2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[doink]

talking about footprints F1 is not significant really.
Realistically mankind has started a development a good 100 years ago and failed to acknowledge the consequences and maintained their view fixed on profit making at all cost and i doubt this has changed much till todays the one lucky coincidence being that some sharks have realised that green ideas can be profitable as well ...Will it stop the poles from melting? Obviously it´s already too late to prevent this and we will face the consequences rather sooner than later .It will be a rapidly changing environment and it is yet to be seen if there is place for us or something unimportant like F1 in the scenario what is unfolding right in front of our eyes.

We need to change, because some think it's too late isn't a good enough reason for us to sit back and ignore it.

Whether we like it or not, the real world is changing. People are concerned about the environment and fuel prices are astronomical, that is changing motor industry slowly. F1 has to change.

[xpensive]

If you believ in IPCC and the talk about global warming, we know that earth's climate and temperature has gon up and down over the millenniums, there are many other parameters affecting the climate, I'm far more worried over peak oil.

[doink]

If you believ in IPCC and the talk about global warming, we know that earth's climate and temperature has gon up and down over the millenniums, there are many other parameters affecting the climate, I'm far more worried over peak oil.

It has indeed gone up and down, but there is a very, very clear trend that shows an increase of temperature with the amount of carbon that we're throwing into the atmosphere - it cannot be disputed that our carbon emissions are damaging the environment. This conversation could go on so lets not digress too much.

Oil usage however is a real threat to civilisation and will change the landscape dramatically at some point. Whichever way you look at it, there needs to be change everywhere.

I'm starting to sound like a hippy.

[Lurk]

More seriously I agree with you. Earth temperature has changed a lot since the beggining of the time. But not so quickly. C02 level is very high. But by reducing our emission and taking care of our forests, actual C02 into the atmosphere can return back to an acceptable level within 30 years.

Some damage have been done but we can do something to prevent some others. And we don't to live like hippies for that but some gestures (preferently the cost saver ones ) and technologic improvements can be done.

[WhiteBlue]

Just because you think small turbo charged engines would be cool, it doesn't mean that people who see the sport differently from you are stupid.
You have what I concider an uneducated view of the past 60 years of F1. Hell there wasn't even a WCC til what '58 . There has been very little nexus between F1 and road cars in all this time.

Let me politely disagree with you on pretty much all counts.

1. I have not insulted anybody but I reserve the right to show up some lesser intelligent opinions for what they are by technical analysis.

2. There has been tons of influence in the past by Grand Prix cars on the automotive development. It is just not very hip at the moment to say so.



The 1913 Peugeot four cylinder race car has influenced the American automotive industry for decades.

The Dino 246 V6 F1 engine has powered Formula 1 cars, Ferraris, Fiats and Lancia road and rally cars for three decades. The Dino engined products have probably saved Ferrari from going bust. Many people agree that Ferrari would have collapsed if they had not taken the 246 direction and it's successors.

The BMW world champion four cylinder turbo engine block was taken straight from a road car and tuned for racing.

So you have example from 1913, 1958, 1981 and I could go on with less prominent examples but these very few will show those in the know that your claim is not substantial. F1 can focus on technology that helps road cars and it obviously should.

[Pierce89]

Just because you think small turbo charged engines would be cool, it doesn't mean that people who see the sport differently from you are stupid.
You have what I concider an uneducated view of the past 60 years of F1. Hell there wasn't even a WCC til what '58 . There has been very little nexus between F1 and road cars in all this time.

Let me politely disagree with you on pretty much all counts.

1. I have not insulted anybody but I reserve the right to show up some lesser intelligent opinions for what they are by technical analysis.

2. There has been tons of influence in the past by Grand Prix cars on the automotive development. It is just not very hip at the moment to say so.



The 1913 Peugeot four cylinder race car has influenced the American automotive industry for decades.

The Dino 246 V6 F1 engine has powered Formula 1 cars, Ferraris, Fiats and Lancia road and rally cars for three decades. The Dino engined products have probably saved Ferrari from going bust. Many people agree that Ferrari would have collapsed if they had not taken the 246 direction and it's successors.

The BMW world champion four cylinder turbo engine block was taken straight from a road car and tuned for racing.

So you have example from 1913, 1958, 1981 and I could go on with less prominent examples but these very few will show those in the know that your claim is not substantial. F1 can focus on technology that helps road cars and it obviously should.

Racing has always been a frivolity for those with a little spare cash. I'm all for a small turbo "green" motor. I just don't want to be mandated as an inline four. Scince the Lotus 49, all the best cars have had fully stressed engines. What's wrong with a 1.6L V6 or 1.8L V8, meybe even a V4. Why does it absolutely have to be an I4?

[xpensive]

@ WB;
In all honesty, I'm surprised to notice that with all your undisputable knowledege, you couldn'd find more relevant xamples of Grand Prix influence on automotive development than those mentioned above?

- Any successful racing car from 1913 would quite obviously have an influence on road cars, as road cars per se were in its very infancy at the time.

- The fact that the 2.4 litre 65 degree Dino 246 were adopted by a variety of Italian cars, Ferrari, Fiat and Lancia, didn't mean that other car manufacturers followed suit.

- In case of the cast-iron BMW turbo engine, it seems, at least to me, as if the influence came from automotive to racing, not the other way around?

