Return of the V12

[Taxi645]

Now hold on. This not a nostalgic dream. I reckon there a sound reasons for going back to it.

The idea of F1 staying relevant on the power unit side to the automotive real world is a fallacy. All mid to high end vehicles will go electric and cobalt free batteries will facilitate it. The only combustion engines will be cheap cars in India (which won't be using any of F1's high-tec ICE technology anyway) and perhaps the odd hydrogen project. So the notion that F1 in 5 years time is still going to add much to the broader automotive world is a dead end street in my view.

So if automotive relevance and development is out of the window, what remains?

In my view you can do two things to keep engine manufacturers on board (and get new ones in):

1 Up the excitement!
2 Strongly reduce cost.
3 Use synthetic fuel to keep it politically acceptable.



There is a perfect tool to do just that:

A 3.5L V12.

That's it, no KERS, no Turbo's.

- 93mm maximum bore to keep it compact and limit output.
- 17.000rpm rev limit to keep power and costs in check and make it easier for smaller independent engine manufacturers.
- They'll probably produce around a 1.000HP.

Cars will get a lot lighter, but not as light as 20 years ago (due to safety measures), so power won't be too much and can be further governed through fuel flow.

So what you get:

1 An exiting power unit: light, powerful, strong sound, exciting to drive and watch!
2 Cheap.
3 Output closer together so helps to keep the field level and easier to freeze after a while.
4 Small and compact, gives more chassis freedom and easier to swap engine manufacturer.
5 Carbon neutral due to synthetic fuels.

[P38 in workshop]

Not a chance! Greta Thunberg and her acolytes would rain indignation on the idea of fleets of racing cars being transported around the world for no purpose other than making a noise while racing.The total amount of greenhouse gas generated would probably be wrongly calculated and fed to the general public who would join the condemnation.The sponsors would briskly step away because of the image problem it would represent.If top level motorsport is to survive, it has to demonstrate some sort of relevance or we might be left with no alternative to watching Formula E.



Strangely,the generation of millions of tons of greenhouse gas by vehicles transporting football fans never gets a mention.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Not a chance! Greta Thunberg and her acolytes would rain indignation on the idea of fleets of racing cars being transported around the world for no purpose other than making a noise while racing.The total amount of greenhouse gas generated would probably be wrongly calculated and fed to the general public who would join the condemnation.The sponsors would briskly step away because of the image problem it would represent.If top level motorsport is to survive, it has to demonstrate some sort of relevance or we might be left with no alternative to watching Formula E.



Strangely,the generation of millions of tons of greenhouse gas by vehicles transporting football fans never gets a mention.

I get what your saying, but what's the alternative? Stick with the current formula, which is already close to irrelevant to the broader automotive world, let alone in 5 years time?

Then you either skip directly to electric, which I reckon would still be a bit too early for F1.
Or you have hydrogen, which would have significant (perhaps prohibitive) cost and weight implications, with also serious question marks regarding relevance if hydrogen use remains marginal in the automotive world.

I reckon generally the target audience for F1 does and will not have the sustainability as their main concern. The use of synthetic fuel will keep it socially/politically acceptable enough for the time being. What's the difference between running mega date centres on wind mills to power our irrelevant youtube video's or let a few F1 cars run on it?

Sure some manufacturers may leave. They will be back when FE and F1 merge once battery tech has evolved enough. In the meantime, we'll have very exiting racing, thank you!

[steve_r]

I think that a lot of fans would be happy to see F1 go back to "normal" combustion engines. Teams paying GBP 200m per year for the current over-complicated lumps is plainly ridiculous.

However this is F1, rightly or wrongly being run by teams and engine manufacturers and Liberty who all have their own agendas which do not necessarily mean that common sense prevails. So, prepare for the next set of engine regulations that makes the current ones look cheap and simple.

