of my money back :twisted: )

A cousin had one of the late the RO80 just before this time, and had it for several years. I remember changing the tip seals with him and from what I (dont) recall it was not that big a job. That was a nice car, bought cheap, did the job an it lasted him a long time.


EDIT Oops, just realised I am talking rubbish as I had a Toyota Celica, not a Supra :blush:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1562
Location: Miami, Florida
LOL Big difference there. LOL

RX7's were literally a plague here in South Florida at the same time the 80's Mustang GT's occupied nearly every parking space you looked at and the RX7's some guys put together were nothing short of insane. One guy made his own manifold in order to install Dual Mikuni Carbs made for the ever infamous Toyota Corrolla 1.8 or as they're known in my homeland of Puerto Rico… Punto Ocho (literally translates to Point 8 ) because it was the absolute best carb of the day. That thing was a monster. Never found out his HP figures but he's eat the McLaren Mustangs as appetizers and then the 2nd Generation Supra, before moving onto spanking every corvette who stepped up to the plate. Only one guy could keep up with him and he had a completely non-street illegal drag prepped Grand National and as they approached the 3/4 mark in the quarter mile, that RX would lift it's front wheels and win by more than a car length. Miss those days. LOL

I almost bought the first Supra as it was and still is one of the most beautiful and most underrated sports cars of all time. Test drove the top of the line model and couldn't believe the brutal amounts of torque it produced. Should have bought it. Ah well.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Last edited by F1 MERCENARY on Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
Siao7 wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Broadly speaking people haven't really liked one engine manufacturer having a substantial performance advantage over the rest, and indeed pretty substantial gaps between the rest...

If you dramatically change and open up the regulations in the manner suggested in some of the posts above, with a few hard limitations but otherwise complete freedom to innovate in all likelihood you'd get fairly dramatic gaps in performance between manufacturers for a fairly long period of time.

Engines independently developed with broad regulations are likely to mean very different approaches. Barring a rather large coincidence that flies in the face of historical precedent, this will pan out as a right way and a/some wrong way(s). The manufacturer who gets it right will take a huge advantage and dominate. The rest will have to invest huge amount of time and resources to catch up. That is if they manage to catch up before there is another change of heart and regulations are changed to level the playing field.

I think the most likely scenario would be similar to Mercedes' domination from the introduction of the current era, except more so.


While I generally agree, there is also another thing to point out here. That these things tend to equalise. When one team goes for a solution, one that actually works, then the others follow suit soon enough. Take Brabham and refuelling for example. It may be next year or the year after, but the other teams always follow. Let alone the very suspicious aspect of teams bringing the same solutions in one year, like the double diffuser.

This thread of course is not regarding gimmicks, but the engine. And what is "under the hood" is not visible like the refuelling or the f-duct, relatively easily copied. You cannot just dissect an engine just by watching the car from the outside. The example above though, teams bringing out solutions at the same time, makes a case that there's more going on behind the scenes that we get to know about. It could be a coincidence of course, but I don't buy it, not when it was 3-4 teams at the same time.

Anyway, a dramatic change - as you put it - may bring dramatic gaps in performance. But that won't stay like that for long. Whenever F1 shook the rules you got some upsets, but ultimately in the majority the big guns always rose to the top. This is a major change of course, opening the engine regulations, so I expect it to be messy at the beginning, but maybe we shouldn't dismiss it just yet. Maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle; a lot more freedom, but within a framework, some limitations.


If you have total freedom on design then you have to also have total freedom on development and that's never going to happen. (Costs).

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1530
ALESI wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Broadly speaking people haven't really liked one engine manufacturer having a substantial performance advantage over the rest, and indeed pretty substantial gaps between the rest...

If you dramatically change and open up the regulations in the manner suggested in some of the posts above, with a few hard limitations but otherwise complete freedom to innovate in all likelihood you'd get fairly dramatic gaps in performance between manufacturers for a fairly long period of time.

Engines independently developed with broad regulations are likely to mean very different approaches. Barring a rather large coincidence that flies in the face of historical precedent, this will pan out as a right way and a/some wrong way(s). The manufacturer who gets it right will take a huge advantage and dominate. The rest will have to invest huge amount of time and resources to catch up. That is if they manage to catch up before there is another change of heart and regulations are changed to level the playing field.

I think the most likely scenario would be similar to Mercedes' domination from the introduction of the current era, except more so.


While I generally agree, there is also another thing to point out here. That these things tend to equalise. When one team goes for a solution, one that actually works, then the others follow suit soon enough. Take Brabham and refuelling for example. It may be next year or the year after, but the other teams always follow. Let alone the very suspicious aspect of teams bringing the same solutions in one year, like the double diffuser.

