2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[djos]

Personally I just think i4's are shite and boring, I only own one for economic reasons, all my favourite race series use V8's!

If they have go to small turbo's a least they should be V6's like back in the turbo hey days and make them more fun with the 1 engine per weekend rule coming back - make them cheap and massively powerful with no crazy materials etc so hey fit within the current engine supply cost rules.

[Pierce89]

Personally I just think i4's are shite and boring, I only own one for economic reasons, all my favourite race series use V8's!

If they have go to small turbo's a least they should be V6's like back in the turbo hey days and make them more fun with the 1 engine per weekend rule coming back - make them cheap and massively powerful with no crazy materials etc so hey fit within the current engine supply cost rules.

thank you!! finally someone saying th same thing as I am. 1.6L is fine. The problem comes in mandating an I4 . At least allow V enginges for fully stressed mounting even if it's a frekin' V4

[Pierce89]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yQQiVw ... r_embedded[/youtube]

I cant believe that people want to be stuck with the current engines for ever and ever.
Essence of F1 is seeing new thing ever race, other than that it is just as any other racing series.

No ground effects
Standard tyres
Same aero every year

Now they want to keep the same engine with no scope of moving forward because of the noise. How lame is F1 now

not nearly as lame as it would be with a mandated inline four cylinder. I have a turbocharged inline four in my 1985 Toyota PICKUP TRUCK. My 1985 TOYOTA PICKUP TRUCK will have F1 relevance in 2013. Wow!! Oh and in case anyone misunderstood I wrote 1985 not 1995.

We're going Back to the Future.

[djos]

thank you!! finally someone saying th same thing as I am. 1.6L is fine. The problem comes in mandating an I4 . At least allow V enginges for fully stressed mounting even if it's a frekin' V4

Not to mention that there is absolutely nothing even remotely aspirational about a 1.6ltr I4 !!!!

[agip]

I don't like the idea of mandatory configuration, but thats out of discussion because of costs.

I would also prefer a V6 Turbo--they sound way different to I4 Turbo.

BUT, if the only options are I4 vs FROZEN V8, give me the first one and bring back engine wars.

[riff_raff]

Regardless of what engine configuration (in-line or vee) is finally settled on, you can't compare a modern turbocharged engine to those that were last used almost 20 years ago in F1. The turbochargers, fuel injection, ignition, and digital controls/software are all light years ahead of what F1 used back then.

As for cost, since the FIA mandated the 18,000rpm limit, how often do you now see a car retire due to engine failure? Almost never. Back in the late '80s, when Honda, Ferrari, Cosworth, Porsche, etc. all ran turbocharged V6's, engine failures in qualifying and in the race were commonplace.

I much prefer the current state of affairs in F1, where mechanical DNF's are much less common.

[Jeffsvilleusa]

...
BUT, if the only options are I4 vs FROZEN V8, give me the first one and bring back engine wars.

If I remember correctly, the new engines are not gonna be open to develop, but they are gonna be homologated and frozen from the get go to keep costs down.

[WhiteBlue]

AFAIK there will be some annual development scope but it requires an agreement on resource or budget limitation.

I can't understand this maniac conservatism and fixation on big displacement and natural aspiration. Those engine are boring and antiquated. All modern engines are turbo charged and super efficient. It is the future of ICE technology.

If you want many cylinders and big displacement the Autounion cars from 1936 had plenty of that. Seventy five years later engineering has moved on and F1 should face the challenges of modern times.

I think it is pointless to compare engines only by configuration and neglect the technology that is employed. From this point of view the new 2013 turbo engines will be the most advanced that F1 has fielded for a long time.

To disregard the engineering side for nostalgia seems strange for a technical forum. Here we are getting the opportunity to really enjoy the pinnacle of ICE development and people want the old frozen gas guzzlers for emotional reasons. I can't understand it.

Le Mans is demonstrating the trend to downsized modern engines and it is pretty exciting to watch Audi and Peugeot have a go at it. They are cranking out new engines every year and are getting more sophisticated with every step of efficiency. F1 should really take a leave out of their book.

Audi has just demonstrated with their V6 racing Diesel that fewer cylinders can generate higher performance than a V8. Turbocharged engines do not need big displacement and many cylinders for superior performance. People should stop thinking with their guts and start to use their brain. Whatever is better in terms of efficiency should be adopted. It is the natural choice of the engineer.