[S griffin]

The whole point of hybrid V6s has gone. Only Honda has joined and now they’re leaving. They might as well go back to simpler engines, all this extra expense has been to no avail

[Lola]

I believe the rules regarding power trains should be opened up. By limiting the amount of energy available. Give each car so many Joules (the amount can be decided to equal things up) and the teams can do whatever they want.
Hybrid (as now)
100% electric (unlikely)
Petrol (Cosworth, Judd whatever)
Some other system not yet thought about.
Then the ruling factor would be energy usage. At the moment Hybrids with recovery are the best solution (maybe?), petrol or bio are getting better and better all the time and maybe competitive. This should eliminate a team being without an engine when the music stops. The energy allowance could be fettled to even it up if a technology gets either too expensive, dirty, etc

[Richard C]

I agree on the approach of a less complex formula. A few details to nitpick. Its my understanding that given modern understanding of friction, optimal combustion chamber size, etc. that a 12 cylinder engine would not be the first choice (it would sound lovely however). It would probably be a V8 or V10 solution. Unless a V12 was mandated. Also, given a target displacement, I think a V8 would probably be more compact than a V12. Last, I suspect we will continue with some type of Hybrid (KERS) solution.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I agree on the approach of a less complex formula. A few details to nitpick. Its my understanding that given modern understanding of friction, optimal combustion chamber size, etc. that a 12 cylinder engine would not be the first choice (it would sound lovely however). It would probably be a V8 or V10 solution. Unless a V12 was mandated. Also, given a target displacement, I think a V8 would probably be more compact than a V12. Last, I suspect we will continue with some type of Hybrid (KERS) solution.

Richard

I can see the point of the V6 Turbos in increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing pollution, the hybrid sytems however are not worth their weight in ballast, as RBR proved before the axle weights were mandated, and just add inefficiency to the cars.

Perhaps the way to slay the myth is set the minimum weight to 500kg without the drivers, mandate na V8s and allow any hybrid/KERS system that anyone wishes to add.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I agree on the approach of a less complex formula. A few details to nitpick. Its my understanding that given modern understanding of friction, optimal combustion chamber size, etc. that a 12 cylinder engine would not be the first choice (it would sound lovely however). It would probably be a V8 or V10 solution. Unless a V12 was mandated. Also, given a target displacement, I think a V8 would probably be more compact than a V12. Last, I suspect we will continue with some type of Hybrid (KERS) solution.
Richard

I meant mandating a V12. Sounds muffler might be in order though. I agree a 3.0 V10 would suffice from an output point of view.

Originally Posted by wnut

I can see the point of the V6 Turbos in increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing pollution, the hybrid sytems however are not worth their weight in ballast, as RBR proved before the axle weights were mandated, and just add inefficiency to the cars.
Perhaps the way to slay the myth is set the minimum weight to 500kg without the drivers, mandate na V8s and allow any hybrid/KERS system that anyone wishes to add.

Even turbo's and KERS are not neccesarry in my view. The R&D has long been done, lessons have long been learned and use for the public road will soon evaporate. Forget about relevance, it won't be relevant in five years time.

Focus on: exciting, cheap and acceptable.

[NaBUru38]

The problem isn't really the displacement or the number of cylinders, but the low revs.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

The problem isn't really the displacement or the number of cylinders, but the low revs.

Are you referencing the current specification? I believe they tend to rev lower than the maximum allowed RPM as the maximum efficiency is not achieved at max RPM. The current spec could allow 19K and they would still not rev that high given the specified displacement and maximum fuel flow rate.

Richard

[Adam43]

Yes - it is better to rev low for them. And they still get that power.

[Casper]

As I have said before, why is F1 still using bespoke motors? You want it simplified, put a low maximum weight on the cars, give then a capacity limit and tell them to go at it.

Retreating from the where F1 is now is unpalatable to those who thought up this hybrid nonsense as they would have to admit that everything for the last 6 years has been a huge mistake and huger waste of money that has damaged the sport in more ways than anyone wants to even think about.

[greentrumpet]

Mostly agree. I'd like to see the safety rules maintained along with a budget cap but pretty much complete freedom otherwise to encourage creativity. Perhaps a fuel limit to show some responsibility!