This thread of course is not regarding gimmicks, but the engine. And what is "under the hood" is not visible like the refuelling or the f-duct, relatively easily copied. You cannot just dissect an engine just by watching the car from the outside. The example above though, teams bringing out solutions at the same time, makes a case that there's more going on behind the scenes that we get to know about. It could be a coincidence of course, but I don't buy it, not when it was 3-4 teams at the same time.

Anyway, a dramatic change - as you put it - may bring dramatic gaps in performance. But that won't stay like that for long. Whenever F1 shook the rules you got some upsets, but ultimately in the majority the big guns always rose to the top. This is a major change of course, opening the engine regulations, so I expect it to be messy at the beginning, but maybe we shouldn't dismiss it just yet. Maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle; a lot more freedom, but within a framework, some limitations.


If you have total freedom on design then you have to also have total freedom on development and that's never going to happen. (Costs).


A major requirement and one I omitted from my list. :blush:

The best place for developing innovations for the road is away from F1 - because you can aim solely on what you want, so you should be able to get there faster, cheaper and get a better result. The only advantage with F1 is that you can offset some of the costs as advertising, but you are also incurring considerable extra costs and having to develop a product that is aimed at another purpose. No-one is going to manufacture a 20,000,000 Euros power unit and sell it in a production road car.

How much TV time is spent discussing the detailed technical aspects of the power units when presenting a Grand Prix?

They spend a lot of time talking about the drivers and the racing. That's where Liberty should be concentrating their efforts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
ALESI wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Broadly speaking people haven't really liked one engine manufacturer having a substantial performance advantage over the rest, and indeed pretty substantial gaps between the rest...

If you dramatically change and open up the regulations in the manner suggested in some of the posts above, with a few hard limitations but otherwise complete freedom to innovate in all likelihood you'd get fairly dramatic gaps in performance between manufacturers for a fairly long period of time.

Engines independently developed with broad regulations are likely to mean very different approaches. Barring a rather large coincidence that flies in the face of historical precedent, this will pan out as a right way and a/some wrong way(s). The manufacturer who gets it right will take a huge advantage and dominate. The rest will have to invest huge amount of time and resources to catch up. That is if they manage to catch up before there is another change of heart and regulations are changed to level the playing field.

I think the most likely scenario would be similar to Mercedes' domination from the introduction of the current era, except more so.


While I generally agree, there is also another thing to point out here. That these things tend to equalise. When one team goes for a solution, one that actually works, then the others follow suit soon enough. Take Brabham and refuelling for example. It may be next year or the year after, but the other teams always follow. Let alone the very suspicious aspect of teams bringing the same solutions in one year, like the double diffuser.

This thread of course is not regarding gimmicks, but the engine. And what is "under the hood" is not visible like the refuelling or the f-duct, relatively easily copied. You cannot just dissect an engine just by watching the car from the outside. The example above though, teams bringing out solutions at the same time, makes a case that there's more going on behind the scenes that we get to know about. It could be a coincidence of course, but I don't buy it, not when it was 3-4 teams at the same time.

Anyway, a dramatic change - as you put it - may bring dramatic gaps in performance. But that won't stay like that for long. Whenever F1 shook the rules you got some upsets, but ultimately in the majority the big guns always rose to the top. This is a major change of course, opening the engine regulations, so I expect it to be messy at the beginning, but maybe we shouldn't dismiss it just yet. Maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle; a lot more freedom, but within a framework, some limitations.


If you have total freedom on design then you have to also have total freedom on development and that's never going to happen. (Costs).


Motor companies already have total freedom of design (within limits). IF this HCCI is all is predicted to be, 30 or even 50% more eficent is being touted, Every other car maker is going to have to play catch up. Had it been allowed in F1, I have little doubt it would have been perfected a decade or more ago.

The tiny (in comparison) budget they would have for F1 would have been running along side the road engine so it is just a matter of where they spend the cash and what sort of time scale they set themselves.
Look to the manufacturers flocking to FE for this reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5320
ALESI wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Broadly speaking people haven't really liked one engine manufacturer having a substantial performance advantage over the rest, and indeed pretty substantial gaps between the rest...

If you dramatically change and open up the regulations in the manner suggested in some of the posts above, with a few hard limitations but otherwise complete freedom to innovate in all likelihood you'd get fairly dramatic gaps in performance between manufacturers for a fairly long period of time.