[djos]

I can't understand this maniac conservatism and fixation on big displacement and natural aspiration. Those engine are boring and antiquated. All modern engines are turbo charged and super efficient. It is the future of ICE technology.

WB, 2.4ltr's is hardly "big displacement" when for less than $70k AUD I can have a Falcon GT Sports Sedan powered by a 5.0ltr Quad cam Supercharged 335kw V8 from Ford Australia and from GM I can have a 6.0ltr NatMo V8 with only about 20kw less power.

[Pierce89]

AFAIK there will be some annual development scope but it requires an agreement on resource or budget limitation.

I can't understand this maniac conservatism and fixation on big displacement and natural aspiration. Those engine are boring and antiquated. All modern engines are turbo charged and super efficient. It is the future of ICE technology.

If you want many cylinders and big displacement the Autounion cars from 1936 had plenty of that. Seventy five years later engineering has moved on and F1 should face the challenges of modern times.

I think it is pointless to compare engines only by configuration and neglect the technology that is employed. From this point of view the new 2013 turbo engines will be the most advanced that F1 has fielded for a long time.

To disregard the engineering side for nostalgia seems strange for a technical forum. Here we are getting the opportunity to really enjoy the pinnacle of ICE development and people want the old frozen gas guzzlers for emotional reasons. I can't understand it.

Le Mans is demonstrating the trend to downsized modern engines and it is pretty exciting to watch Audi and Peugeot have a go at it. They are cranking out new engines every year and are getting more sophisticated with every step of efficiency. F1 should really take a leave out of their book.

Audi has just demonstrated with their V6 racing Diesel that fewer cylinders can generate higher performance than a V8. Turbocharged engines do not need big displacement and many cylinders for superior performance. People should stop thinking with their guts and start to use their brain. Whatever is better in terms of efficiency should be adopted. It is the natural choice of the engineer.

I don't think anyone requires massive displacement. My main problem is the engine is mandated to be an I4. Why not allow a V4 for fully stressed mounting or opening up the number of cylinders. There is nothing aspirational about an I4, seriously, even with a turbo. The one thing F1 has always been is exotic. Thats what I've been on about. I4's are VANILLA. I know the current frozen motors have also become vanilla, but only compared to other F1 motors.

[xpensive]

...
I can't understand this maniac conservatism and fixation on big displacement and natural aspiration. Those engine are boring and antiquated. All modern engines are turbo charged and super efficient. It is the future of ICE technology.
...

And this your opinion, have of course nothing whatsoever to do with BMW's new-found interest in turbo-tecnology?

...
Audi has just demonstrated with their V6 racing Diesel that fewer cylinders can generate higher performance than a V8. Turbocharged engines do not need big displacement and many cylinders for superior performance.
...

Nothing strange or new with that, power comes from displacement, rpm and inlet pressure, nothing else, pick and choose.

...
People should stop thinking with their guts and start to use their brain. Whatever is better in terms of efficiency should be adopted. It is the natural choice of the engineer.

Xactly why the engineers should be liberated to think for themselves, not be led by decisions from technical dilettants within the FIA, neither MrT or MrM has the faintest idea of what they're talking about when it comes to energy efficiency.

[noname]

Audi has just demonstrated with their V6 racing Diesel that fewer cylinders can generate higher performance than a V8. Turbocharged engines do not need big displacement and many cylinders for superior performance.

The outcome of the race, especially such a long one, is decided by more factors than the engine performance.

Also so far you were advocating here efficiency, not performance, and Peugeot's V8 (although also turbocharged) is, actually, better in this area than Audi's V6. There are few really interesting features of the French's powerplant making it, in my opinion, more interesting than the German's one.

Performance-wise these engines are quite equal, even if it's achieved in a different ways.

[autogyro]

The regulations for the inline four are primarily to establish the best unit
for efficiency and to prevent a cost war.
IMHO, if the engine was left open and Ferrari and others spent a huge amount
developing multi cylinder engines within them, there would be one result.
They would lose.

[WhiteBlue]

neither MrT or MrM has the faintest idea of what they're talking about when it comes to energy efficiency.

Lol, you are a joker, X. Todt managed multiple championships by being clueless about engine technology? Pull another one, man!

[hecti]

WB, why do you seem to defend the I-4 so much? Just saying that you seem to be really defending the new formula to the death... And, if you could choose any engine formula from F1 past to implement in 2013, what would it be? And, if turbo I-4 engines end up getting canned (which i am really hoping happens) would you like to see turbines powering the cars?

Thanks