[P38 in workshop]

Seriously guys I don't think you have grasped the fanaticism that opposes the use of internal combustion engines in some very vocal quarters.They are going to be unobtainable for road use quite soon and you seem to believe it will be acceptable to scorch around circuits making lots of noise because you like the sound?We will be very lucky if motorsport still exists in ten years.It isn't a situation I like to contemplate,but how far are you willing to go to keep some form of high level competition?Even NASCAR is mapping a path to hybrid use,as it the BTCC so why should there be a money and hydrocarbon burning exception?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Seriously guys I don't think you have grasped the fanaticism that opposes the use of internal combustion engines in some very vocal quarters.They are going to be unobtainable for road use quite soon and you seem to believe it will be acceptable to scorch around circuits making lots of noise because you like the sound?We will be very lucky if motorsport still exists in ten years.It isn't a situation I like to contemplate,but how far are you willing to go to keep some form of high level competition?Even NASCAR is mapping a path to hybrid use,as it the BTCC so why should there be a money and hydrocarbon burning exception?

As said, what use is a 2025 hybrid formula gonna be? Any further lessons learned would hit the public road 2030 at the earliest. At that point we will be firmly in the electric era and hybrid will just be as irrelevant as a conventional combustion vehicle, just a multitude more expensive and heavier.

Synthetic fuels or battery is basically the same footprint. Both would use green electricity to store the energy, both are more or less co2 neutral (in case of synthetic fuel you first collect the co2 from the atmosphere to then use green electricity to create the fuel, so in the end more or less co2 neutral).

On the subject of sound, I don't think it is a good idea to go back to the noise levels of previous atmospheric F1 engines. Some sound damping would be in order (still vastly better sounding than the current ones).

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

As said, what use is a 2025 hybrid formula gonna be? Any further lessons learned would hit the public road 2030 at the earliest. At that point we will be firmly in the electric era and hybrid will just be as irrelevant as a conventional combustion vehicle, just a multitude more expensive and heavier.

Synthetic fuels or battery is basically the same footprint. Both would use green electricity to store the energy, both are more or less co2 neutral (in case of synthetic fuel you first collect the co2 from the atmosphere to then use green electricity to create the fuel, so in the end more or less co2 neutral).

On the subject of sound, I don't think it is a good idea to go back to the noise levels of previous atmospheric F1 engines. Some sound damping would be in order (still vastly better sounding than the current ones).

I have always thought hybrids were a stop gap measure and had a short life cycle as a concept. Those of us who live in the more remote parts of the world realize the BEV's simply can't work and in the foreseeable future won't. In our metro areas and major highways they will but not out in the bush. The obvious solution to that is the range extender concept but that idea seems to have been ignored so far. In fact you could say that for the majority of the world BEV's are impossible and yet the major brands are saying they are abandoning the rest of the world by not planning any production of ICE's at all. It is obvious that ICE's will be needed but on present plans published it is hard to see who is going to build them. For the densly populated parts of the world BEV's are absolutely the future and there is no avoiding that.

As far as F1 goes I think they are between a rock and a hard place with nowhere to go. The next PU has to go into the mid 30's and by that time ICE will be the mainstream and not the oddity. No one has the crystal ball to say what will happen but in 5 years time they will introduce a PU for the next ten years and that is a lead time of 15 years to the end of that decision that is going to be made shortly. It certainly does not sound like a decision that can be made now.

The idea of going back to ICE with no turbo is purely fantasy of course so not worth discussing.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Casper

I have always thought hybrids were a stop gap measure and had a short life cycle as a concept. Those of us who live in the more remote parts of the world realize the BEV's simply can't work and in the foreseeable future won't. In our metro areas and major highways they will but not out in the bush. The obvious solution to that is the range extender concept but that idea seems to have been ignored so far. In fact you could say that for the majority of the world BEV's are impossible and yet the major brands are saying they are abandoning the rest of the world by not planning any production of ICE's at all. It is obvious that ICE's will be needed but on present plans published it is hard to see who is going to build them. For the densly populated parts of the world BEV's are absolutely the future and there is no avoiding that.