Engines independently developed with broad regulations are likely to mean very different approaches. Barring a rather large coincidence that flies in the face of historical precedent, this will pan out as a right way and a/some wrong way(s). The manufacturer who gets it right will take a huge advantage and dominate. The rest will have to invest huge amount of time and resources to catch up. That is if they manage to catch up before there is another change of heart and regulations are changed to level the playing field.

I think the most likely scenario would be similar to Mercedes' domination from the introduction of the current era, except more so.


While I generally agree, there is also another thing to point out here. That these things tend to equalise. When one team goes for a solution, one that actually works, then the others follow suit soon enough. Take Brabham and refuelling for example. It may be next year or the year after, but the other teams always follow. Let alone the very suspicious aspect of teams bringing the same solutions in one year, like the double diffuser.

This thread of course is not regarding gimmicks, but the engine. And what is "under the hood" is not visible like the refuelling or the f-duct, relatively easily copied. You cannot just dissect an engine just by watching the car from the outside. The example above though, teams bringing out solutions at the same time, makes a case that there's more going on behind the scenes that we get to know about. It could be a coincidence of course, but I don't buy it, not when it was 3-4 teams at the same time.

Anyway, a dramatic change - as you put it - may bring dramatic gaps in performance. But that won't stay like that for long. Whenever F1 shook the rules you got some upsets, but ultimately in the majority the big guns always rose to the top. This is a major change of course, opening the engine regulations, so I expect it to be messy at the beginning, but maybe we shouldn't dismiss it just yet. Maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle; a lot more freedom, but within a framework, some limitations.


If you have total freedom on design then you have to also have total freedom on development and that's never going to happen. (Costs).


Very true


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1562
Location: Miami, Florida
While I agree, the one thing I can attest to is that most, if not all fuel economy/efficiency ratings are dramatically fluffed and there is no physical way you can squeeze out as many miles per gallon/liter as manufacturers claim. My Mazda 3 CLAIMS 32MPG and I am here to tell you that there is no way in hell ANYONE could EVER hope to reach that figure. I've tried like hell to hit that mark, coating downhill with the wind at my back and it's simply an impossibility. I'll believe Mazda's "claims" only once they are proven 100%. And even then, my car's figures are supposedly "tried, tested and proven", so I wouldn't buy into any insane numbers claims anyway.

My wife's Honda Odyssey is the only car I've driven that comes close to the MPG figure and we drive everywhere in that thing. This past holiday season we packed the kids in it and drove to NY which is 1300 miles and I filled up before I got on the highway and then gassed up just twice more, AND I drive no less than 80MPH, and I veered off onto country roads just so the kids could soak up the landscape of the more beautiful states. 400Miles per tank is superb mileage in my book.

F1 is such that none of that matters anyway because teams run tests in order to know precisely how much fuel is needed for the car to run on the limit for the entire duration of the race and the drivers can be told to increase or decrease consumption to an exacting degree to ensure they have the maximum power available to them without having to worry about running out of fuel like the old days.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
While I agree, the one thing I can attest to is that most, if not all fuel economy/efficiency ratings are dramatically fluffed and there is no physical way you can squeeze out as many miles per gallon/liter as manufacturers claim. My Mazda 3 CLAIMS 32MPG and I am here to tell you that there is no way in hell ANYONE could EVER hope to reach that figure. I've tried like hell to hit that mark, coating downhill with the wind at my back and it's simply an impossibility. I'll believe Mazda's "claims" only once they are proven 100%. And even then, my car's figures are supposedly "tried, tested and proven", so I wouldn't buy into any insane numbers claims anyway.

My wife's Honda Odyssey is the only car I've driven that comes close to the MPG figure and we drive everywhere in that thing. This past holiday season we packed the kids in it and drove to NY which is 1300 miles and I filled up before I got on the highway and then gassed up just twice more, AND I drive no less than 80MPH, and I veered off onto country roads just so the kids could soak up the landscape of the more beautiful states. 400Miles per tank is superb mileage in my book.

F1 is such that none of that matters anyway because teams run tests in order to know precisely how much fuel is needed for the car to run on the limit for the entire duration of the race and the drivers can be told to increase or decrease consumption to an exacting degree to ensure they have the maximum power available to them without having to worry about running out of fuel like the old days.



the 'Test' is carried out on a rolling road with a clamped throttle. (more likely a computer directly into the variable resistor the cable moves so it can compensate for temp etc)

The biggest users of fuel are Air resistance, tyre drag, slopes and throttle movement/ rise fall rpm. not in any order)

With the test car, the road moves, so no air resistance the tyres are on a smooth low rolling resistance surface, the rpm/throttle does not move, and things such as brake pads are levered away from the disks, the pressure, temperature and humidity of the intake is is 'carefully chosen' and it starts on a warm engine and no electrical drain from anything on the car, and the setting as lean as possible, maybe even too lean to use on the road. No real world attachment at all.

