2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

There is no lack of bullshit in this thread. If there are no news the same old platitudes are cooked up again and again.

There are plenty of examples for stressed I4 engines in motor sport. I remember a Japanese F3 solution:



which can be directly copied to F1.

In two weeks time the dead line will be reached and we will know if the FiA WMSC will decide to delay the introduction. I still think they will stick to their guns. The physics of the new engines are unchanged and delaying the move to more efficient engines will not be of any help.

[Edis]

Most of the arguments against the I4 formula are ridiculous, if you ask me...

I4's can be fully stressed - look at formula atlantic. Those engines weren't even originally designed to be stressed, and they worked out fine with some simply modifications. There's no inherent restrictions of an I4 to being a stressed member.

I4's are not really any newer or older than any other configuration. All of them have been done to death in nearly as many forms as you can imagine. The guy complaining he has one in his '85 toyota pickup, well there's V8's in pickups from way before '85.

I4's can be just as exotic and high tech as any other engine in my opinion, but this is a pretty ephemeral argument in the first place. How about the Hayabusa? How about the WRX? How about the MIVEC Turbo 4b11? These engines will be high boost, anti-lag, direct injection, with both KERS and HERS and developed specifically for racing in one of the most extreme environments available.

As far as the sound goes... that's like a no argument to me... "I don't like how they sound"...

The only reason there's issues here is because we have a diverse group of manufacturers competing in F1. Some of them don't make V8's at all, some of them don't make I4's at all. Right now, Renault has very little technology trickle down, it's purely a marketing exercise - even BMW has had to adapt their power trains to more closely resemble and utilize the technology from the V8 programs.. V8 M3 anyone? The fact of the matter is, to stay relevant to real world technology, F1 needs to move away from V8. Plain and Simple.

The Atlantics aren't fully stressed. They run engine cradles to give the rigidity they need. I don't think the engines are even semi-stressed in the Atlantics.Besides that's the bottom rung of the ladder. Perfect place for an I4.

The engines are semi stressed, and from what I have seen, they don't appear to be using any sort of cradle, only reinforcement tubes. The valve cover and sump are designed to transfer the forces to the engine from the chassi. That is also the case with all LMP installations of inline engines I've seen. In the case of LMPs, semi stressed engines are common even with V engines due to the wide tub. Renaults wide angle F1 engine was also semi stressed.

The semi stressed inline six of the Aston Martin AMR-One

[WhiteBlue]

Although the Aston Martin I6 engine is a total failure - as predicted by Ulrich Baretzky - the method of using reinforcing bars for a semi stressed arrangement seems sensible. I see no reason why it should not be employed in F1 if it saves weight compared to the Japanese design shown above.

The main point is that I4 engines are perfectly suitable for the current stressed engine design of single seaters. The problem of the Aston engine are torsional stability and bending deflections of the crank shaft. That is caused by the bearing arrangement of such engines and it is compounded by the turbo charging of the engine which leads to high torque.

The I4 F1 engine has no such problems and delivers superior space economy and good packaging. The FBMW I4 engine btw. is also slightly reinforced with bars. It is fitted in a 90° layed down fashion and is taken from a K100 motorcycle. It is a very neat and compact design.



The pic was first posted by 747heavy in this thread.

[350matt]

Don't know if you've seen but Renault are digging their heels in

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92364

[Edis]

Although the Aston Martin I6 engine is a total failure - as predicted by Ulrich Baretzky - the method of using reinforcing bars for a semi stressed arrangement seems sensible. I see no reason why it should not be employed in F1 if it saves weight compared to the Japanese design shown above.

The main point is that I4 engines are perfectly suitable for the current stressed engine design of single seaters. The problem of the Aston engine are torsional stability and bending deflections of the crank shaft. That is caused by the bearing arrangement of such engines and it is compounded by the turbo charging of the engine which leads to high torque.

The I4 F1 engine has no such problems and delivers superior space economy and good packaging. The FBMW I4 engine btw. is also slightly reinforced with bars. It is fitted in a 90° layed down fashion and is taken from a K100 motorcycle. It is a very neat and compact design.



The pic was first posted by 747heavy in this thread.

The problem with the Aston Martin engine have been the cylinder bore coatings and some issues with the accessory drive. I would put that down to inadequate testing prior to racing (when the AMR-One got the green light, Audi was already track testing their car) and perhaps also a small budget. The fact that they replaced an aluminium pulley, which they found cracks in, with a steel item only seemed to make the problem worse.

Torsional vibrations are not caused by the bearing arrangement but by the torque production of the individual cylinders. All piston engines suffers from this problem. As one cylinder fires it produces torque which twist the crankshaft, after the power stroke the cylinder consumes torque which untwist the crankshaft. The stiffness of the crankshaft must be high enough to avoid resonance at operating speed. A torsional vibration damper can also be used to dampen the twisting motion. Torqional vibrations can also cause problems for the the cam and accessory drive.

[WhiteBlue]

Don't know if you've seen but Renault are digging their heels in

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92364

Here we go with the full quote of the Renault position:

Today we have not changed our mind. We have told Jean Todt and Bernie that we are pushing for the new engine because when we decided not to stop in F1, the three conditions were very clear for the Board. The first one was to change the technology of the engine to make it more relevant, to find a link between Formula 1 and the product. Secondly to reduce the costs, and thirdly to perform. We have halved the costs, we have performed with Red Bull Racing and with Renault, but the problem of the road relevance is a key point for us.

