Todays FOTA meeting

Marbot · 4 Dec 2008, 13:51 (Ref:2347273)

Yes folks,the great and the good have gathered in Geneva to discuss issues that include qualifying,cost cutting and future rules for 2010/11.One of which may include.

"Believed to be the most radical of the proposals for discussion is a move from 2.4 litre V8 engines for 2011 to fuel-efficient turbo 1.8 litre engines."

Take another couple of cylinders off and stick on a turbo.Simple innit.

**ScotsBrutesFan** · 4 Dec 2008, 13:57 (Ref:2347281)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

"Believed to be the most radical of the proposals for discussion is a move from 2.4 litre V8 engines for 2011 to fuel-efficient turbo 1.8 litre engines."

Which is what the SuperFPA ...Oops mustn't call it that... The FIA F2

will be running.

Marbot · 4 Dec 2008, 14:09 (Ref:2347286)

This would be good.

"This specification, using about 30 per cent less fuel than the current engines, could pave the way for a ban on mid-race refuelling."

duke_toaster · 4 Dec 2008, 16:44 (Ref:2347372)

Anything about customer cars, or what would happen if another team were to go?

**Bononi** · 4 Dec 2008, 17:26 (Ref:2347391)

Nothing to worry about ! The speed that the crisis is catching up the big ones, certainly F1 will be running wind-powered cars by 2012.

Marbot · 4 Dec 2008, 17:33 (Ref:2347394)

No news yet,but here's the agenda.

http://www.fia.com/public/fia_fota_agenda.pdf

http://www.fia.com/public/fia_fota_explanatory_note.pdf

Marbot · 4 Dec 2008, 20:40 (Ref:2347524)

There was a meeting..in London apparently.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21019.html

ralf fan · 4 Dec 2008, 20:47 (Ref:2347535)

Thank you Marbot, aka official spokesman for FOTA.

Marbot · 4 Dec 2008, 20:50 (Ref:2347539)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralf fan

Thank you Marbot, aka official spokesman for FOTA.

This should have been the top news story of the day....oh well.

**Bononi** · 4 Dec 2008, 21:06 (Ref:2347568)

news... news... bot !

You can't control that one !

Marbot · 5 Dec 2008, 00:00 (Ref:2347704)

Here's what's been decided.Too little too late maybe?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72320

StephenA · 5 Dec 2008, 00:38 (Ref:2347723)

The engine is no real surprise. Don't forget. Senna won his first F1 race in a Lotus 97T with a 1.5l Twin turbocharged engine. It still managed to produce 900BHP!!!

Marbot · 5 Dec 2008, 00:44 (Ref:2347727)

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenA

The engine is no real surprise. Don't forget. Senna won his first F1 race in a Lotus 97T with a 1.5l Twin turbocharged engine. It still managed to produce 900BHP!!!

But not for very long.

I don't expect the new engines to get anywhere near that figure,simply because they'll have to last for half of a season or something like it.

StephenA · 5 Dec 2008, 01:05 (Ref:2347739)

I think 650-750BHP is definitely achievable. Jim Clarks Lotus 25 had an un-supercharged Coventry Climax 1.5l V8 that produced 200BHP at just over 8000 rpm. Modern F1 engines rev at over twice that!!

Dutton · 5 Dec 2008, 01:39 (Ref:2347750)

1.8L turbo? I like the sound of that. Make it a twin-turbo and life would be even better. Getting turbos back would be a great thing from my POV, for the simple reason that I like them!

I know; I know: I am so technical; it is hard to understand what I am meaning.

Kiwi3 · 5 Dec 2008, 03:36 (Ref:2347807)

Energy recovering systems are a good idea but personally I think they need to go much more hard out, e.g. run hybrids for example, in order to stay relevant to the R&D departments of whatever manufacturers stay alive. Even then I'd like to see manufacturers as drive train suppliers only with racing teams doing the racing as per mid 1990's and earlier.

I see they are also going to change the qualifying format yet again. If it ain't broke why fix it?

Ultimo · 5 Dec 2008, 18:10 (Ref:2348284)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

1.8L turbo? I like the sound of that. Make it a twin-turbo and life would be even better. Getting turbos back would be a great thing from my POV, for the simple reason that I like them!

I know; I know: I am so technical; it is hard to understand what I am meaning.

What do you like about turbos?

Crazy_Pigal · 7 Dec 2008, 10:58 (Ref:2349473)

1.8 turbos sound OK to me but............it does sound as if they've done the usual "lop a couple of cylinders off" approach I can't see that anything from a 19000rpm NA V8 can have any relevance to a low revving (10000 rpm ???) turbo motor. If cost's the real issue here then the obvious thing to do is to look outside F1. Looking at the new Le Mans regs for example, 2 litre turbos, 6 cylinder limit, 500 to 550 bhp (dependant on air restrictor & boost limit) & they'll last 24hrs! Make up the power difference by upping the KERS power & you're there, a powertrain that'll last half a season, the same overall power as we've currently got, ticks some of the green boxes & you can sell the engines to Le Man teams to help pay for development.
Take Keith Duckworths fuel flow limiting valve to keep power in check & promote fuel efficiency. Sound so much more desirable than a grid of identical engines that cost an absolute fortune to make but you can't develop! or is it just me?