It used to be that a measured 1LTR of fuel was used in a level track with a technical driver. At least then you had a chance of getting within 10% of the claim.

BTW, US and UK gallons are different. a UK gallon is 1.2 US so depending what you read can affect it too


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1562
Location: Miami, Florida
And that's not the only slight of hand they use either. Many manufactures have resorted to creating a cockamamie math equation between actual fuel consumption and revolutions of the axle and none of it factors in wind resistance, vehicle weight and/or change in terrain or elevation. It's all mumbo jumbo as far as I'm concerned so I take it with a grain of salt, but can you imagine the actual mileage a Toyota tundra gets???!?!?? YIKES!!

LOL

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
moby wrote:
[youtube][/youtube]
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
moby wrote:
There was a change of mind in the early 80's (About then ?) where the name of the game went from building a car that can go as fast as it can to slowing it down with regs. Since then, it has more and more lost its direction.


What was the direction?

Today, there is no point in going for maximum performance because the circuits and the drivers couldn't handle it.

What they could aim for now, is to produce the best racing cars in the world for F1.
That means power, agility, reactivity, controllability, fuel efficiency, aerodynamic efficiency (but in a way that provides the best racing). All characteristics which will make the racing better. Improve the circuits to make the racing better. Improve the tyres to make the racing better.

They can have a direction for F1 to make the racing better. That is very much not what they are doing now.

Getting the engine right for 2021 can also be aimed at making the best racing engine.

The best advert for a manufacturer, or turning it into a fuel conservation run at near maximum torque with about 12000 revs where the engine could run to 18000, are probably not going to result in the best racing car in the world.

The irony of the reality of F1 today is that had ANY team developed any one of those things themselves, other teams would have lobbied to have it banned on the grounds they'd find themselves at a disadvantage. Imagine if a team was able to take to the grid with 35% less fuel load than any other competitor? They'd immediately seek to have the difference in weight added back onto the car to "level" the playing field.

Today, if a team was able to develop a wing system that feeds air to one another via being able to connect atoms in a way that would create an ultra-low drag while increasing downforce through slow corners by 300% entirely compliant with the rules, it would be banned, yet the speed in which it's hit with the ban stick would depend on just which team(s) lodged the complaint. Therefore creativity in F1 has been reduced to what little bits designers & engineers can squeak by unnoticed.

I think the FIA can learn a thing or two from Liberty media and realize what they've been doing has stunted the sport's growth and hindered the its mass appeal for both fans and potential new teams. Would be nice if they could get back to limiting power, torque, wheelbase, ride height maximum surface area for wings and let the teams have at it so we once again get to enjoy variety.


You are right of course, but the protest has to have a 'rule' to which others can say is being broken/bypassed. If the rules were wide enough, there could only be protests on safety grounds, like using an after burning jet 8O

Around 1980's (not sure how much overlap exactly, but) there were straight 4 engines, V6 engines Flat v12 engines V8 engines etc in 1.5 and 3 ltr. The complaint could not be ' they have too many cylinders' or 'they have a turbo' as it was allowed within the rules.

Once it became clear the Turbo was the best option for the time, they all changed. However, Fia had by that time specified what everyones Turbo engine had to be, so they were all the same. Had they just let things run, we may have seen a completely different route to today and road cars running on Wankle hybrids or something we have nt considered. Hart was very poorly funded, and managed to get 7th in the championship one year.

Its not so much what we know works, but a reason for them to try something different. f everything is set, that means everthing else is ruled out. BTW, you like loud screaming engines? have you seen a good Wankle flat out?


Not only have I heard it, I actually sat in it!!!

A couple of years before Mazda signed on with Skip Barber Racing School the 787B was making occasional appearances with the Indy Lights division and since I had VIP passes (miss all those perks) I got to sit in so many cars you wouldn't believe it. But this car was something special. The rotary design is precisely my point. It is a shining example of how an imaginative idea can change things. While it initially presented with issues, Wankel figured out how to overcome them to make an engine that was so impressive, Mazda decided to invest their money to further its development and eventually it was able to show the world (whilst proving many people wrong) it was indeed a superb piece of engineering. The power that motor put out at just 9,000RPM is on par with the current F1 PU at 11,000RPM and it still had more in the bag. How's that for the argument that the current PU is the most superior tech we've seen in F1 to date?… I beg to differ.

