2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[flynfrog]

Perhaps you should try and form your own opinion sometime WB?

To be fair, I think he's been pretty clear on his own desires. He wants a turbo 4 with variable valve timing, the fuel mass limit, 4 wheel kers, and basically an open book set of tech regs.

WB has no opinions of his own, those "opinions" he is marketing are just those formulated by the FIA/WMSC or Max Mosley.

WB like Chuck Norris doesn't have opinions he has facts.

[xpensive]

WB like Chuck Norris doesn't have opinions he has facts.

[Sayshina]

The F1 commission decides the rules and the FiA World Motor Sport Counsil approves the rules and makes them official. From this stage on a change needs the unanimous support of all teams and all other commission members.

Yes, WB, this is indeed the way things work. Officially. Supposedly.

Officially, the current military action in Lybia did NOT originate from the US. Supposedly. As a veteran of said US military, I have my doubts.

A few years ago all manufacturers, and nearly all teams, were united, and ready to pull out of F1. They'd had enough of Max and Bernie, and nothing was going to change their minds. And then Bernie bitch slapped them all. We see this over and over again. What Bernie wants, Bernie gets.

You're looking at the official rules making process and pretending like it's immune to political interference. Bernie has been subverting this process for decades.

I have nothing against the new rules, other than their restictions and the fact that there will inevitably by many more to come. I am not in love with the current sound, I don't have any religious problem with greater efficiency, and I understand that lap times need to be kept in check.

But go back a few pages to before the rules were announced and look at what you were claiming they were "going" to do, as it was only logical. Now look at what's actually been done. Look at what's been done in recent years, and remind yourself that the very same people are in charge today.

Even if these rules do somehow make it, that only really proves that Bernie was only pretending to be against them in order to misdirect us all from his true aims. And even if they do make it, there will inevitably be another engine freeze in the near future anyway, so what is there to get excited about?

I'll say it again. Bernie doesn't lose. If he's serious about opposing this engine, it won't happen.

[xpensive]

Great post Sayshina.

However, I think there's more to the picture, more importantly, Ferrari don't like it.

Next question is that just how may engine manufacturars are prepared to go through the development cost of this, including making an I4 stiff enough to be an integrated member with the chassis? Of this we have no idea but I'm certain that MrE knows for sure, but without interested parties the entire thing is dead in the water.

The Engine manufacturers were taken for a loong ride by MrM, 3.5 liter open format, then 3.0 V10s and finally this 2.4 baby V8s. Think they had enough.

[Sayshina]

However, I think there's more to the picture, more importantly, Ferrari don't like it.

Well, my original observation, a couple of pages back, was that Bernie seems to need just 1 other party on his side to win the argument.

Either way, I don't think it's valid to draw any conclusions from mfg's looking at this engine spec. Lots of mfg's are going to look at it, and build at least a single cylinder bench unit, even some mfg's who have no intention of ever entering F1. This has always been the case.

We've also seen just recently from the Indycar engine argument that chassis designers actively dislike inline engines. I suspect we're going to see several more parties come out against these engine regs.

[WhiteBlue]

The thing that smells about this to me is that no one wants the four banger, apart from probably VW who are loitering around in the background and saying nothing.

Hm, you are just ignoring the majority of teams in the F1 commission and the WMSC. Naturally they are irelevant to a true fan.

Perhaps you should try and form your own opinion sometime WB?

To be fair, I think he's been pretty clear on his own desires. He wants a turbo 4 with variable valve timing, the fuel mass limit, 4 wheel kers, and basically an open book set of tech regs.

WB has no opinions of his own, those "opinions" he is marketing are just those formulated by the FIA/WMSC or Max Mosley.

I do agree that I'm pretty close to Max's and the FiA's policies incidentally. That may be due to the fact that sensible men come to similar conclusions.

[xpensive]

Can't wait for your turncoating when the four-banger idea is ditched, but thanks for you confirming your affection to
F1s biggest scoundrel, a sexual pervert who gave away F1s commercial rights for a plate of beans to his old buddy MrE.

