Is F1 falling apart?

If an engine manufacturer, or several, were to drop out in the next year or two wouldn't that be a disaster? They might decide to focus their efforts on the next PU, so that they can dominate from the first day of the new regs. As I have implied elsewhere, it is the extreme cost of development to achieve extreme regs that are making F1 a one or two-horse race with the non-factory teams totally unable to compete because they cannot muster the bucks required to compete.

 

Any car built before about 1999 has gas lines that are eaten by ethanol.
More problems will show up when the 15% regulations are mandated (as a lever on the farm vote.)

 

The most thermally efficient engines in the world today are in spitting distance of turning 60% of the thermal content in to electricity on the grid. These are natural gas turbine where the exhaust gasses are used to boil water and run a steam turbine. These things can be turned on in 10 minutes and run at 47% TE until the water gets up to temp (1 hour).

Large diesels reach 50% thermal efficiency, these are found in ocean going ships and 50MW electrical peaking power stations.

It is said that the current F1 engines are at 50% TE, and as such represent the smallest engines to achieve 50% TE. On the other hand, the number of engines a single F1 team uses per year would buy a new Diesel peaking power plant.

Big Trucks can reach about 42% TE

F1 V10s were about 36-37% TE

Modern gasoline engines about 28-30% maybe a tad higher.

A decade ago it was hoped that hydrogen turbines with hybrid steam turbine could reach 70% TE. They are still having metallurgical issues with the hydrogen embittering the blades, or if adding oxygen the oxygen corroding the blades. Still a bit over the horizon.

 

With economic impact to auto firms evident via pandemic, and racing realistically un-needed in the interim as recovery and compensating actions are taken, F1 must find a way to stay relevant beyond a small budget change. Hybrid may be relevant but the long term is not IC at all. I dont know what F1 will do and to be honest they have not made a real plan evident at all. F -E appears to be more of a growth series than F1 presently. From what is published auto makers all seem to want to grow E mode and models more so than IC models. Time will show us lol.

 

thank you. So I ask again, given 2 engines, a 4 cyl turbo or an NA V12, what engine do you think think will provide the largest spectacle?

It's not a tantrum,. far from it. I'm willing to bet that more people would prefer an NA V10/12 over a 4 cyl turbo engine, and I stake my being here in the F1 section, simple as that.

I like F1, I hate the current engines, I hate the current aero regs. I've been a Ferrari fan since before they started winning. I was 4 or so years old when I saw my first GP on TV. My mom was zapping on the TV and came across these cars driving about and I told her to go back. The noise of that Ferrari V12 was it and I became an instant fan. I became a Ferrari fan because of the engine noise. Back then F1 was V8, V10 and V12. I was sold.

Fast forward some 22 years and I took my brothers to the Barcelona GP. It was the V6 cars already. The boys where 10 years old. Never really been into racing. The much faster F1 cars bored them. The GP2 cars (still V8 at the time), where much louder but quite obviously slower. About halfway through practice 2, they asked ''when are the cool cars coming again''.

Noise is important. Noise is what captivates the audience. Why does Formula E have so few viewers? It's free to watch, it's during the off season so no other motorsport can interfere, surely even hardcore motorsport fans would watch it? I'm told the racing is quite exciting. Yet why do so few people watch it? Because it's got boring engines.

As for why the FIA listens to the big manufacturers....do you really think without big manufacturers F1 wouldn't survive or something? So what if Mercedes, Renault and Honda would leave. If anything, it would much more likely thrive.

 

Exactly. Honda, Mercedes and Renault haven't committed to F1 till 2026. Renault is on life support. Mercedes can leave at the drop of a hat, as can Honda. Frankly, if Honda doesn't win a title with Red Bull or at least comes very close, I can't see them staying beyond end of contract (2021).

Will we have an entire grid powered by Ferrari. No. I don't think Ferrari can A) keep up with supply and B) any power failure at all, in these hugely complicated engines, will always be completely questioned by everyone in the business. Bad news.

F1 needs a back up engine plan NOW.

 

Yep. ''You'll get used to the sound''. Nope. Still hate the sound.

 

I think there is an agreement saying that the engine manufacturers in F1 together MUST supply all the teams.
So they must share among themselves the customers.
Also, they must give notice in advance should they wish to quit F1supplying engine

Also, don't ignore the cost of aero development that cripples the teams. The teams employ more staff involved in aero (research, design, wind tunnel, and fabrication) that in any other department. There is a constant development in that area, and most of the costly carbon fiber parts end up in the bin after a few races .

 

In that application, as a static power plant, a turbine is very efficient, because the "wasted" energy (heat) is recovered.
But to power a vehicle in its simplest application, it is not.
Turbine power was tried on several prototypes of cars, trucks, buses and even locomotives, and didn't make a case for itself.

The comparison between current F1 engine and V10 says it all (50% TE against 36-37% TE ! ).

 

From algae? How much it would cost to produce a liter of ethanol from it? In Brazil they produce billions of liters of it from sugar cane:
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Biofuels%20Annual_Sao%20Paulo%20ATO_Brazil_8-9-2019.pdf

Cars in Brazil run on 100% ethanol since thr 1980's.

A F1 engine running 100% on ethanol would have more power, produce less toxic particulates, but would need a bigger tank or refulling.

 

I think it doesn't matter. People who love racing will come.
For some who love the shrieking noise of a V12, you have others who are put off by it.
With each generation passing, F1 loses some audience, and gains new followers.
The TV, and video didn't kill the cinema, no more than the motor car killed horse racing.
Interests and tastes change. I see it in everyday life.