We know the story about Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Cosworth and we have a lot of meetings with the car makers, but for Renault today we not want to change our position. I told Bernie and Jean Todt that today we are in the 'red zone' because we have no idea what will be the future for Renault. We don't want to lose the capability to manage F1, but if we do not stick with the new regulations or if the regulations change, we are losing control of the situation - and then it becomes a problem with the board. Things are more difficult.

We want to understand who is managing the sport. The cost of Renault in F1 is around 100 million Euros and you cannot change direction just like that. We told Nissan what the future of F1 is like and we opened the door for Nissan and Infiniti to be in F1. [For them]it is a long term strategy it is not only branding for this year, but long term strategy. They were following Renault for the new engine and today we don't know where we are.

We don't want to have an open conflict. We don't want to use the media to open the conflict, but today we are in the red zone. The problem to delay is that in Renault if you say, okay, the new engine will arrive in 2015, then the credibility will be zero. That is a key point. When you are changing like that each day, you can explain to the board that in December the new engine will be like that, and the following November it is 2015. The key point is credibility - and, as I said, we are in the red zone. We have spent $10 million on the new engine, we have 20 people working in Renault - and can you imagine sending them back?

You can't say it any clearer. F1 will loose all credibility if they change a plan that was approved unanimously only last December. Autosport say that the issue will be voted in the F1 commission and it will likely need a unanimous vote of the commission to put the engine rules back to 2015. I don't believe that Bernie and Montezuma have a realistic chance to pull Renault over the table this time. The whole idea of Jean Todt for the additional vote to delay the engines to 2015 only makes sense if you consider it a tactic to use up the time to the dead line. As it looks now the turbo engines will come and Ferrari will have to agree to a sensible cost containment plan. It would be a good outcome IMO.

[350matt]

the main sticking point , at least it has been in the past is getting Ferrari to sign up to it, they seem to be dead set against it and they have had the casting vote in the past

as for F1 losing credibilty over a Technical about face , this has happened before , double diffsuers, F duct etc etc

watch with interest I'd say

kinda hoping its not I4 as its a not a nice configuration in engineering terms but I can see it happening

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/201 ... -rages-on/

pretty good article by Gordon Kirby

confirms that the talks over cost restrictions have broken down, which is the main concern for Cosworth and pushes them to support the delay option if nothing changes

Whitmarsh's position for FOTA is interesting. I think it is not a sensible solution to change for a V6 now unless they reimburse Renault for the money they have already spent on the I4.

I still think that F1 cannot change their decisions because one team blackmails all the others. I really despise Ferrari for the mess they have created with their effing politics.

[CMSMJ1]

If the only sticking point is the architecture of the motor - some want a V6 and some want an IL4 - then it is as obvious as the balls on a pig that you just have to say - OK....1.6l motors - IL4 or V6 engines...

There are benefits to both - IL4 will be more frugal, V6 will be smoother and possibly more powerful.

The solution seems too simple...

[FW17]

2L I6 on a AMR LMP1

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok9s8aEyv3w[/youtube]

[autogyro]

What point will there be in supporting F1,if Ferrari yet again force an issue
of this importance. They realy are being pathetic.

Already we are reading of the huge sponsorship deal Ferrari has just confirmed
with a 'cigarette' company.
Not only is this completely against public health issues, it also 'again' gives
Ferrari a completely unfair money advantage.

The I4 engine is the best choice for future development in energy saving.
This is the concept now being officialy followed as policy by the FIA.
If Ferrari changes or delays this, they might just as well let Ferrari take over
running world motor sport.

Get some guts Mr Todt.
If anyone knows what tricks Ferrari are up to you do.

Use your brains Mr Whitmarsh and not your ears, to many old motor heads are deaf
to the inevitable future in alternate technology and turbo V6s will delay it for everyone.

Try to think past News International Bernie and wake up to the new world.
If it makes you green, tough, you know it makes sense.

[WhiteBlue]

There are benefits to both - IL4 will be more frugal, V6 will be smoother and possibly more powerful.

The V6 will be less powerful, bigger and heavier than an I4 with a fuel restricted formula.

Oh my...I think someone is beginning to backtrack somewhat here, naaah...that cannot be?

Certainly not!

2L I6 on a AMR LMP1

beautiful sound and slow like a snail....

[donskar]

A most interesting article, WB. Thank you.

Some passages that caught my eye:

"Renault is the only enthusiastic supporter of the tiny turbo concept, which has failed to attract interest from new manufacturers. . . . everyone is worried about the costs of building and developing new engines."

Whitmarsh: "Unfortunately, with hindsight we got it wrong, because the intention of the 2013 formula was to see if we could attract more manufacturers.

“Plainly we didn’t, and we failed to do that . . . " Whitmarsh prefers a V6.

[djos]

" Whitmarsh prefers a V6.

As do most F1 fans I think! [-o<

[ringo]

White Blue why do you say the Aston Engine is a total failure?

How do you come to such a conclusion?

You idea about torsion and bending in the crank is also false.

Aside from that, then engine should just be a 3.0lt V10.