2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Shaddock]

The point is that the comparison between a horse is invalid and cannot be quantified.
Many EV car specs give over 200 miles range and speeds way faster than 70 mph.
It is well within EV technology to achieve the figures I quote.

Please post a link to where I can buy one of these 200 mile @ 70mph cars today?

your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 100 miles on a single charge*

DISCLAIMER *Based upon EPA LA4 test cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml . Gradual loss of capacity in battery will result with time and use. Actual range will vary depending upon driving/charging habits, speed, conditions, weather, temperature, and battery age.

Forgot to add:

Highway driving in the summer: 70 miles
Speed: Average 55 mph
Cross-town commute on a hot day: 68 miles
Speed: Average 49 mph
Winter, urban stop-and-go, traffic jam: 62 miles
Speed: Average 15 mph

LOL

I understand what Ferrari are getting at, an I4 isn't 'sexy' and F1 does have a showbiz element to it. The issue is more about image than racing but that's what attracts the sponsors.

[segedunum]

I have a feeling that Montezemolo would not make this statement unless he knew that he already had support within FOTA, the only manufacturer to gain marketing kudos from the 1.6 I4 is VW, which do'nt even participate, what is going on here?

I'm wondering that myself. However, the opposition is more to do with winning and keeping any advantages locked in and self-preservation of various engine departments than anything to do with applicability to road cars. Mercedes obviously would like to keep the status quo because they have a perceived advantage locked in with the current engine specifications. They're obviously trying to keep it that way, so that explains their opposition.

I was extremely surprised these engine regulations got rubber stamped when the current major engine manufacturers in the sport like Ferrari and especially Mercedes don't want to be trumped by an outsider coming in, namely VW. I was sure the V8s would continue. This looks suspiciously like what VW have done with other racing formulas and their regulations when they've ended up dominating. I'm actually surprised there isn't an allowance for a diesel, although that might be a lot more interesting than the crap we've got.

The nightmare scenario for Ferrari and Mercedes is if Red Bull gets a VW engine from 2013, and worse, any homologation rules lock in advantages that VW are able to get. At the moment the strategy for teams like Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren is to get terrified about what happens at Red Bull. McLaren are notably silent on this though, probably because they are still to decide what to do engine-wise and Williams would obviously love to shepherd things in the direction of a Porsche badged VW engine with their own KERS technology.

Petty self-interest within the sport rules here. What the teams and engine manufacturers want has nothing to do with road cars or being green even though they might like to create the appearance. I just wonder how Ferrari and Mercedes have been outflanked here.

[WhiteBlue]

I just wonder how Ferrari and Mercedes have been outflanked here.

Pretty simple. The teams have the majority in the F1 commission which basically votes on this issue. Ferrari and Merc are only two teams but 12 teams vote. If they have particular interests which they don't share with the other teams they get outvoted. Basic politics at work.

[strad]

God save me from do gooders...Racing is not supposed to be green...the whole climate change thing is overblown B.S. And I'm sick of mamby pamby environmentalists trying to ruin everything.

[autogyro]

God save me from do gooders...Racing is not supposed to be green...the whole climate change thing is overblown B.S. And I'm sick of mamby pamby environmentalists trying to ruin everything.

Pity, you will miss all the new technology and you might even be partly be responsible for the end of F1.
It is the blinkers worn that is the main block to future progress.

[speedsense]

The point is that the comparison between a horse is invalid and cannot be quantified.
Many EV car specs give over 200 miles range and speeds way faster than 70 mph.
It is well within EV technology to achieve the figures I quote.

Please post a link to where I can buy one of these 200 mile @ 70mph cars today?

your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 100 miles on a single charge*

DISCLAIMER *Based upon EPA LA4 test cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml . Gradual loss of capacity in battery will result with time and use. Actual range will vary depending upon driving/charging habits, speed, conditions, weather, temperature, and battery age.

