2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[rjsa]

F1 never pursued any auto industry objective. Never.

Sorry man, I have to oppose you. We have a 100+ year history of GP racing which streches much beyond F1 and there have been plenty of times when the auto manufacturers could show their competence in the competition. It appears that you either are too young or of bad memory to know that. Nobody profits if F1 evolves into an arcane art of earth bound aircraft without relation to the wheels people buy for transport. Just answer one question! Why should F1 suffer if the efficiency of the chassis and power train gets the same or higher priorities as the useless game of ever new aero configuration that serve no purpose.

Sow competence <> Pursue an objective.

Tell me one case where someone said: See, we need to fix this problem with the Fiesta here, try that on a F1 car and see how we get it right.

F1 has evolved in such thing long ago (not that I like it that much). You should be looking at DTM or LMS, not F1.

F1 deals with wings and open wheels. I can't see how more detached from the Fiesta it can get. Well, drag racing may be?

[agip]

F1 never pursued any auto industry objective. Never. It's always been the teams going faster and the regulators tring to curb them.

Fortunes are spent for choosing the colors on the moving billboards, not for R&D.

Why is that so hard to understand?

F1 in its current form could't exist without the auto industry. So it seems fair to make the rules with that in mind.

Its like asking for no-sponsorship liveries in F1 because F1 never pursued any company or marketing objetive. Let me remind you that some chassis rules were written to make some space for them.

F1 its a bussines. And if the current bussines is having turbo-hybrid-whatever, F1 will go in that direction. Unless you want the same 4 manufactureres we've now forever.

[xpensive]

I don't understand this idea about F1 all of a sudden should reflect the car industy's direction, in the 60s and 70s, very few non-american cars had anything else than a four cylinder engine, still the F1 cars had eight or twelve?

But that was what made them different and xiting, something I'm afraid will be lost with the 2013 engine rules.

@WB; Just bescause Adam Parr said so, it doesn't make a Cv of 0.5 for an open wheel car plausible, because it isn't.

[rjsa]

F1 never pursued any auto industry objective. Never. It's always been the teams going faster and the regulators tring to curb them.

Fortunes are spent for choosing the colors on the moving billboards, not for R&D.

Why is that so hard to understand?

F1 in its current form could't exist without the auto industry. So it seems fair to make the rules with that in mind.

Its like asking for no-sponsorship liveries in F1 because F1 never pursued any company or marketing objetive. Let me remind you that some chassis rules were written to make some space for them.

F1 its a business. And if the current business is having turbo-hybrid-whatever, F1 will go in that direction. Unless you want the same 4 manufactureres we've now forever.

The problem is, the business is not having the whatever stuff. It's a political move from FIA and was supposed to lure new manufacturers in, but failed miserably.

The last time a manufacturer was affected by engine ruling was BMW that got pissed of with the ban of the V10 that was being introduced in the M5. That's the also the last event or road relevance known to me. Like the semi auto gearboxes, that guess what, is standard on V8 and V12 Ferraris and alikes.

[agip]

The problem is, the business is not having the whatever stuff. It's a political move from FIA and was supposed to lure new manufacturers in, but failed miserably.

The rules were written in december 2010. What did you expect?!

Give them some time. One thing is certain, the current FROZEN engines aren't attractive to anyone either. So I support this 'bet'.

[WhiteBlue]

I will give up for now. Is it really so difficult to understand that given two alternatives of equal entertainment value F1 should always look for the one which is the most fuel efficient? Some of you guys apparently want F1 to deliberately waste fuel for the fun of it or to please Ferrari's marketing scheme.

I would like to see a true technical competition with strict fuel caps that make the most efficient car fastest. It would be something that is sensible. Perhaps I'm having too much of a grown up perspective. We should have developed beyond the stage where Ken tries to impress Barbie with the biggest ersatz member possible.

[rjsa]

I would like to see a true technical competition with strict fuel caps that make the most efficient car fastest. It would be something that is sensible. Perhaps I'm having too much of a grown up perspective. We should have developed beyond the stage where Ken tries to impress Barbie with the biggest ersatz member possible.

This I'd like to see too. Just go bringing the fuel cap down and let them figure it out.

This would also have a direct effect on aero. Downforce figures would start dropping pretty fast.

I'm perfectly fine with it. And I'd been saing this long ago.

[noname]

Is it really so difficult to understand that given two alternatives of equal entertainment value F1 should always look for the one which is the most fuel efficient?

What do you mean by "fuel efficiency" ? Road cars can only dream of BSFC numbers of 2.4 V8 we can find under the skin of the F1 bolids.

[strad]

F1 should have about as much relevance to road cars as NASA has to a Piper Cub.
You do know that road cars had disc brakes long before Ferrari would allow them on his race cars,,,and then only because a mechanic tricked him, and did it behind his back..Of course he also said aerodynamics were for those without strong enough engines.
Serously though...F1 is NOT about win on Sunday sell on Monday...Never has been.

[WhiteBlue]

Is it really so difficult to understand that given two alternatives of equal entertainment value F1 should always look for the one which is the most fuel efficient?