The main issue the Wankel engine was reliability and the road cars, particularly the last (3rd generation) RX-7 died a slow death because of it despite it holding the title of fastest production car over the Supra for several years, by just 1MPH. LOL. Being a Mazda owner for 9 years now, I can attest to them building a really solid engine and the Zoom-Zoom factor is definitely quite apparent, so if they ever decided to try their hand at F1 (which I highly doubt) I'd be really interested, but I'm positive they'd only be allowed to run a traditional engine type as opposed to a rotary.

From what I've heard, Mazda has never stopped developing their rotary, but reverted back the the one found in the 3rd Gen RX-7 as opposed to the one in the RX-8 because it was generally faster. Supposedly this new, still unreleased version is more efficient than any sportscar engine currently on the market and it could potentially be the most potent one in a production car while unseating Honda's HP per liter record with the S2000 (I cannot accept Ferrari's displacement of this record because the damn thing is a freakin race car for cryin' out loud! LOL), if and when they release a 4th coming of the RX-7.

This is a prime example as to WHY the FIA should change it's philosophy on imposed restrictions. If they simply set hard regs outlining max HP and RPM and allow free reign on all else, the variety everyone would get to enjoy would be amazing. Afterall, variety IS the spice of life!

I'm no engineer but I believe additional issues with Wankels are also excessive fuel and oil consumption. I certainly remember contemplating buying shares in Shell when I had my RX8. I was having to top up the oil ever second refuel and that wasn't uncommon either, from conversations with other owners. Something about the design not allowing for an efficient seal.

Overall, though, I agree with the principal that manufacturers should be allowed to use e.g. Wankels if they feel it gives them a competitive edge and it's something I've mentioned more than once in the past. Give them maximum parameters (e.g. max cc, fuel allowed etc) and then let them get on with being innovative. Specifying e.g. what angle the engine has to be is serious overkill IMO. Where's the opportunity for creativity?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Zoue wrote:
I'm no engineer but I believe additional issues with Wankels are also excessive fuel and oil consumption. I certainly remember contemplating buying shares in Shell when I had my RX8. I was having to top up the oil ever second refuel and that wasn't uncommon either, from conversations with other owners. Something about the design not allowing for an efficient seal.

Overall, though, I agree with the principal that manufacturers should be allowed to use e.g. Wankels if they feel it gives them a competitive edge and it's something I've mentioned more than once in the past. Give them maximum parameters (e.g. max cc, fuel allowed etc) and then let them get on with being innovative. Specifying e.g. what angle the engine has to be is serious overkill IMO. Where's the opportunity for creativity?

Excuse the huge crop above, and clumsy too.

I understand oil use was a problem, but what mileage had your car done? The F1 engines only cover a few thousand, and if I recall from previous threads, are allowed 5ltr per race, which is 2stroke levels anyway.

I have only ever 'done' seals once, and it was a long time ago, but seem to recall the biggest issue was removing things to bet to the plates rather than the job its self (may well be wrong it was 20 plus years).

Also, the best way to develop this fault out must be via something like F1?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm no engineer but I believe additional issues with Wankels are also excessive fuel and oil consumption. I certainly remember contemplating buying shares in Shell when I had my RX8. I was having to top up the oil ever second refuel and that wasn't uncommon either, from conversations with other owners. Something about the design not allowing for an efficient seal.

Overall, though, I agree with the principal that manufacturers should be allowed to use e.g. Wankels if they feel it gives them a competitive edge and it's something I've mentioned more than once in the past. Give them maximum parameters (e.g. max cc, fuel allowed etc) and then let them get on with being innovative. Specifying e.g. what angle the engine has to be is serious overkill IMO. Where's the opportunity for creativity?

Excuse the huge crop above, and clumsy too.

I understand oil use was a problem, but what mileage had your car done? The F1 engines only cover a few thousand, and if I recall from previous threads, are allowed 5ltr per race, which is 2stroke levels anyway.

I have only ever 'done' seals once, and it was a long time ago, but seem to recall the biggest issue was removing things to bet to the plates rather than the job its self (may well be wrong it was 20 plus years).

Also, the best way to develop this fault out must be via something like F1?

