God these people make me wanna puke...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/13978228.stm
F1 aims to make efficiency 'cool' with new engine rules
Formula 1 is aiming to make increased fuel efficiency in cars "cool" through its new engine rules, Ross Brawn says.
Plans to replace the current 2.4-litre V8s with 1.6-litre V6 turbos with extensive hybrid systems were approved by governing body the FIA on Wednesday.
Mercedes boss Brawn said: "It's not about the fact that the new engine is going to be more efficient in itself.
"It's the message it gives that it's cool to have a really efficient engine and race on a lot less fuel."
Cars will use about 35% less fuel in 2014 than they currently do, with plans to introduce further efficiencies in the future. This target will partly be achieved by increasing the aerodynamic efficiency of the cars at the same time.
"We're setting dramatic targets for reducing the amount of fuel we race with - 30, 40, 50% less than what we're racing on now but still with the same power and the same excitement."
The idea behind the new engines was to popularise this type of power-train, which is the route many road-car manufacturers are taking in a bid to respond to a world of rising fuel prices, diminishing oil supplies and climate change.
Audi just won 24 Hours of LeMans, using a V6 versus Peugeot’s V8.
Both are also turodiesel, which is a fairly dramatic change from a few years ago.
So lots of “road car” advances come from racing. Over half of new passenger sales in Europe are diesels, so LeMans is highly relevant.
Formula 1 has been using KERS, related to Hybrid. Again, relevant to road cars.
Meanwhile, there is Nascar. Aren’t they still runing big V8s? Yep. to 358 ci.
No turbos. Four speed manual transmissions. No diesels.
And plastic bodies, styled after Plymouths, Pontiacs, and Oldsmobiles, to name a few.
You guys are undoubtedly way more up on all this than me - I'm just a ol' 2002 season virtual driver - but the Wiki entry gots this to say 'bout the F1 engines:
The 2006 Formula One season saw the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) introduce the current engine formula, which mandated cars to be powered by 2.4 litre naturally-aspirated engines in the V8 engine configuration, with no more than four valves per cylinder. Further technical restrictions, such as a ban on variable intake trumpets, have also been introduced with the new 2.4 L V8 formula to prevent the teams from achieving higher RPM and horsepower too quickly. The 2009 season limited engines to 18,000 rpm, in order to improve engine reliability and cut costs down. For a decade F1 cars had run with 3.0 litre naturally aspirated V10 engines; however, development had led to these engines producing between 980 and 1,000 hp (730 and 750 kW), and reaching dangerous top speeds of 370 km/h (230 mph) on the Monza circuit. Teams started using exotic alloys in the late 1990s, leading to the FIA banning the use of exotic materials in engine construction, and only aluminium and iron alloys were allowed for the pistons, cylinders, connecting rods, and crankshafts. The FIA has continually enforced material and design restrictions to limit power, otherwise the 3.0L V10 engines would easily have exceeded 22,000 rpm and well over 1,000 hp (745 kW). Even with the restrictions the V10s in the 2005 season were reputed to develop 980 hp (730 kW) and 18,000 rpm, which were reaching power levels not seen since the ban on turbo-charged engines in 1989.
The lesser funded teams (the former Minardi team spends less than 50 $million, while Ferrari spent Yx100 million euros / year developing their car) had the option of keeping the current V10 for another season, but with a rev limiter to keep them from being competitive with the most powerful V8 engines. The only team to take this option was the Toro Rosso team, which was the reformed and regrouped Minardi.
The engines produce over 100,000 BTU per minute (1,750 kW)[citation needed] of heat which is dissipated via radiators and the exhaust, which can reach temperatures over 1,000 °C (1,830 °F). They consume around 650 liters (23 ft³) of air per second. Race fuel consumption rate is normally around 75 liters per 100 kilometers traveled (3.1 US mpg - 3.8 UK mpg - 1.3 km/l). Nonetheless a Formula One engine is over 20% more efficient at turning fuel into power than most small commuter cars, considering their craftsmanship.
All cars have the engine located between the driver and the rear axle. The engines are a stressed member in most cars, i.e., the engine is part of the structural support framework; its bolted to the cockpit at the front end, and transmission and rear suspension at the back end.
In the 2004 championship, engines were required to last a full race weekend. For the 2005 championship, they were required to last two full race weekends and if a team changes an engine between the two races, they incur a penalty of 10 grid positions. In 2007 this rule was altered slightly and an engine only had to last for Saturday and Sunday running. This was to promote Friday running. In the 2008 season, engines were required to last two full race weekends - the same regulation as the 2006 season. However for the 2009 season, each driver is allowed to use a maximum of 8 engines over the season, meaning that a couple of engines have to last three race weekends. This method of limiting engine costs also increases the importance of tactics, since the teams have to choose which races to have a new or an already-used engine.
I'd like to believe that the new fuel regs will translate to stock production car applications down the road. I can only assumee that 20 years of stock car-racing - post late 60's to pre '74 production muscle-car - has been realized in the 200,000 miles durability of contemporary production car engines. And
that in addition to squeezing more ooomph out of the engines.
It seems to me that a lot of what's going on in professional racing has to do with econmics in general; it takes a lot of crisp and green semolians to finance a race team. That seemed to be a big issue in that a lot of the teams / sponsoring corps were squealing they couldn't continue. So a great deal of this can be attributed to economic climate-dictated austerity measures.
A really good example is the speialized tires that the various race teams use. Some serious changes came into play concerning that over the last few years. The tires alone are a huge portion of a race team budget. Specialized after-market tires (espeicially "high-performance") have the raceing affiliated nod. However, there's no commuter app that needs racing performance.
Case in point: years ago I drove the "Mighty Ventura" (1974 Pontiac 350) and paid for some "high performance" tires. I complained "there was a bit of vibration at high speed." They rebalanced and rebalanced the tires. I kept coming back again and again. Finally the manager got into my face when I told him the vibration set in at 90+ MPH. The last time I was there they threw me out was when I complained that the vibration got really bad at 80 but smoothed out akin to glass until I exceeded 105...
I worked as a temp doing engineering change/material scheduling for the F body N America (assisting as required on the Y-body and P-car) at GM C-P-C HQ back in '85. One of the biggest scheduling issues I had to deal with at the time were the new - at that time - alum-alloy wheels; I couldn't get the things out of QC from the vendor to schedule 'em. Nowadays they're defacto equipment. I'd like to believe that racing had something to do with development of that technology. The "Mighty Ventura" had those steel wheels of yesteryear, eh?
One thing that amuses me is NASCAR "stock-car" racing. What in the world is "stock" about any of those cars. At best they ALL appear to be Buick Grand National wannabe's. NONE of those cars look anything remotely like a contemprary 2011 production car.