Teretonga · 7 Dec 2008, 18:00 (Ref:2349695)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy_Pigal

1.8 turbos sound OK to me but............it does sound as if they've done the usual "lop a couple of cylinders off" approach I can't see that anything from a 19000rpm NA V8 can have any relevance to a low revving (10000 rpm ???) turbo motor. If cost's the real issue here then the obvious thing to do is to look outside F1. Looking at the new Le Mans regs for example, 2 litre turbos, 6 cylinder limit, 500 to 550 bhp (dependant on air restrictor & boost limit) & they'll last 24hrs! Make up the power difference by upping the KERS power & you're there, a powertrain that'll last half a season, the same overall power as we've currently got, ticks some of the green boxes & you can sell the engines to Le Man teams to help pay for development.
Take Keith Duckworths fuel flow limiting valve to keep power in check & promote fuel efficiency. Sound so much more desirable than a grid of identical engines that cost an absolute fortune to make but you can't develop! or is it just me?

No its not you, but you're thinking along the lines FOTA should be thinking about.
I have wondered the same thing and it is as simple as anything but the FIA will not want anything too simple that is transparent and can't be meddled with. FOTA will think in its own terms, basically an exercise in preserving as much as what they already have.
Its about power and who is in control, not about common sense.

Your suggestions plus a rev limit of 15000 rpm would create a far more sustainable environment but they would argue that it wasn't challenging technically. Research and development is where the manufacturers draw their budgets from so the 'boffins' want to play it their way.

Crazy_Pigal · 7 Dec 2008, 20:33 (Ref:2349797)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Your suggestions plus a rev limit of 15000 rpm would create a far more sustainable environment but they would argue that it wasn't challenging technically. Research and development is where the manufacturers draw their budgets from so the 'boffins' want to play it their way.

I'm not convinced that you'd need a rev limit, with a fuel flow valve there'd be no more power to be had from revving the engine any higher. I think the technical challenge of extracting more power from a finite amount of fuel is one that 'boffins' would love to get their teeth into, give them enough freedom & some genuinely useful technology could emerge, I'm thinking along the lines of direct injection, turbo-compounding, heat recovery & other stuff that I can't think of! Consider the alternative, 2.4l V8's that don't elove at all, to me the choice is obvious.

Marbot · 7 Dec 2008, 20:46 (Ref:2349804)

MotoGP does much the same but limits the amount of fuel in the tank to 21 litres.This means that the ECU has to decide how much fuel it can use over the distance of a GP regardless of the input the rider has on the throttle.If the rider goes 'all out' in the first few laps he may be 'limited' later on in the race regardless of the fact that he wants the same performance.This has the effect of making fuel consumption vitally important as well as giving maximum competetive performance.Limiting the amount of fuel they can use (say,down to 20 litres) will also stop the bikes from getting 'out of hand'.

Dutton · 7 Dec 2008, 20:57 (Ref:2349808)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimo

What do you like about turbos?

I just think it is a really neat system. I just think turbos are class all-round, really.

Just a preference thing, I guess.

Knowlesy · 7 Dec 2008, 21:13 (Ref:2349817)

POWERRRRRRR!

Clive Brown · 7 Dec 2008, 21:17 (Ref:2349823)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

F1 will be running wind-powered cars by 2012.

No big change there , then ; it's been run largely by hot air for years .

phoenix · 7 Dec 2008, 22:21 (Ref:2349881)

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenA

The engine is no real surprise. Don't forget. Senna won his first F1 race in a Lotus 97T with a 1.5l Twin turbocharged engine. It still managed to produce 900BHP!!!

The BMWs managed 1200bhp in qualifying from 1.5 litres - and by the end of the turbo era in 1988, when 150 litre fuel restrictions were imposed and a boost limit of 2.5 bar was in place, they still managed to get 630 very reliable BHP out of the Honda RA168-E. McLaren one 15 out of the 16 grand prix that year, shared between Senna and Prost.

1.8 litres 23 years later seems a little to generous to me!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FOTA look into new qually format	Marbot	Formula One	66	1 Dec 2008 12:56
FOTA, a force for good?	Tehillim	Formula One	23	16 Oct 2008 16:57
Results of todays FIA meeting	Stephen Green	Formula One	132	1 Nov 2002 14:03
Todays ETCC meeting	Hobson	Touring Car Racing	5	2 Jul 2001 08:49