Had the car from new and probably put around 20K on it. Oil consumption was always a nightmare and the stuff it needed wasn't cheap! Of course, the fuel economy issue was probably at least in part down to the fact that it had absolutely no torque to speak of. Making any sort of progress meant thrashing the engine to within an inch of its life (which was fun for the most part, not so much when commuting!). But the seals issue is not just failure, but in the design. There's an article below which is quite good in explaining it in language even I can understand:

http://hackaday.com/2016/03/03/broken-promises-of-the-wankel-engine/

I did love it, though. The tiny, virtually weightless engine and low centre of gravity meant it was one of the finest handling cars I've ever driven, and I've been fortunate to have driven quite a few. Pushing the engine to 9,000 revs was grin-inducing (which was good, because anything less than around 4,500 wasn't worth bothering with, because of the lack of torque). And I loved that you got so much power from an engine the size of a shoebox. It just got too expensive to run, in the end, which is why I eventually traded it in.

I'm not saying the seal issue would make it unsuitable for F1, BTW, just pointing out it had some issues. I'd love it if it could be used (along with anything else), just so that we could see how alternatives compare. That for me has always been the real technical DNA of F1: coming up with out of the box solutions which nobody had thought of before, not squeezing out every last drop of performance from an established model. Part of the fun in the 80s, when I started watching, was seeing them come up with things like tyre warmers, or six-wheeled cars, or turbos, or high noses (when everyone else had traditional bullet noses) etc. Seeing how creative people could be was one of the draws


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm no engineer but I believe additional issues with Wankels are also excessive fuel and oil consumption. I certainly remember contemplating buying shares in Shell when I had my RX8. I was having to top up the oil ever second refuel and that wasn't uncommon either, from conversations with other owners. Something about the design not allowing for an efficient seal.

Overall, though, I agree with the principal that manufacturers should be allowed to use e.g. Wankels if they feel it gives them a competitive edge and it's something I've mentioned more than once in the past. Give them maximum parameters (e.g. max cc, fuel allowed etc) and then let them get on with being innovative. Specifying e.g. what angle the engine has to be is serious overkill IMO. Where's the opportunity for creativity?

Excuse the huge crop above, and clumsy too.

I understand oil use was a problem, but what mileage had your car done? The F1 engines only cover a few thousand, and if I recall from previous threads, are allowed 5ltr per race, which is 2stroke levels anyway.

I have only ever 'done' seals once, and it was a long time ago, but seem to recall the biggest issue was removing things to bet to the plates rather than the job its self (may well be wrong it was 20 plus years).

Also, the best way to develop this fault out must be via something like F1?

Had the car from new and probably put around 20K on it. Oil consumption was always a nightmare and the stuff it needed wasn't cheap! Of course, the fuel economy issue was probably at least in part down to the fact that it had absolutely no torque to speak of. Making any sort of progress meant thrashing the engine to within an inch of its life (which was fun for the most part, not so much when commuting!). But the seals issue is not just failure, but in the design. There's an article below which is quite good in explaining it in language even I can understand:

http://hackaday.com/2016/03/03/broken-promises-of-the-wankel-engine/

I did love it, though. The tiny, virtually weightless engine and low centre of gravity meant it was one of the finest handling cars I've ever driven, and I've been fortunate to have driven quite a few. Pushing the engine to 9,000 revs was grin-inducing (which was good, because anything less than around 4,500 wasn't worth bothering with, because of the lack of torque). And I loved that you got so much power from an engine the size of a shoebox. It just got too expensive to run, in the end, which is why I eventually traded it in.

I'm not saying the seal issue would make it unsuitable for F1, BTW, just pointing out it had some issues. I'd love it if it could be used (along with anything else), just so that we could see how alternatives compare. That for me has always been the real technical DNA of F1: coming up with out of the box solutions which nobody had thought of before, not squeezing out every last drop of performance from an established model. Part of the fun in the 80s, when I started watching, was seeing them come up with things like tyre warmers, or six-wheeled cars, or turbos, or high noses (when everyone else had traditional bullet noses) etc. Seeing how creative people could be was one of the draws



Thanks. That was interesting, so I got interested again an looked around. I found this article if anyone is 'into it' probably not worth reading if not.

http://www.rotarywiki.com/index.php?title=Rolls_Royce_Two_Stage_Diesel_Rotary

I was wondering how it would work with the new (Mazda owned) Homogeneous charge, type , thingey :?:


Edit, its a 1970 article BTW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4507
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm no engineer but I believe additional issues with Wankels are also excessive fuel and oil consumption. I certainly remember contemplating buying shares in Shell when I had my RX8. I was having to top up the oil ever second refuel and that wasn't uncommon either, from conversations with other owners. Something about the design not allowing for an efficient seal.

Overall, though, I agree with the principal that manufacturers should be allowed to use e.g. Wankels if they feel it gives them a competitive edge and it's something I've mentioned more than once in the past. Give them maximum parameters (e.g. max cc, fuel allowed etc) and then let them get on with being innovative. Specifying e.g. what angle the engine has to be is serious overkill IMO. Where's the opportunity for creativity?

