2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[twoshots]

Fact is that there's no tangible evidence that anyone is working on no housewife-engine for 2013.

I'd like to see the amount of money already spent on developing an I4 at Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari, however much they moan in public. I can guarantee it isn't a negligible sum.

It's simply not going to happen either.

To be competitive they are going to have fire up their first base design this year. Along with a number of test rigs. That's a fair amount of money on a non-existent new engine. I could easily see it going backwards a year or two though. Probably to help Ferrari catch up

[donskar]

WB, you have performed the logical equivalent of scratching your ear with your elbow: working Max Mosley and "sensible men" into the same paragraph.

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.

Do you really want to be identified with that individual?

[noname]

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

The funny thing is you seem to be absolutely sure about something F1 teams and OEMs involved in F1 are not so certain.

[WhiteBlue]

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

Pretty simple compared to navigating a bomber or submarine with inertial navigation but based on the same technology. You real time measure the forces to the suspension and eliminate all those that are not created by aerodynamics. All you need is some sensors and a bit of computing capacity that is significantly less than modern engine electronics require anyway.

[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 funny thing is you seem to be absolutely sure about something F1 teams and OEMs involved in F1 are not so certain.

It is not difficult if you know how power is exercised in F1. The sport has a certain habit to execute decisions that were officially taken by the governing body. In actual fact I would be hard pressed to remember a single rule that was decided by the F1 commission and rubber stamped by the WMSC that was changed prior to coming into effect. I would be very interested in examples!!

Btw, please quote a single team or OEM beside Ferrari who have ever expressed any doubt about the 2013 engine rules coming into effect. I do not know of any, and even Ferrari have said that they have to accept the rule.

[Sayshina]

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.

I was refering to this thread specifically. Wander back some 30 or 40 pages and you were adament that 4 wheel kers was coming. I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not attacking you here, simply pointing out that you are, erm, optimistic to say the least. I assume you still believe variable valve timing is coming, while I'll say it will most likely be banned, and almost certainly be ignored if not. In fact, if a mfg. does out it on a F1 engine, I'll go on the record right now as saying they did it for purely marketing reasons.

Bernie doesn't lose fights. But there's a difference between a fight he wants to win and a fight he's making up to take our attention away from what's in his other hand. As I've said a few times now, I have no idea if he's REALLY against this engine or just playing games, but if he is I'll say again it won't happen. You keep bringing up the required unanimity, but we've seen that many times. 1 team falls, then another, then 3 more, then it's done.

As far as mfg's having already spent too much to turn back, Those guys routinely build exploratory programs for racing series then never wind up joining. Porsche has been rumored to have done at least 3 such F1 programs in recent years.

Since when do the mfg's get a vote? I mean other than by owning a team. Did they change the Concord Agreement?

Why do you call the current engines "big and heavy"? I'll eat my hat if the 4 banger doesn't wind up with very similar instalation volume and mass. Many pages back someone remarked on how big the "footprint" of the BMW turbo was. That's because said footprint is largely determined by the power handling and durability requirements.

Active suspension is just regular suspension that happens to also offer infinitely variable tuning on the fly. It doesn't do anything magical. Given free and open rules you could do it with mechanical parts, it would just be heavy, big, and not particularly reliable.

Finally, have you watched any racing from the last time we worried about efficiency? It doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to entertainment.

[noname]

Btw, please quote a single team or OEM beside Ferrari who have ever expressed any doubt about the 2013 engine rules coming into effect. I do not know of any, and even Ferrari have said that they have to accept the rule.

I can not point any team or OEMs who would be certain. Talk with them directly, do not look for what some journo said, and you will know the answer.

[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.

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.

Sometimes it's a vague area whether something is a driver aid or not. However, in my opinion its essential that a driver feels the car pitch and roll, to correct if necessary and to set-up the car to the right ride height. With active suspension all that driver skill will be taken away. In that sense active suspension is comparable with traction control.
The same goes for active aero. That system could assist drivers to brake and steer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7l70Q6P-vU
In case of a system failure I wonder a driver could actually keep the car straight.

[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.

I was refering to this thread specifically. Wander back some 30 or 40 pages and you were adament that 4 wheel kers was coming. I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not attacking you here, simply pointing out that you are, erm, optimistic to say the least. I assume you still believe variable valve timing is coming, while I'll say it will most likely be banned, and almost certainly be ignored if not. In fact, if a mfg. does out it on a F1 engine, I'll go on the record right now as saying they did it for purely marketing reasons.