 

I found Formula E not very well packaged for a start.
It started as a specs series, far too restricted, and it still doesn't showcase electric power very well.
At the moment, FE is about the level of F3, if that, yet it's foolishly heralded as the future of F1, which it is certanly not.
They need to relax the rules and allow engineers to really develop the cars, chassis, batteries and motors.
FE also avoids direct comparison with ICE series by running in cities, on temporary tracks.
There are some advantages to that (nearer to the public, no noise abattement problems), but some circuits are really appaling.
FE attracts a different crowd, as I observed when it ran for a couple of years at Battersea in my neighbourhood: new generation, couples with young children, students, most of them not following motor racing in general, but interested in ecology, clean air, and the quieter and unthreatening atmosphere.

I have seen demonstrations of electric power at Brands Hatch with rallycross cars, and that was an eye opener.
Cars converted to electric power completely destroyed the ICE cars, making the most of their superior torque and higher power.
They run electric category in some hillclimbs, and there again, the results are quite convincing.

Like for everything else in life, one has to be open-minded.

 

Auto makers have no choice but go in the direction of electric cars.
It's not to follow public taste, but because it's imposed upon them by governments with carbon taxes.
Most car makers have to introduce electric models in their range to satisfy legislation and avoid punitive taxes themselves.
I don't think the market will absorbe that, because of public resistance to electric, but also there is no infrastructure yet to service a large fleet of EVs.
So, constructors will find themselves with lots of unsold cars, and the industry will suffer from it.

 

Any truth in what I read a couple of years ago that the percentage of ethanol would come down in Brazil, following the oil glut?

With the worldwide surplus of cheap oil, producing ethanol becomes more expensive to produce than refining for petrol.

 

But rally cross is what, 5 laps? Round a VERY short track.

Is it really a surprise to see an essentially un-regulated E-Rally Cross car beat a car that's got several (engine) limitations (max engine size, max boost etc)? A race that's just a few KM long, they can run with minimal battery size, so it doesn't affect the weight much.

Not quite sure how Rally Cross features in a Formula 1 conversation, so lets take things to Formula 1 E. Some clever man can work out just how big and heavy the battery will be for a Formula 1 car to do a full 300km race on a full size track. Very big, I imagine. For comparison sake, the Nio EP9 has 675KG of lithium batteries. It can only do one lap of the 'ring (20km) before it needs a full recharge. And during that lap, it can't even give full power, because batteries overheat when pushed. Basic maths says for an F1 car to do the same distance at power, it would need 10 thousand KG of batteries. That doesn't account for the batteries pushing around the extra weight of just it's batteries, but also the extra weight of car you need to have to fit all the batteries in. And of course, it also doesn't take into account the extra heat soak from many batteries all heating up together.

Of course this might be slightly dramatic, but it just pushes the point home of how big the mountain there is to climb, how far behind electric really is when you take range into account when the vehicle is pushed.

Also, a Formula 1 car with a 10 thousand KG fuel source is going to be pretty slow.

So still no answer then.

 

I just wanted to show that electric power has huge potential.
Of course battery technology has to improve ... a lot!!!
You can make fun of it, but it's the future, that we like it or not.
I probably won't see it myself.

The ICE has benefited from more than a century of R&D in the automobile world, which the electric car hasn't.

I gave you my answer in post #161, I think.
I cannot help if you don't like it.
You sound like one of these guys who asks how long is a piece of string and wants an exact answer.

 

Whilst batteries may not have been developed much in the automotive sector, they certainly have been in the technology sector! Laptops and mobile phones have been receiving incredible development and the batteries are pretty close to their full potential. The application doesn't really matter, if it's a pretty phone or powering a car.

I've asked several times what you think will draw larger crowds, you can't give a clear answer and just hover around it.

 

No, I can't, and probably neither can you.
You would give an estimation that would justify your position, that would be impossible for you to back up or for me to verify.
It's splitting hair, right?
There are many factors to explain a decline in audience ( new generation, public interest, economic conditions, different products, etc ...) and people pick up the one that validates their argument. Politicians do it all the time !!

 

That's for sure. The same way shale is economically unfeasible with current oil prices.

However, a lot of ethanol is now used for "anti-corona gel".

 

One does not have to be; it's completely a choice.

 

Personally I found that "Live and let live" is an excellent philosophy.

 

Turbines can be very efficient when running at constant RPMs.
Turbines are not very efficient if they have to change RPMs rapidly.

 

Yep, I forgot to mention that !
That's why the applicationin a street cars was a failure. Rover, Chrysler and even FIAT tried

I remember also when Lotus ran a turbine car in F1.
That's how broadminded the rule makers were in those days!!
Turbine, 6-wheel cars, 4 wheel-drive, fan car, ground effect, almost everything was tried.

 

V10 turbos.
Works well for street cars

 

I know of no motors larger than 600cc motorcycle engines using steel springs that rev to 16K or higher. A V10 based on 600cc technology would only be 1.5 liters. But let us ignore this and assume a 3.5 litre motor could reach 16K.

A 3.5 litre motor with a 16K rev limit would only produce about 850 HP, it was the 19.5K rev limits that saw them reach 1000 HP. But in addition, when the valves are retracted by springs, the landing lobes on the cam have limits so the springs do not take on vibration patterns (valve float). Valve float is instant death to the valve spring as it overheats and loses its temper. So, I think the the cam would have to be less aggressive, and this would subtract power.