By 2030, ~60% of the world population will live in cities. Let's say that a conservative 15% of the remaining 40% who live in rural areas (especially in the developed world) can still use BEV's, you're looking at 75% of the world population that could use BEV's (not talking about if there is enough raw material for that or if the infrastructure will be there yet in 2030, so yes it will be lower).


All in all, I don't see a solid argumentation for the statement that from 2030 onwards for the majority of the world BEV's won't work.



For the other 25% and for the part of the world and for those for whom the raw materials will not be made available, synthetic fuels would have a far larger environmental impact than any multimillion hybrid F1 tech. The same goes for range extenders, synthetic fuels are relevant for those, F1 current engines won't be.

Originally Posted by Casper

As far as F1 goes I think they are between a rock and a hard place with nowhere to go. The next PU has to go into the mid 30's and by that time ICE will be the mainstream and not the oddity. No one has the crystal ball to say what will happen but in 5 years time they will introduce a PU for the next ten years and that is a lead time of 15 years to the end of that decision that is going to be made shortly. It certainly does not sound like a decision that can be made now.

If the ICE will be still be the most used power source it will be cheap and simple engines, because of cost, RAW materials availibility, maintainability or infrastructure reasons. Synthetic fuels will be relevant for those engine's. F1's hybrid tech won't be because it's the exact opposite for what is required for those uses.

Originally Posted by Casper

The idea of going back to ICE with no turbo is purely fantasy of course so not worth discussing.

"of course" is not a substitute for argumentation.

Turbo's have pro's and con's just like any other technology. Efficiency is an advantage, total engine size is (although a V10 or V12 can be built very compact and light as well). Complexity, sound and driveability wise atmospheric has clear advantages.

[chillibowl]

Where will the oil companies be by 2030?

they are all suggesting they will be pumping significantly less oil and gas by then and their public profile may be better served by changing their advertising strategies.

Are they more or less likely to invest at their current level in a sport that is pushing the IC envelope or in one that is reverting to simpler engine tech from a half century ago?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Where will the oil companies be by 2030?

they are all suggesting they will be pumping significantly less oil and gas by then and their public profile may be better served by changing their advertising strategies.

Are they more or less likely to invest at their current level in a sport that is pushing the IC envelope or in one that is reverting to simpler engine tech from a half century ago?

Synthetic fuel would be a mayor interest to oil companies, because it would allow them to reuse large parts of their infrastructure and product placement and project forward into a world that is increasingly critical of their current practises.


Oil companies have logically never really had mayor interest in fuel efficiency so pushing the IC envelope is less to their interest than pushing the fuel envelope.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

A 3.5L V12.

That's it, no KERS, no Turbo's.

Yes, please! Excellent suggestion Taxi645.

That's not a power unit...




This is a power unit:

[Adam43]

You talk a load of rubbish. This is a power unit.

[S griffin]

Not suggesting they turn a handle to start the engine like the old days?

[hondafan37]

I like the idea of ​​the V12 return.


What did happen to the idea of ​​2-stroke engines with eco fuel?
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...than-formula-e

A 2-stroke V12 would be very good.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

I like the idea of ​​the V12 return.


What did happen to the idea of ​​2-stroke engines with eco fuel?
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...than-formula-e

A 2-stroke V12 would be very good.

IMHO it was a combination of Achates Power (who have a horizontally opposed two stroke engine with novel solutions to address the negatives of two stroke including a diesel like ignition) in which their sales/marketing team is casting a wide net for a customer for their solution PLUS a slow news day in the motorsports world. They are currently focused on US DOD contracts and also a partnership with Ricardo (probably for things like truck engines, etc.). I am extremely doubtful any of this will show up in a serious way in motorsports. Especially not in a V12 F1 engine!

Their YouTube channel shows how it works as well as their focus. Actually not much in the way of recent news with them.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfi...oXCCMB6TyXopYg

Here is the TT thread on the topic.

https://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154889

Richard