Bernie doesn't lose fights. But there's a difference between a fight he wants to win and a fight he's making up to take our attention away from what's in his other hand. As I've said a few times now, I have no idea if he's REALLY against this engine or just playing games, but if he is I'll say again it won't happen. You keep bringing up the required unanimity, but we've seen that many times. 1 team falls, then another, then 3 more, then it's done.

As far as mfg's having already spent too much to turn back, Those guys routinely build exploratory programs for racing series then never wind up joining. Porsche has been rumored to have done at least 3 such F1 programs in recent years.

Since when do the mfg's get a vote? I mean other than by owning a team. Did they change the Concord Agreement?

Why do you call the current engines "big and heavy"? I'll eat my hat if the 4 banger doesn't wind up with very similar instalation volume and mass. Many pages back someone remarked on how big the "footprint" of the BMW turbo was. That's because said footprint is largely determined by the power handling and durability requirements.

Active suspension is just regular suspension that happens to also offer infinitely variable tuning on the fly. It doesn't do anything magical. Given free and open rules you could do it with mechanical parts, it would just be heavy, big, and not particularly reliable.

Finally, have you watched any racing from the last time we worried about efficiency? It doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to entertainment.

Frankly said you are comparing apples and bananas. The technical discussion has to be based on the best possible information available at the time. The earlier the time is the less reliable is the information. But in order to discuss you have to base your figures and modelling on something.

Regarding the use of 4WKERS or AWKERS the discussion was based on figures that have been introduced by Pat Head into the public regarding the planned power and energy level of KERS. In the absense of any better figures I was very comfortable to predict that AWKERS would be needed to reach the target figures and at least those who checked the figures themselves have agreed with that view.

At the moment unofficial reports say that KERS will only apply to the rear wheels in 2013 and they are not saying anything about 2014 and beyond. Based on those figures one would have to significantly reduce the available power and energy for the KERS system. But there is still the possibility that the official release will show AWKERS again.

The debate about the general nature of the next engine is a totally different issue. We have official confirmation that a 1,6L turbo charged engine with a maximum RPM of 12,000 and direct fuel injection with up to 500 bar injection pressure will be used. These specification detail are not going to change like other detail that have not been officially published yet. I agree that the use of variable valves is still undecided. So theoretically they may be prohibited in 2013, but practically they will be useful to improve part load fuel efficiency and they will meet the objectives of many stake holders of F1. So my guess at this time is that they will come in 2013.

[WhiteBlue]

Sometimes it's a vague area whether something is a driver aid or not. However, in my opinion its essential that a driver feels the car pitch and roll, to correct if necessary and to set-up the car to the right ride height. With active suspension all that driver skill will be taken away. In that sense active suspension is comparable with traction control.
The same goes for active aero. That system could assist drivers to brake and steer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7l70Q6P-vU
In case of a system failure I wonder a driver could actually keep the car straight

I think this debate has gone completely off topic now. It is about the chassis rules. I would be perfectly happy to make my point in the appropriate thread that you are wrong on both points.

[WhiteBlue]

Btw, please quote a single team or OEM beside Ferrari who have ever expressed any doubt about the 2013 engine rules coming into effect. I do not know of any, and even Ferrari have said that they have to accept the rule.

I can not point any team or OEMs who would be certain. Talk with them directly, do not look for what some journo said, and you will know the answer.

You have made the assertion that teams and OEMs have expressed concerns with the 2013 engine decisions. It is up to you to provide the quotations that would support your claim.

[noname]

You have made the assertion that teams and OEMs have expressed concerns with the 2013 engine decisions. It is up to you to provide the quotations that would support your claim.

I am not allowed to discuss details of my work publicly.

Use my advice, please, and you'll get what you want. It should not be so difficult, concerns I've expressed are well known to, I think, everyone who's at least slightly involved in F1.

[WhiteBlue]

You have made the assertion that teams and OEMs have expressed concerns with the 2013 engine decisions. It is up to you to provide the quotations that would support your claim.

I am not allowed to discuss details of my work publicly.

Use my advice, please, and you'll get what you want. It should not be so difficult, concerns I've expressed are well known to, I think, everyone who's at least slightly involved in F1.

