2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[hecti]

Will the new 1.5L I4 TC 120L per race against 2.4L V8 NA 150L work for 2013 racing

Nope, not fair i think... the problem is your giving the v8 30 more liters of energy, not just gasoline...
You would have to give the same amount of gas (energy) inorder for competition to be fair, thus the only way to adjust "fairness" would be engine size, or air intake of the turbo engine

[WhiteBlue]

Will the new 1.5L I4 TC 120L per race against 2.4L V8 NA 150L work for 2013 racing

Nope, not fair i think... the problem is your giving the v8 30 more liters of energy, not just gasoline...
You would have to give the same amount of gas (energy) inorder for competition to be fair, thus the only way to adjust "fairness" would be engine size, or air intake of the turbo engine

There is no way that the V8 can compete with the turbo engine if they drop the fuel available by 35% as planned. On top the V8 would have a big problem to accomodate the huge KERS systems which is supposed to store four times the capacity they use today. The engine would be too heavy and to big to fit the system comfortably.

If they are looking for a compromise they should look at keeping all the rules excecpt for a small adjustment in the engine config. They could use a W5 for example. You would still only have one block and a very compact engine. But this would need a compromise on cost control as well. Ferrari must agree to resource restrictions so that Cosworth Renault and Mercedes are sure they are not outspent in a cost race they cannot sustain or do not want to engage in.

[WhiteBlue]

According to Haug there will be a last minute compromise attempt and I can imagine a W5 as a technical compromise. It is not significantly different to an I4 in characteristics but has more cylinders. It is definitely not a V5 because it will only have one bank of cylinders by design. But what do I know about the vagaries of the F1 decision making? Nobody will be able to predict tomorrows outcome.

[hecti]

O mama, someone is definetly backtracking now, from I4 to V5, step is not a big one to this, is it now?

According to Haug there will be a last minute compromise attempt and I can imagine a W5 as a technical compromise. It is not significantly different to an I4 in characteristics but has more cylinders. It is definitely not a V5 because it will only have one bank of cylinders by design. But what do I know about the vagaries of the F1 decision making? Nobody will be able to predict tomorrows outcome.

where did your proposed W5 idea come from?? Your idea or a source?? Sometimes the things you say......

[andrew]

Here's a question and my bad if it has already been asked.

Why don't they just stick with the current engine format?

[WhiteBlue]

O mama, someone is definetly backtracking now, from I4 to V5, step is not a big one to this, is it now?

According to Haug there will be a last minute compromise attempt and I can imagine a W5 as a technical compromise. It is not significantly different to an I4 in characteristics but has more cylinders. It is definitely not a V5 because it will only have one bank of cylinders by design. But what do I know about the vagaries of the F1 decision making? Nobody will be able to predict tomorrows outcome.

where did your proposed W5 idea come from?? Your idea or a source?? Sometimes the things you say......

It is obviously my idea if you read what I wrote.

Here's a question and my bad if it has already been asked.

Why don't they just stick with the current engine format?

It is obvious that the V8s are not meeting the FiA objectives and not the objectives of the engine manufcturers either. That is well known since the engine working group debate of 2010.

[Steven]

I have just spent 2 full hours trying to clean up this thread. Beware of any further off-topic comments, as they could magically disappear...

[djos]

I'll tell you what's funny for all you people. He's talking about the BMW M12. Which was, and read this carefully, a 1.5L 4 cylinder turbo.

The only problem I have with the current regs is that they're going to limit the actually ICE component of the powertrain to about 600bhp. Under the guise of costs, reliability and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M12

I dont mind a small turbo, what mind is a strangled I4, id prefer a V6 with fewer restrictions!

[WhiteBlue]

I'll tell you what's funny for all you people. He's talking about the BMW M12. Which was, and read this carefully, a 1.5L 4 cylinder turbo.

The only problem I have with the current regs is that they're going to limit the actually ICE component of the powertrain to about 600bhp. Under the guise of costs, reliability and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M12

I dont mind a small turbo, what mind is a strangled I4, id prefer a V6 with fewer restrictions!

Nobody knows how the PTB will sort out the current mess, but there is hope that a compromise will be found.

After all Ferrari and Bernie are not against better engines. They require F1 to submit to their marketing requirements, which is not the same as the dominance of efficient engines. Perhaps there can be compromise to raise the cylinder count and displacement vs accepting the principle that the most fuel efficient engine will win. Time will tell.

[djos]

Nobody knows how the PTB will sort out the current mess, but there is hope that a compromise will be found.

After all Ferrari and Bernie are not against better engines. They require F1 to submit to their marketing requirements, which is not the same as the dominance of efficient engines. Perhaps there can be compromise to raise the cylinder count and displacement vs accepting the principle that the most fuel efficient engine will win. Time will tell.

They dont need to be bigger, the Honda RA168-E from the Mclaren MP4/4 was only 1.5ltrs and was a brilliant small capacity engine.