What do you mean by "fuel efficiency" ? Road cars can only dream of BSFC numbers of 2.4 V8 we can find under the skin of the F1 bolids.

You need to think again what the 2013 turbo I4 could do in that regard. The better is the enemy of the good. You do not stop somewhere if you can make progress. The new engines will have 40% better BSFC.

I'm not advocating a dumb imitation of road car engines but the application of the efficiency technologies that have been agreed by the experts last year to create better F1 racing engines and power trains that also help road cars make progress.

Why do you think the petrol direct injection pressure was set at 500 bar? To set a goal for F1 to produce a technology that will help the whole automotive technology to push ahead!

Why do you think they decided to allow electric compounding? Obviously to push that technology which so far has not been used in passenger cars.

There are four reasons for people to fight the new engines:

• American style traditionalism and love for fuel wasting big displacement engines
• The (IMO silly) notion that turbos will make different noise which they may not like
• Ignorant fears that the new power train will have less power
• Tifosi who bemoan the team's marketing problem

They are all not valid in my view. The reasons have been explained often and need no repetition.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 should have about as much relevance to road cars as NASA has to a Piper Cub.
You do know that road cars had disc brakes long before Ferrari would allow them on his race cars,,,and then only because a mechanic tricked him, and did it behind his back..Of course he also said aerodynamics were for those without strong enough engines.
Serously though...F1 is NOT about win on Sunday sell on Monday...Never has been.

Repeating an old mantra doesn't make it more valid or intelligent. All manufacturers in F1 decided last year that they wanted downsized turbos with direct injection and energy recovery (turbo compounding). What we see now is the typical destructive egotism of Ferrari who did not get the exact format they wanted. So they try to shoot the whole thing down and people who should know better applaud them for their anal behavior.

[alelanza]

...to create better F1 racing engines and power trains that also help road cars make progress...

... To set a goal for F1 to produce a technology that will help the whole automotive technology to push ahead!

Why do you think they decided to allow electric compounding? Obviously to push that technology which so far has not been used in passenger cars...
.

You really believe that. You should definitely consider marketing.

[xpensive]

...
All manufacturers in F1 decided last year that they wanted downsized turbos with direct injection and energy recovery (turbo compounding).
...

And this is where the mystery lies, what gave the engine manufacturers cold feet over the new engines all of a sudden?

Could it be that they were not sure they would be around by 2013 anyway, now that it's getting closer to invest in development, it seems that the different companies decisionmakers didn't realize the true cost of developing the engines with all its gizmos? Montezuma comes across as a most responsible man in the context, blowing the whistle on cost before it's too late?

[Pierce89]

F1 should have about as much relevance to road cars as NASA has to a Piper Cub.
You do know that road cars had disc brakes long before Ferrari would allow them on his race cars,,,and then only because a mechanic tricked him, and did it behind his back..Of course he also said aerodynamics were for those without strong enough engines.
Serously though...F1 is NOT about win on Sunday sell on Monday...Never has been.

Repeating an old mantra doesn't make it more valid or intelligent. All manufacturers in F1 decided last year that they wanted downsized turbos with direct injection and energy recovery (turbo compounding). What we see now is the typical destructive egotism of Ferrari who did not get the exact format they wanted. So they try to shoot the whole thing down and people who should know better applaud them for their anal behavior.

From Autsport:Ferrari's objection to the rules has been discussed in this column before and therefore requires no amplification other than to add that the Italian manufacturer is fully within its rights to object to the regulations on the basis that they are barely compatible with the company's marketing objectives - namely selling top-end, mechanically sophisticated sports cars powered by multi-cylinder engines.

A 1600cc turbocharged four-pot hardly fits that business model. Ferrari is in F1 to move expensive metal. While there is little doubt that la passion is omnipresent at Maranello, the company's raison d'être for remaining in the sport is bottom-line driven, as it should be for any commercial organisation with a responsibility to shareholders suppliers and employees.

Many accuse Ferrari of myopia or even selfishness, yet just as the new engine formula is incompatible with Ferrari's marketplace, the same can be said for Audi. By that logic, the hi-tech diesel-orientated German manufacturer should be accused of the same thing equally stand accused of selfishness/myopia for failing to embrace this 'F1-lite' – yet there has been not a whimper. Fortunately Ferrari is doing everything in its (considerable) power to remain in F1. Four down, two to go.

Mercedes cannot be faulted for wishing to stick to existing technology. The company employs 400 staff at its High Performance Engines division in Brixworth, and its V8 is an absolute gem, with - allegedly - the highest output, best fuel consumption and lowest cooling requirements on the grid – the last point being a crucial one for aerodynamics and weight.

[Pierce89]

I don't understand this idea about F1 all of a sudden should reflect the car industy's direction, in the 60s and 70s, very few non-american cars had anything else than a four cylinder engine, still the F1 cars had eight or twelve?

But that was what made them different and xiting, something I'm afraid will be lost with the 2013 engine rules.

@WB; Just bescause Adam Parr said so, it doesn't make a Cv of 0.5 for an open wheel car plausible, because it isn't.

Thank you for trying to put some logical thinking in this thread.