2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

Well WB, a few weeks ago it was set in stone, would certainly run for 2013 and the engine supplies where already deep into the development process. Tow out of these three are not true. It's only the third in need to fail now.

To me they are fading out the concept. And thet will try to make us forget it...

That's rubbish if you allow me this personal opinion. I have never said that the engines are not going to be delayed, although I still think they will not be. This fax vote is just sugar coating to demonstrate that the FiA is listening to all sides.

MrT has already suggested that he's prepared to bargain on the date of introduction for the I4 turbo, which I'm sure he will have to, when there's no way in the world that Cosworth will find the money to develop the engine with all those gizmos, when they can't afford to develop an EBD?

I think you got that a bit wrong. Cosworth, Mercedes, Renault and FOTA have always said that they will have a estricted development budget. There are plenty of quotes for those intentions. What we see here is Ferrari blocking the respective resource restriction agreement in order to cause the other manufacturers problems and blackmail them away from the agreed engine format. I do not believe for a moment that Cosworth have a problem to deliver a competitive engine to 2013 spec if the budget talks are finalised in a sensible way. That will probably happen in four weeks time when we know the outcome of the WMSC decision.

You bring the Caterham to the first race in 2013 WB, if they have four-banger turbos then, I'll grind the thing to granulate myself and flush it down with Weissbier.

Nice try at a cop out. Your confidence is crumbling, isn't it?

[Belatti]

And why the 660 Kg min?
Whats wrong with lightness?

[WhiteBlue]

Does sb know how fast did the 80s turbos rev? 12000 seems too low for F1 to me.

The 1983 BMW I4 had a torque peak at 8500 and peak power of 600 hp at 9500.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/71/B ... 2-BMW.html

[Alexpcenteno]

Has FIA mentioned anything about boost limitation on the turbos?

[xpensive]

Well WB, a few weeks ago it was set in stone, would certainly run for 2013 and the engine supplies where already deep into the development process. Tow out of these three are not true. It's only the third in need to fail now.

To me they are fading out the concept. And thet will try to make us forget it...

That's rubbish if you allow me this personal opinion. I have never said that the engines are not going to be delayed, although I still think they will not be. This fax vote is just sugar coating to demonstrate that the FiA is listening to all sides.

I think we all know that you often have facts confused with your personal opinion and that you equally often turn your coat to suit reality WB, if I'm allowed to voice my personal opinion without having it branded "rubbish" by yourself?

Signs are there that this race is already run, that we are not going to see any four-bangers with all sorts of politically correct gizmos in 2013, there's simply no interest any more for that kind of xpenditure or even concept, not from anyone.

I think this is just a charade to save MrT's face, he has already mentioned an equivelance formula and what not, while I believe he is scrambling to cook up some sort of smokescreen for June 30th, in order to cloak his defeat and humiliation.

Going against Ferrari, MrE and the only independent engine supplier, I don't think so.

[donskar]

Don't want to contribute to the "rubbish" flying about, but a few thoughts:

The turbo 4 will certainly cost much more to design, build, develop, race, and maintain than continuing with the current engine or some formula based on the current engine. So the cost reduction mantra of F1 goes right out the window.

No one wants their name on an uncompetitive engine, so it is naive to assume that any organization will go for the most economical solution. Once dyno numbers begin to appear in the press, those with lower power numbers WILL do all they can and spend all they must to be competitive. That is human nature and (I hope) the nature of F1.

2.4 liters is not large by current standards. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda -- all have 4 cylinder engine of that capacity or larger. If someone in power really wanted to be "green" and economical, the FIA would impose a series of "stepped" fuel restrictions -- for example, 5% less fuel in 2013, another 5% less in 2014, etc. That would achive the PR goal and cost less.

"PR goal:" It's all a sham anyway. Tiny F1 engine development teams will not create more efficient engines or technology than auto industry giants. (Just to cite one example I'm familiar with: Toyota's R&D budget -- much of it allocated to fuel saving technology -- is $1 million dollars per hour, 365 x 24.) Do you REALLY believe F1 teams will be able to do better? And bottom line: we all know that F1 cars make a tiny contribution to fuel use/pollution.

[rjsa]

That's rubbish if you allow me this personal opinion. I have never said that the engines are not going to be delayed, although I still think they will not be. This fax vote is just sugar coating to demonstrate that the FiA is listening to all sides.

Oh yes you said, you also said you had knowledge that the engines where being developed already and that this harsh talk about the L4 was Bernie's move to accomplish something from the new concord agreement.

But we will now all that for sure in 26 days now.

But he sole fact that we have a new deadlin to decide what was decided alreay is a great tell tale.

[agip]

F1's revenues set to double in next five years

This comes to my mind when someone mention the word 'costs'.