Edit: not to mention the FW11B from '87 with the Honda RA167-E and 740+ KW of power! (4.0bar boost, in '88 it was 2.5bar boost)

[hecti]

to be honest a W5 doesnt seem that bad an idea, as long as they are at least 2 liters and extremely high revving, might sound almost like the beastly v10

[alelanza]

Here's a question and my bad if it has already been asked.

Why don't they just stick with the current engine format?

Because for the 'non technically inclined' a V8 is synonymous of waste and an I4 is synonymous of efficiency and political correctness. So if you want to send a message, you have to abide by such popular notions, otherwise you significantly narrow down your scope

We have been using the same damm engines since 2006, HP has reduced from 800 to 750 hp. If you do not call that stagnant, it defiantly is not progress.

I don't call it stagnant, i call it regulation, as that's what the regulations tell you when you read them

F1 for the past few years has turned out to be the same car with a different body kit every year. If this goes on people who have been following F1 from 80's and 90's are going to turn away.

I've followed it since the 90s, and as a kid i have decent notions from the 80s, and believe me, the second part of the 2000's is one of the golden eras. If your impression of the evolutions we've seen throughout the past years is simply 'body kits' then you have not been following close enough. Again, it's not just the engines, and it's not just change for the sake of change. From the footage i've seen the 70s were great, and other than Ferrari all the good teams were on the same engine with small improvements for over a decade, think about that.

[Pingguest]

That is not correct in my view. The proposed F1 engine is based on the same block as other GRE engines would be, but it would not follow the additional restrictions for lower classes, where a lot more technical restrictions are set to make the concept very affordable to engine tuners and manufacturers alike. F1 is not in the same situation as some series that can only afford engines cost of some €100k per annum. They can easily absorb several million which leads to a wider technical scope than the GRE concept offers. To me the choice to use the same type of block makes sense as more manufacturers will be attracted over the long run and it is a very efficient concept.

Indeed, with the GRE-concept manufactures wouldn't have to manufacture one specific, homologated engine for all racing series, but to design one basic, homologated engine block with allowed modifications varying from series to series. Baretzky gave the example of allowing turbochargers in Formula 1, while banning those modifications in Formula 3.

The analysis about the F1 participants is correct but the conclusion is somewhat short sighted. F1 has always had restrictions on engine configurations since the first Concord agreement in 1981.

We live in different times now. The public demand has changed and stakeholders have varying interests. One blueprint doesn't seem the right answer any more. Therefore no longer one specific engine configuration should be mandated.
One could argue that such would cause a spending race. I disagree for a number of reasons. First, throughout Formula 1's history and specifically the recent past it was proven that success can't be bought. Second, with well written regulations there wouldn't be an absolute point of perfection and manufacturing a race-winning car wouldn't be a matter of on-going development with all resources available, but a matter of human instincts and strategy. Allowing any engine configuration would fit. It would a repeat of what was accidentally and to some extent achieved in the early-1980's, when teams had to choose between engine power or downforce created by the underbody.
Of course, with regulations providing an absolute point of perfection an enforced budget and/or resource restriction could prevent a spending race. However, this would be just another restriction. A restriction which would be undesirable and against the spirit of the series.

I don't agree with that view. We have sports cars for closed wheels. F1 should remain open wheel and open cockpit. The proper answer is to pursue a low drag, ground effect using, open wheel chassis as proposed by the FiA expert group for 2013. It is a shame that this plan was shot down by the teams because they fear that it will shake up the current performance order. Active aero, active suspension and AWD is something that I agree with.

I find this reasonable and defensible. But if Formula 1 is to stay an open-wheel series, regarding aerodynamics the sport is never going to be relevant. If aerodynamics are not to be made more relevant, it wouldn't make any sense to allow teams to develop active aero, which would also be irrelevant to due Formula 1's open-wheel characteristic.

[andrew]

Here's a question and my bad if it has already been asked.

Why don't they just stick with the current engine format?

Because for the 'non technically inclined' a V8 is synonymous of waste and an I4 is synonymous of efficiency and political correctness. So if you want to send a message, you have to abide by such popular notions, otherwise you significantly narrow down your scope.

Thanks Alelanza. Is it not possible to improve the efficiency of the V8 or has these been taken as far as they can be? Just seems that developing a new engine format is maybe not the best use of resources if there is still scope for improving the V8.

[xpensive]

The problem is that the ICE has a natural limit for its efficiency, turboed or not, 60-80 % of the fuel's energy content of will always be wasted, no matter how much the Greenpeacish do-gooder dilettants cut or slice it.

If there was a magic potion to recover the approximately 2/3rds of energy lost through xhaust and cooling, Toyota would have found it long time ago, correct Don?

Imposing new engine-formulas in F1 to chase a percentage or two with a green agenda is simply futile.