2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Dragonfly]

I still think limiting fuel consumption for the race for all and opening up all sorts of engines would be more interesting than this.

Yeah. I was going to write something similar. If they want to attract manufacturers (not a single one) they should open the area, apply upper limit on displacement and set a consumption limit too.
And leave the manufacturers decide what they feel is most suitable to them, their technological level and strategies.
If everyone builds a spec engine, everyone is going to spend separately a large sum for R&D basically for one and the same engine.
If may happen so that all technical departments will reach to one and the same scheme as most appropriate, be it even an inline 4. But let them justify the money they are going to spend. Maybe in the process they'll find something new and applicable to road car engines.

[rjsa]

That is not the issue here. We are talking power train from 2013 and not chassis. Please read Martin Whitmarsh, president of FOTA. In conjunction with the actual power train debate he confirms that F1 needs manufacturers and road relevant technologies as well as to show responsibility towards society (avoiding unecessary fuel wasting).

What part of F1 exactly is NOT fuel wasting? The 747 fleet? I thought this argument at least was over. The 500 liters of gas that would be saved wouldn't even light up the rolling private box castles during the european season.

http://formula1.about.com/od/paddocklif ... r-Home.htm

[xpensive]

[...]

Of all the marketing arguments for manufacturers spending their money on F1, I've actually never heard of the opportunity to showcase their fuel-efficiency as one of them? Renault should perhaps re-consider their involvement in F1, now when they seem to be all alone with their position, if that's their main objective and leave F1 to those with another marketing agenda?

Besides, I've never quite understood Renault's incentives for being in F1 in the first place, it's not like they are beheld as a performance brand anyway are they? Jaguar, BMW and even Toyota were more suited for F1 the way I see things.

[Pierce89]

The idea that that a single turbo I4 has a higher potential peak power than a twin turbo V6 to the same regs is incorrect. The V6 could run higher revs and higher boost, both because of the increased cylinder count. Not to mention it would sound and look much better. Also, don't try to claim the V6 couldn't run more boost. More cylinders at the same displacment spreads out the stress and pressure. Not to mention the higher revs from lighter pistons and con rods.

[...]

[Muulka]

Just wanted to say that the Mercs only used that body at Reims and Monza- everywhere else it ruined the handling and made them much less competitive. It mainly ran open-wheel. But your point still stands, just less so

[WhiteBlue]

That is one of you apple and banana comparisons. The open wheel formula is the tradition of F1. It goes back over decades and is in the DNA of the sport. Engines on the other hand have changed quite a lot over the decades of F1 and GP racing. One thing is a common theme that runs through the F1 history as a common identification. The engines have become smaller and and smaller as technology developed to higher fuel efficiency. So the quest for higher efficiency is also a valued tradition of F1. It shows how ignorant your argument is of the true history of F1. The GP championship was European in it's root and it should stay true to it's traditions. It is the American way to waste a lot of fuel with large and under developed engines. F1 should not follow that path.

This is not true. Engines got smaller and smaller on regulators' attempt to curb power. Nobody ever gave a damn about energy efficiency outside the fact that it would result in lighter cars when you couldn't refuel.

[...] Why do you think that the regulators had to cut displacement to curb power growth? Perhaps because the engines became more efficient over the years? So your point supports my argument.

[rjsa]

You make me laugh! Why do you think that the regulators had to cut displacement to curb power growth? Perhaps because the engines became more efficient over the years? So your point supports my argument.

I don't have numbers to counter or prove how more efficient the engines have become.

I know they got more powerful, and I can't tell how much fuel they where using in the process. And every time the rules changed it was changed to reduce power. And every time rhe RPM would increase and power would go along - and this I'm sure is not good for fuel efficiency.

Then the RPM war was cut short on costs grounds - NOT EFFICIENCY. Then the engine wars where cut altogether.

[autogyro]

A twin turbo V6 or anything other than a compound turbocharged I4,
can of course be made to produce higher peak power using high rpm etc.

The problem is, with a carefuly regulated fuel amount and fuel flow,
they will all run out of fuel before the end of the race.

Let them have their way I say, anything to show up Ferrari and the
out dated motor heads for what they are.

The biggest problem F1 has had to deal with since it began.

[rjsa]

Those you call motorheads are those who go to the track for the show, not the acronyms.