[WhiteBlue]

Racing has always been a frivolity for those with a little spare cash. I'm all for a small turbo "green" motor. I just don't want to be mandated as an inline four. Scince the Lotus 49, all the best cars have had fully stressed engines. What's wrong with a 1.6L V6 or 1.8L V8, meybe even a V4. Why does it absolutely have to be an I4?

At one stage the decision for the engine configuration was open, but then it was put to a vote and the I4 was accepted by the working group, the F1 commission and the WMSC. They all made positive decisions on the issue. Even Ferrari said at the time that they accept the decision.

The point is that engine decisions have to be made two years ahead of the introduction to be fair to all sides and allow enough development time. Personally I would have no problem with a V4 but it has to be said that it will be more expensive and heavier. The objectives can easily be achieved by an I4 and a bunch of companies make them or have plans to make them.

So what we see now is simply a destructive strategy to shoot the formula down by denying a resource restriction agreement on the engine side. Three out of four engine makers have said that they want sensible spending limits. Ferrari is the only party that seems hell bound to make the cost talks fail in order to stop the new formula. At least that is what I perceive and there is hardly another explanation for the process that we see.

[doink]

Overall we're going to be seeing the same performance that we are seeing now. What is the overriding strong argument against these engines? Can someone please enlighten me, because I'm finding it very difficult to see what the problem people have, aside from these engines are apparently not "man" enough for the sport or the engines wont be loud enough.

[Pierce89]

Racing has always been a frivolity for those with a little spare cash. I'm all for a small turbo "green" motor. I just don't want to be mandated as an inline four. Scince the Lotus 49, all the best cars have had fully stressed engines. What's wrong with a 1.6L V6 or 1.8L V8, meybe even a V4. Why does it absolutely have to be an I4?

At one stage the decision for the engine configuration was open, but then it was put to a vote and the I4 was accepted by the working group, the F1 commission and the WMSC. They all made positive decisions on the issue. Even Ferrari said at the time that they accept the decision.

The point is that engine decisions have to be made two years ahead of the introduction to be fair to all sides and allow enough development time. Personally I would have no problem with a V4 but it has to be said that it will be more expensive and heavier. The objectives can easily be achieved by an I4 and a bunch of companies make them or have plans to make them.

So what we see now is simply a destructive strategy to shoot the formula down by denying a resource restriction agreement on the engine side. Three out of four engine makers have said that they want sensible spending limits. Ferrari is the only party that seems hell bound to make the cost talks fail in order to stop the new formula. At least that is what I perceive and there is hardly another explanation for the process that we see.

Yes!! you used the words: I percieve. no implications that anyone who disagrees is stupid. No implication that your opinion is fact, while others opinions are tripe. Much less abrasive. please continue with this sort of post instead of the personal attacks. You'll benefit as well as everyone else. Good job mate. Seriously. it takes a real man to chill and be friendly, and that's what you've done in this last post. 1000% better than your previous posts.

[Pierce89]

Overall we're going to be seeing the same performance that we are seeing now. What is the overriding strong argument against these engines? Can someone please enlighten me, because I'm finding it very difficult to see what the problem people have, aside from these engines are apparently not "man" enough for the sport or the engines wont be loud enough.

It's not that they're quiet. It's that an 18000 rpm V8 makes a banshee wail,while a 10000 rpm four will sound like a very loud very wet fart.

[rjsa]

It's not that they're quiet. It's that an 18000 rpm V8 makes a banshee wail,while a 10000 rpm four will sound like a very loud very wet fart.

Thanks for making me laugh, I was deeply in need in this very blue monday...

=D>

[doink]

Overall we're going to be seeing the same performance that we are seeing now. What is the overriding strong argument against these engines? Can someone please enlighten me, because I'm finding it very difficult to see what the problem people have, aside from these engines are apparently not "man" enough for the sport or the engines wont be loud enough.

It's not that they're quiet. It's that an 18000 rpm V8 makes a banshee wail,while a 10000 rpm four will sound like a very loud very wet fart.

Fair enough, the cars will certainly sound and look like a completely different animal. It will be a shame not to hear the noise, being there in person and witnessing it, as I'm sure everyone here has, is something that the television does not prepare you for or remotely do it justice.

We'll all look back with rose tinted glasses at the V8s as we do with the turbo powered monsters of years gone by. It will give us another reason to say "back in my day...". But, it will be the start of a new era, and I'm sure we'll all embrace it, because lets face it, we're all addicted! Personally, I get the change and I realise how important it is, I'm a little excited too. Shame about the wait. This is going to be one hell of a thread by 2013!

[xpensive]

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwbqRcKFyL4

[alelanza]

Overall we're going to be seeing the same performance that we are seeing now. What is the overriding strong argument against these engines? Can someone please enlighten me, because I'm finding it very difficult to see what the problem people have, aside from these engines are apparently not "man" enough for the sport or the engines wont be loud enough.

Well, since the V8s are what we currently have, i think the question should go the other way around. To semi quote you, what is the overriding strong argument for these engines?
I respect that the engine makers expect more bang for their marketing buck, they have to make money after all. But they could achieve similar objectives wasting a lot less resources with the current machinery, and isn't that what the green lobby wants?