Nice try at a cop out and sending me on a wild goose chase. Nobody requires you to violate secrecy agreements. All you should do is demonstrate by your own collection of public quotes that your assertions are true. Why should somebody even try to prove you are right if the claim is obviously not supported by the news we read.

[Pingguest]

Sometimes it's a vague area whether something is a driver aid or not. However, in my opinion its essential that a driver feels the car pitch and roll, to correct if necessary and to set-up the car to the right ride height. With active suspension all that driver skill will be taken away. In that sense active suspension is comparable with traction control.
The same goes for active aero. That system could assist drivers to brake and steer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7l70Q6P-vU
In case of a system failure I wonder a driver could actually keep the car straight

I think this debate has gone completely off topic now. It is about the chassis rules. I would be perfectly happy to make my point in the appropriate thread that you are wrong on both points.

Indeed our discussion is off-topic. I found a better place.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8927&p=240731#p240731

[WhiteBlue]

This article appeared in AMuS last Saturday:

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 36602.html
Formula 1engine regulations : Ecclestone fights for the V8

Bernie Ecclestone began a campaign for the preservation of the V8 engines in Malaysia. The formula 1 boss goes head on with the world federation which has publicly come out for a four cylinder inline engine with turbocharger and direct injection. On Friday Bernie Ecclestone met with all team bosses in Malaysia. It was about one subject: Should Formula 1 go to the four cylinder inline engine from 2013 as the FIA had announced with turbocharger, direct injection and KERS or should it keep the current eight-cylinder engine?

Poor sound of four cylinders?

The FIA has already published a detailed draft regulation of the new engines in December last year. In theory the plan can only be stopped if the Formula 1 commission submits a request to the FiA to keep the status quo. For such a petition the majority of the teams would have to vote in the Formula 1 commission for the V8 engine. The dead line for this is end of June. If there is no veto by then, the decision of the FiA world motor sport council from December 2010 would stand. Ecclestone has already taken his decision. ' We need no four cylinder engines. They don't fit Formula 1. With 12,000 rpm they will sound awful. The promoters already complain heavily to me. They are afraid that the fans will stay away from the races. ' Ecclestone also points to the costs of a new design. In addition, no new manufacturer has yet announced a decision for F1, although the engine format was also selected with the purpose to lure VW, Toyota and Honda into the sport.

Ferrari against four cylinder.

With Ferrari Ecclestone has a comrade-in-arms. Luca di Montezemolo has demonized the new engines immediately after their announcement. 'Strange', thinks FIA president Jean Todt. ' All teams have voted last year for the new engine, including Ferrari.' In the meantime, Maranello also pulls the the "high expense" card. There are voices which say that a new engines would be four times as expensive as the current V8s. Cosworth estimated a new design could be done with just 30 million euros. ' Manufacturers of course calculate different to us ', says Cosworth managing director Mark Gallagher. Cosworth of all engine suppliers must work on the tightest budget. Nevertheless, says Gallagher: ' We build what the FIA tells us. If they want a one liter milk powered engine, we will develop it. We have no voice as an engine supplier anyway. This is a teams thing.

Advantage small teams

Cosworth like Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault has already started with the design of the new four cylinder engine. ' At the moment it is still in the design phase. From September it goes in the hardware phase. Then it will become expensive to change anything.' In spite of the high development expenses Cosworth will pass a small discount onto their 2013 customers. ' We have to supply only five instead of eight engines per car of the new engine generation. The teams would prefer to pay only half the price for the four cylinder engines but that is not feasible. We also have to consider the development cost a little bit in the pricing.'
This reasoning attracts the voices of the small teams to the four cylinder solution. For them it is vital how much the engine deal costs. Renault and Mercedes also lean towards to the new engine formula, partly for political and partly for cost reasons. ' We support the four cylinder engine, but for us two things are important ', points out Mercedes vice president of motor sport Norbert Haug. ' Firstly we need a clear commitment by all four current engine suppliers to the new formula. Mercedes does not have the capacity to supply half of the field. Secondly we must achieve the plan of the FIA to cut 30 percent of the engine cost over a five year period. Under such conditions the investment makes sense." Renault-marketing boss Jean-Francois Caubet refers to the close relevance with the automobile industry: " Formula 1 should not by pass modern technologies. "

My take on this is still a storm in the tea cup as the rule making power is still solidly in favour of the four cylinder engine. Maranello and Ecclestone are fighting alone for a lost cause.