The motor heads pay the bill by going buying tickets and lending their eyes to see the ads during race broadcasts.

So the motor heads are not the problem, frustrating their expectations is.

[autogyro]

Those you call motorheads are those who go to the track for the show, not the anacronyms.

The motor heads pay the bill by going buying tickets and lending their eyes to see the ads during race broadcasts.

So the motor heads are not the problem, frustrating their expectations is.

They have exactly the same expectations as those in the past who wanted to retain
steam engines.
There will be a new up to date base of 'modern' F1 spectators, of that there is
no doubt.
I see Patrick Head retires the end of this year, I wonder why.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 43854.html

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 45640.html

Two interesting AMuS articles.

Summary: Bernie thinks the decision of the FIA world motor sport council in December 2010 was not done according to procedure of the Concord Agreement because the Technical Working Group and F1 Commission didn't vote on it and did not submit a proposal to the WMSC. Now he threatens legal action if that step isn't taken restrospectively.

He has called a commission meeting on Wednesday to vote on the issue. According to AMuS, the F1 Commission has following members: Bernie, Todt, 6 team representatives and 5 representatives of the race promoters. AMuS says all promoters are in Bernie's pocket, which I can believe. Ferrari will vote with Bernie, so according to AMuS he needs still one vote from one of the teams.

I don't think that is true because the F1 commission traditionally required a 70% majority to carry a motion. If that is still the case you would need nine votes. Bernie would need three votes from the six teams. If they have lowered the numbers to eight out of thirteen it would still be very much in FOTA's hands. The question is how the six team votes are determined. If they simply take the oldest competing and most successful teams you may have Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Renault, Red Bull and Mercedes voting. In that case McLaren and Merc may decide the outcome. I doubt that Williams will vote against the FiA (considering their published position) and Red Bull should be interested to keep Renault in F1. If the teams simply stall the motion the issue may be delegated to the civil courts which would create a royal mess.

I don't think that the reported position by Bernie is legally correct either. The FiA WMSC has a right to ask the F1 commission for legislation regarding certain issues of policy. This has been true in all concord agreements. It is well known that the FiA has asked the commission a long time ago to present a plan to cut the fuel consumption of race cars by 50% until 2013. That request has never been actioned by the F1 commission AFAIK. So under the usual CA rules the WMSC would be entitled to implement their own regulation.

One can only speculate and make informed guesses because nobody knows the exact wording of the 2009 CA, but I have the impression that this will come down to FOTA making a decision between FiA and FOM's objectives. In this case Ecclestone is still the guy they will have to fight to get what they want in 2013 and they will need Todt's help to get it.

[Jeffsvilleusa]

LOL, those roughly match the number of road relevant F1 cars, don't they? How many did you count? 2? The AU and the V6 ferrari?

Yeah, that is why I never liked KERS, because it is incorporated on the grounds that it is 'road car relevant,' but someone has pointed out elsewhere on this forum that R&D of these car manufacturers eclipses their F1 budgets- so what is the point? Reeks of a PR stunt.

IMO F1 has no obligation to be 'road car relevant,' because there are fundamental differences in purpose between race cars and road cars (talk about apples and bananas). Now if something comes along that is incidental, I applaud it: like paddle shifters or any of the other innovations. But to *require* innovation along the lines of road cars is to stifle the creativity of engineers and diminish from what F1 is about: HIGH PERFORMANCE CAR RACING.

This "relevancy requirement" is therefore unnecessary (if the R&D statistic I cited above is true), and causes F1 to reek of BS because all these convoluted regulations are supposedly pure in intent, but really manipulate viewer's perceptions to suit business agendas (more $$).

As pointed out before, we need to implement water-powered cars, boats, planes, etc. where the waste truly occurs: in daily travel (transport to and from races, shipping, etc.); and let F1 be F1.

[xpensive]

Those bitching about "road car relevant" should turn to DTM, BTCC or Nascar, F1 should not compete with that.

[hecti]

If f1 wants to be sexy, then they need a sexy engine...
look no further than this great piece of engineering beauty
(WB, please notice the 10 cylinders in a v arrangement, no scrawny 4 banger turbo here)



I would like nothing more than to see v10s and even v12s back in f1, maybe not 3.5 liters like this alfa unit but 2.4 (or even 2.5, 2.6, 2.7... just to change things a bit)

[350matt]

Blimey!

whens that from? Early 1980?