[strad]

The new engines that will supposedly happen in 2013 will be 15% more efficient.

That means they will do 5.1 mpg instead of 3.8 mpg.

[xpensive]

I'm not sure how you got those figures strad, but if you begin with 3.8 mpg, or 61.7 liter/100 km, a 15% improvement would mean 4.37 mpg, or 53.6 liter/100 km?

If we go with the 4.37 mpg and assume a 30% efficiency of the engine, 34.2 MJ of energy per liter and an average speed of 200 km/h, 1 km covered in 18 sec, it means the engine would deliver an average output of 416 Hp, which seems reasonable.

If you use that kinda power, it will cost you.

And as a response to the question below, the answer is no, track layout doesn't matter whatsoever.

[HampusA]

The new engines that will supposedly happen in 2013 will be 15% more efficient.

That means they will do 5.1 mpg instead of 3.8 mpg.

Surely how much gas an engine uses comes down to track layout?
Or where did you get that number?

[WhiteBlue]

There is an official figure of a 35% fuel reduction in 2013 which is supposed to be achieved by the engine and a more efficient chassis with reduced drag. We have discussed the efficiency of the old engines and most people place them at 29-30%.

There is also semi official confirmation that the new engines will have in excess of 800 hp on a permanent basis including all recovery systems and that push to pass KERS will be abolished in favor of a duel torque system. If you consider all of this one can say that the 2011 and the 2013 power output including recovery would be very similar if not equal.

Based on those figures the fuel reduction would translate into a 12-13% improvement of the efficiency. Based on that thinking I would expect the engines to have an efficiency of 42% which isn't all bad for a reciprocating mobile power unit. IMO it would be a huge break through for F1 to make such a step and it would put F1 cars into the same league as some of the best commercial vehicles.

The turbo 4 will certainly cost much more to design, build, develop, race, and maintain than continuing with the current engine or some formula based on the current engine. So the cost reduction mantra of F1 goes right out the window.

If someone in power really wanted to be "green" and economical, the FIA would impose a series of "stepped" fuel restrictions -- for example, 5% less fuel in 2013, another 5% less in 2014, etc. That would achive the PR goal and cost less.

A new design will always be an investment that will pay off over a number of years. For the new engines to pay off the manufacturers will have to agree to development cost restrictions as the chassis makers do. They have already principally agreed to do this in last year's Singapore meeting of the FOTA as reported by Martin Whitmarsh and other sources. By comparing the official fuel saving and efficiency targets with your proposal you will see that the old engines cannot even come near an efficiency that will be achieved by the new breed. So everybody can easily see why it would not make any sense to take that approach.

If you want to express that in milage you have to look at 180L of petrol for a 300 km race today which translates into 60L/100km (3.92 mpg). In 2013 this will go down to 39L/100km (6.03 mpg). This is not impressive by road car standards but it will at least start to approach what LMP1 cars do today. Mind you LMP1 will still be much better than F1 but F1 would not look quite so ridiculous.

[agf1]

By the way. Are we also going to have V4 and Flat-4 engines? Or only I4. If we do have it would be very interesting.

[xpensive]

...
Based on those figures the fuel reduction would translate into a 12-13% improvement of the efficiency. Based on that thinking I would expect the engines to have an efficiency of 42% which isn't all bad for a reciprocating mobile power unit. IMO it would be a huge break through for F1 to make such a step and it would put F1 cars into the same league as some of the best commercial vehicles.
...
If you want to express that in milage you have to look at 180L of petrol for a 300 km race today which translates into 60L/100km (3.92 mpg). In 2013 this will go down to 39L/100km (6.03 mpg). This is not impressive by road car standards but it will at least start to approach what LMP1 cars do today. Mind you LMP1 will still be much better than F1 but F1 would not look quite so ridiculous.

42% sounds might precise, it would be interesting to learn how you arrived at such a definite number WB?

Anyway, If we go with the 39 liters/100 km and assume your 42% efficiency of the engine, 34.2 MJ of energy per liter and an average speed of 200 km/h, 1 km covered in 18 sec, it means the engine would deliver an average output of 423 Hp, which is almost xactly my number calculated above?

Pure coinsidence of course?

[tikavi]

(...)
If you want to express that in milage you have to look at 180L of petrol for a 300 km race today which translates into 60L/100km (3.92 mpg). In 2013 this will go down to 39L/100km (6.03 mpg). This is not impressive by road car standards but it will at least start to approach what LMP1 cars do today. Mind you LMP1 will still be much better than F1 but F1 would not look quite so ridiculous.

It is, try to push 1.6l 100bhp car to it's limit, and you'll see... 30l/100km,
for example my little Ford Escort 1.6i (90bhp) on the racetrack burned about 28l/100km. You don't want to know how much fuel eaten my friend's IS200(2.0 R6 155bhp).