And if you don't believe me on the latter part, you can always consult your own oracle, Ol' Joe Sewer.

[WhiteBlue]

The decision for the turbo engines in 2013 is not going to be changed and I have explained why that is the case.

The FiA protects the competitors and engine makers against cost from short term changes. The decision cannot be reversed unless all teams and engine makers agree unanimously to the change. That is pretty much unconceivable as Cosworth and Renault are extremely unlikely to agree. The same goes for the independent teams.

Ferrari are alone with Ecclestone in their fight and have nowhere near the voting power to overthrow Jean Todt and the majority of the teams on the issue of the engine decision. All speculation to the contrary is pointless waste of web space. F1 is set to get more efficient and more technically advanced turbo racing engines, and that is a good thing.

[xpensive]

The decision for the turbo engines in 2013 is not going to be changed and I have explained why that is the case.
...

See, this is your problem WB, you never xpress an opinion of your own, only referring to this or that.

The other part is that you never ever allow a discussion wether these "facts" are good or bad.

In other words, going with the authorities is never an opinion, it's just being a conveyor, right manchild?

[WhiteBlue]

See, this is your problem WB, you never xpress an opinion of your own, only referring to this or that.

There is no such problem at all, expensive. It exists only in your imagination. Just look up the post before your last. I have said that the turbo engines will be superior in terms of efficiency and technological level. I have also expressed my own opinion that this is a good thing.

It appears to me that your problem is not being able to respect opposing values and preferences. It looks to me that we do get into this kind of discussions when I happen to be in the other camp compared to you. There are plenty of people who love F1 and prefer turbo power and efficiency over big and heavy gas guzzling engines. They deserve the same respect as people who love a special engine noise or engine configuration.

[WhiteBlue]

But go back a few pages to before the rules were announced and look at what you were claiming they were "going" to do, as it was only logical. Now look at what's actually been done.

You are new to this site, so I will excuse your ignorance of our engine discussion here on F1technical. If you go back in time you will find other threads with discussions before the decision was made. If you read those you will find that I have supported the objective of fuel efficient engines for years. The FiA objectives in that regard are very clear and unambiguous. I have always expected the next engine generation to save at least 20-50% of the V8 fuel consumption.

I'll say it again. Bernie doesn't lose. If he's serious about opposing this engine, it won't happen.

In fact Bernie is famous for being on the loosing side of engine debates. The last time he also vehemently opposed the move from V10 to V8. He lost it.

[Pingguest]

I would introduce unlimited KERS ASAP and I would push harder on efficiency technologies for the chassis. I would bring back the 2000 mm tracks, legalize inerters, ground effect, active suspension, aero elasticity, active wings and set a limit to legal downforce of 1.25 metric tons.

Active suspensions and active aero is a step too far. It would result in the reintroduction of active, computer-controlled cars. Not to many arguments would be left against the (re-)introduction of driver aids like ABS, traction control and ESC.

[WhiteBlue]

I would introduce unlimited KERS ASAP and I would push harder on efficiency technologies for the chassis. I would bring back the 2000 mm tracks, legalize inerters, ground effect, active suspension, aero elasticity, active wings and set a limit to legal downforce of 1.25 metric tons.

Active suspensions and active aero is a step too far. It would result in the reintroduction of active, computer-controlled cars. Not to many arguments would be left against the (re-)introduction of driver aids like ABS, traction control and ESC.

I don't agree with your view. Active suspension is a tool to reduce drag and improve ground effect which negates the need for more power to achieve performance. It can be clearly separated from driver aids like ABS or traction control in modern cars with standardized ECU. It offers a chance to make F1 faster and improve fuel efficiency.

[Holm86]

How can you enforce a rule that says max 1.25 metric tons of downforce?

[xpensive]

...I have said that the turbo engines will be superior in terms of efficiency and technological level.
I have also expressed my own opinion that this is a good thing.
...

Ever noticed how often your senteces beginds with an "I"?

Perhaps a professional could read something into that.