Excuse the huge crop above, and clumsy too.

I understand oil use was a problem, but what mileage had your car done? The F1 engines only cover a few thousand, and if I recall from previous threads, are allowed 5ltr per race, which is 2stroke levels anyway.

I have only ever 'done' seals once, and it was a long time ago, but seem to recall the biggest issue was removing things to bet to the plates rather than the job its self (may well be wrong it was 20 plus years).

Also, the best way to develop this fault out must be via something like F1?

Had the car from new and probably put around 20K on it. Oil consumption was always a nightmare and the stuff it needed wasn't cheap! Of course, the fuel economy issue was probably at least in part down to the fact that it had absolutely no torque to speak of. Making any sort of progress meant thrashing the engine to within an inch of its life (which was fun for the most part, not so much when commuting!). But the seals issue is not just failure, but in the design. There's an article below which is quite good in explaining it in language even I can understand:

http://hackaday.com/2016/03/03/broken-promises-of-the-wankel-engine/

I did love it, though. The tiny, virtually weightless engine and low centre of gravity meant it was one of the finest handling cars I've ever driven, and I've been fortunate to have driven quite a few. Pushing the engine to 9,000 revs was grin-inducing (which was good, because anything less than around 4,500 wasn't worth bothering with, because of the lack of torque). And I loved that you got so much power from an engine the size of a shoebox. It just got too expensive to run, in the end, which is why I eventually traded it in.

I'm not saying the seal issue would make it unsuitable for F1, BTW, just pointing out it had some issues. I'd love it if it could be used (along with anything else), just so that we could see how alternatives compare. That for me has always been the real technical DNA of F1: coming up with out of the box solutions which nobody had thought of before, not squeezing out every last drop of performance from an established model. Part of the fun in the 80s, when I started watching, was seeing them come up with things like tyre warmers, or six-wheeled cars, or turbos, or high noses (when everyone else had traditional bullet noses) etc. Seeing how creative people could be was one of the draws



Thanks. That was interesting, so I got interested again an looked around. I found this article if anyone is 'into it' probably not worth reading if not.

http://www.rotarywiki.com/index.php?title=Rolls_Royce_Two_Stage_Diesel_Rotary

I was wondering how it would work with the new (Mazda owned) Homogeneous charge, type , thingey :?:


Edit, its a 1970 article BTW

That's the second time I've seen that RR 2-stage rotary referenced in the last week. It's weird how things like that make the rounds. One writer stumbles across it and writes an article, another sees it and writes his/her own take, soon you have five articles saying the same thing in different ways all from the same source material.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
RaggedMan wrote:
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm no engineer but I believe additional issues with Wankels are also excessive fuel and oil consumption. I certainly remember contemplating buying shares in Shell when I had my RX8. I was having to top up the oil ever second refuel and that wasn't uncommon either, from conversations with other owners. Something about the design not allowing for an efficient seal.

Overall, though, I agree with the principal that manufacturers should be allowed to use e.g. Wankels if they feel it gives them a competitive edge and it's something I've mentioned more than once in the past. Give them maximum parameters (e.g. max cc, fuel allowed etc) and then let them get on with being innovative. Specifying e.g. what angle the engine has to be is serious overkill IMO. Where's the opportunity for creativity?

Excuse the huge crop above, and clumsy too.

I understand oil use was a problem, but what mileage had your car done? The F1 engines only cover a few thousand, and if I recall from previous threads, are allowed 5ltr per race, which is 2stroke levels anyway.

I have only ever 'done' seals once, and it was a long time ago, but seem to recall the biggest issue was removing things to bet to the plates rather than the job its self (may well be wrong it was 20 plus years).

Also, the best way to develop this fault out must be via something like F1?

Had the car from new and probably put around 20K on it. Oil consumption was always a nightmare and the stuff it needed wasn't cheap! Of course, the fuel economy issue was probably at least in part down to the fact that it had absolutely no torque to speak of. Making any sort of progress meant thrashing the engine to within an inch of its life (which was fun for the most part, not so much when commuting!). But the seals issue is not just failure, but in the design. There's an article below which is quite good in explaining it in language even I can understand:

http://hackaday.com/2016/03/03/broken-promises-of-the-wankel-engine/

I did love it, though. The tiny, virtually weightless engine and low centre of gravity meant it was one of the finest handling cars I've ever driven, and I've been fortunate to have driven quite a few. Pushing the engine to 9,000 revs was grin-inducing (which was good, because anything less than around 4,500 wasn't worth bothering with, because of the lack of torque). And I loved that you got so much power from an engine the size of a shoebox. It just got too expensive to run, in the end, which is why I eventually traded it in.