Forgot to add:

Highway driving in the summer: 70 miles
Speed: Average 55 mph
Cross-town commute on a hot day: 68 miles
Speed: Average 49 mph
Winter, urban stop-and-go, traffic jam: 62 miles
Speed: Average 15 mph

LOL

I understand what Ferrari are getting at, an I4 isn't 'sexy' and F1 does have a showbiz element to it. The issue is more about image than racing but that's what attracts the sponsors.

You might find this interesting....

http://www.kleenspeed.com

They have built an LMP3 (ALMS,Stohr chassis). The car is fully EV and faster in acceleration than it's gasoline powered replacement. The car has set several EV records so far.

[Shaddock]

You might find this interesting....

http://www.kleenspeed.com

They have built an LMP3 (ALMS,Stohr chassis). The car is fully EV and faster in acceleration than it's gasoline powered replacement. The car has set several EV records so far.

It's fast, and light and a single seater, but add fours seats, lights, heaters & A/C and you end up with a the best on the market so far the Nissan Leaf. Jaguar's new concept looks promising using twin micro turbines in a hydrid concept.

Until a new type of battery is developed that doesn't take 5 hours to recharge and loose 20% of it's capacity through use, hybrids IMO look a better option for every day use, but lets see how many Leaf's get sold this year.

http://www.jaguar.com/gb/en/#/experienc ... e_boutique

Back to F1 engines

I remember the reverse of this situation happening back in the 90's. Group C cars such as the Jags & Mercs were forced to use 3.5L N/A engines (didn't catch on) rather than the 7L V12 and twin turbo V8's in an attempt to bring new teams into F1. This could well be the case with VW and maybe some other WRC team as they will be using the same engine forumla.

[agip]

What's the problem in letting Ferrari make a V6-turbo engine if they want?

After all in a fuel restricted formula the inline-4 is the way to go for better efficiency.

[WhiteBlue]

Ferrari aren't lobbying for just themselves to have a V6. They want the V6 to become mandatory so that they don't have a disadvantage if they use it themselves. They would not want other teams to be more fuel efficient and beat them, which would automatically happen if the config was liberated. This is why Montezemolo demands unity for the Ferrari proposal. Isn't it funny? At the moment they actually have unity, but it is against the Ferrari proposal.

[autogyro]

It seems that Ferrari are never happy unless they can build cars as bulky a a block of flats.

[strad]

God save me from do gooders...Racing is not supposed to be green...the whole climate change thing is overblown B.S. And I'm sick of mamby pamby environmentalists trying to ruin everything.

Pity, you will miss all the new technology and you might even be partly be responsible for the end of F1.
It is the blinkers worn that is the main block to future progress.

It isn't progress...it's a billl of goods...hokum...bullshìt.

[machin]

Even if you think global warming (caused by mankind) is a load of rubbish, are you not excited by the prospect of developement of turbocharger and energy recovery systems anyway? After years of developement of a basic NA engine, I'm excited by the new route they're taking....

[jasonrobert]

will they still have the no refuelling rule in 2013?

[WhiteBlue]

will they still have the no refuelling rule in 2013?

This is a question that has attracted some thought. We know that in 2013 the fuel tank size will be restricted in addition to a maximum fuel flow limit.

IMO it would make little sense to restrict the fuel tank size if they wanted to re introduce refueling. On the other side one big motivation for the refueling ban will be abolished in 2013, the incentive to save fuel. It will be replaced by stronger mechanisms.

Another aspect will be the success or failure of the movable rear wing this year. It will influence the sporting rules significantly in the next years to come.

I think that FOTA mainly look at the cost of refueling in terms of the equipment, the people and the scrutineering effort. I rather think that F1 will continue to 2017 without refueling but I would not put much money on such a bet.

[ringo]

Refueling saves more fuel. It's pretty straightforward.
A fuel flow limit is enough as an incentive for consumption. Stopping 3 times cannot change the fact that only so much fuel can flow per second.
On the contrary having smaller lighter cars would be a more logical symbol of fuel efficiency.