F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
Ecclestone confirms 2013 engine equivalency talks
Bernie Ecclestone has confirmed that the idea of allowing V8s and the new turbos to race alongside each other in 2013 was floated at yesterday’s meeting in Barcelona.
Jean Todt met with engine representatives and FOTA’s Martin Whitmarsh, who had the chance to express their opposition to the rules. Although he still intends to pursue the turbo route the Frenchman acknowledged that one solution might be to allow the V8s a longer lifespan.
“What he is talking now is about letting the V8s run for a year or something,” Ecclestone told Reuters today. “But I mean, equivalency formulas never work, do they?”
Bernie acknowledged that it at least it was a sign of potential flexibility from Todt.
“We’ll have to see now. I don’t know. I hope, I hope, I hope. I think he’s beginning to understand that the manufacturers all realise its going to cost them a lot of money and they can’t hand that on to their customers because the engines are going to be too expensive.
“I think the whole idea of this engine is the wrong way to go. I haven’t changed and I told him yesterday I have not changed my opinion.
“Jean is still believing that he says we should be giving a message. I don’t know what the message is because there is more fuel used in the Tour de France than there is in Formula One. In my opinion it’s all a bit of window dressing for the wrong reasons.”
It is quite normal to have multiple objectives in engineering and you have to balance them for a particular project to meet the market needs and be successful. I simply want the biggest possible technical freedom and the most fuel economic technology that can be had for a sensibly restricted budget. Unlimited spending was excluded from the option list of the 3013 engines long ago, but it appears that Ferrari are pushing for higher cost all the time.xpensive wrote:@ WB:
This is where I fail to follow your logic, on the one hand you claim to be fighting for cutting costs, staff limitation, budget restrictions and whatnot, but on the other hand you xpect the engine manufacturers to break new ground with all these novel recovery systems, not to mention what the development of 4WD KERS would cost the teams?
Plese enlighten us with how the above will match?
I'm not sure i agree that that's a problemxpensive wrote:
The other problem is probably that the new envelope wasn't enough to persuade VW to commit, nobody else either it seems.
Agreed. With all the sweet ancillaries like TERS, a fat daddy KERS,and compounded turbos, cost restrictions will kill the ability to get the most out of the technologies and render the engines inefficient junk compared to the possibilities the various forms of energy recovery should achieve. I still think it's stupid to mandate an inline four. Allow a v6 or maybe even a v4. All open wheel single seaters should use a fully stressed engine.ringo wrote:The I4 turbo can be cheap, though not cheaper than the v8 if it is highly restricted, but with an intro of a completely new engine, engine makers will definitely spend though the eye balls to ensure they have an advantage that will be locked in.
A turbo engine has more variables to consider and will no doubt cuase a space race between manufacturers.
White Blue's additional technologies such as TERS, turbo compounding etc. will definitely balloon costs. It's a good initiative but it's not realistic in one year's time, or even 2.
A simple turbo I4 with both engine and turbine management restrictions would be the best path to follow. Simplicity is key in keeping down costs.
Sadly creativity and ingenuity go hand in hand with excessive spending, so tight restrictions must be applied.
The failure to define a sensible way into the future killed BMW's role in F1 and prevented VW to join. Both companies have decided that they are not interested in a bottomless pit that sucks in unlimited amounts of money for obsolete technology. There is a consensus in the German automotive industry on the top level that the proper way to tackle the industry problems for this decade is a radical approach to fuel efficiency. If you look at outstanding products which make money it is not an electric or hybrid car. It is a smartly designed conventional ICE driven car with superior performance and fuel economy. Efficient dynamics is not just a slogan, it is a philosophy.xpensive wrote:Still WB, the most cost effective solution for everyone involved would be to stick with the current engines, if Cosworth loses Williams next year, there's no way in the world they will develop a new engine for two cutomers, two shaky ones at that. The other problem is probably that the new envelope wasn't enough to persuade VW to commit, nobody else either it seems.
Mind you WB, but all of those manufacturers mentioned are releasing new models with 8, 12 and even 16 cylinders all the time, on top of that, I recall that BMW was mighty disappointed to see the V10 go, as it would match the launch of their M5?WhiteBlue wrote: ...
If F1 wants to attract relevant automotive players such as Honda, BMW, Porsche, Audi and even Aston Martin there is no alternative to committing itself to technology that is relevant to those players.
...