I'm not saying the seal issue would make it unsuitable for F1, BTW, just pointing out it had some issues. I'd love it if it could be used (along with anything else), just so that we could see how alternatives compare. That for me has always been the real technical DNA of F1: coming up with out of the box solutions which nobody had thought of before, not squeezing out every last drop of performance from an established model. Part of the fun in the 80s, when I started watching, was seeing them come up with things like tyre warmers, or six-wheeled cars, or turbos, or high noses (when everyone else had traditional bullet noses) etc. Seeing how creative people could be was one of the draws



Thanks. That was interesting, so I got interested again an looked around. I found this article if anyone is 'into it' probably not worth reading if not.

http://www.rotarywiki.com/index.php?title=Rolls_Royce_Two_Stage_Diesel_Rotary

I was wondering how it would work with the new (Mazda owned) Homogeneous charge, type , thingey :?:


Edit, its a 1970 article BTW

That's the second time I've seen that RR 2-stage rotary referenced in the last week. It's weird how things like that make the rounds. One writer stumbles across it and writes an article, another sees it and writes his/her own take, soon you have five articles saying the same thing in different ways all from the same source material.


Once it's been 'hit' it moves up the google table and gets more likeley to be hit again and moves up again :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4415
Location: Michigan, USA
moby wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
That's the second time I've seen that RR 2-stage rotary referenced in the last week. It's weird how things like that make the rounds. One writer stumbles across it and writes an article, another sees it and writes his/her own take, soon you have five articles saying the same thing in different ways all from the same source material.

Once it's been 'hit' it moves up the google table and gets more likeley to be hit again and moves up again :uhoh:

Image

Plate of Shrimp.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:43 pm
Posts: 73
My proposed engine regulations:

1. 3.0 liters normally aspirated,
2. 1.5 liters forced induction, and
3. Single connecting rod piston engines only.

Outside of the engine realm, I would continue the ban on re-fueling. I would also do away with the ridiculous minimum weight limit. It was originally intended as a safety feature before crash testing of tubs. It was then championed as a cost saving measure, but no money is being saved; the teams spend a fortune to cut weight just so they can add it back as ballast in ways that affect handling.

So, if I made the rules, you could do anything you wanted within the above three parameters. Want to add hybrid technology because you think the weight of those systems is less than that of the fuel they save? Be my guest. Want to build a toluene fueled, fire-breathing turbo monster like from the 1980s? Perfectly fine. Frankly, the so called "rocket fuels" back then were cheaper than the fuels used today. Want to build a V-10 that can rev to 20,000+ rpm, go for it. We would find out what is really the fastest, most efficient technology right away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
That's the second time I've seen that RR 2-stage rotary referenced in the last week. It's weird how things like that make the rounds. One writer stumbles across it and writes an article, another sees it and writes his/her own take, soon you have five articles saying the same thing in different ways all from the same source material.

Once it's been 'hit' it moves up the google table and gets more likeley to be hit again and moves up again :uhoh:

Image

Plate of Shrimp.


Sorry, will require an explanation cos I's fik


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4415
Location: Michigan, USA
moby wrote:
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
That's the second time I've seen that RR 2-stage rotary referenced in the last week. It's weird how things like that make the rounds. One writer stumbles across it and writes an article, another sees it and writes his/her own take, soon you have five articles saying the same thing in different ways all from the same source material.

Once it's been 'hit' it moves up the google table and gets more likeley to be hit again and moves up again :uhoh:

Image

Plate of Shrimp.


Sorry, will require an explanation cos I's fik

It's a scene from the movie 'Repo Man' where the characters (both insane and/or high) talk about how something you're thinking about something, and you start seeing it everywhere even if you've never seen it before.

Miller: A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.

Otto: You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4507
moby wrote:
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
That's the second time I've seen that RR 2-stage rotary referenced in the last week. It's weird how things like that make the rounds. One writer stumbles across it and writes an article, another sees it and writes his/her own take, soon you have five articles saying the same thing in different ways all from the same source material.

Once it's been 'hit' it moves up the google table and gets more likeley to be hit again and moves up again :uhoh:

Image

Plate of Shrimp.


Sorry, will require an explanation cos I's fik

It's from the movie "Repro Man"

I'd share a link, but they're all blocked at work.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2021 engine.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Thanks guys. did see repo man long ago but it was not my thing, so did not recall anything from it.

Its right though :]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group