2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[munudeges]

The myth about the the I4 being unfit in a stressed engine design has been debunked many times. Just go back a few pages where you find several examples to the contrary.

No it is not a myth. The structure and layout of an inline simply does not lend itself to that kind of configuration, and what was pointed out several pages back is that there is always some kind of strengthening or cradling required over a V.

Claiming that being stressed or unstressed doesn't matter, as you did a few pages back, simply doesn't help the case. In Formula 1 a stressed engine block was shown to be the way to go over forty years ago.

[FW17]

The myth about the the I4 being unfit in a stressed engine design has been debunked many times. Just go back a few pages where you find several examples to the contrary.

No it is not a myth. The structure and layout of an inline simply does not lend itself to that kind of configuration, and what was pointed out several pages back is that there is always some kind of strengthening or cradling required over a V.

Claiming that being stressed or unstressed doesn't matter, as you did a few pages back, simply doesn't help the case. In Formula 1 a stressed engine block was shown to be the way to go over forty years ago.

NOT TRUE.

A structural member can be designed to be in any shape so does not matter if it is a V or I

In terms of packaging a V is always better nut does not offer any particular advantage on structural strength.

A stressed engine may have been around since the 60's but non stressed engines were winning races even in the 80's

[munudeges]

The shape of the engine simply does lend itself to better structural strength, like it or lump it. Whether races were won in the eighties with non-stressed engines is also irrelevant. You always end up coming back to the best solution, and no one would dream of going back now.

[andrew]

For those who never pay attention I will explain it all again....

Accept my apologies, but when the mindless and baseless Ferrari bashing begins I tend to doze off. Can you provide any evidence (not claims or opinions but confirmed and undeniable fact) to confirm that Ferrari alone are behind the decision to go with a V6 format?

I hardly need to bring any more evidence than Montezemolo's own words. He said he would fight the I4 with all he has and he was true to that word. Haug has said it often enough in the past that Merc would support the FiA in the I4 plan because the result of the working group was achieved with Mercedes input. He supported the 2013 engine plan until it became clear that there would not be a cost agreement unless Ferraris wishes were bowed to. You do not expect anybody in F1 to spell it out any clearer, do you? Just read the respective quotes and you know very well what went on.

Mindless Ferrari bashing is hopefully not directed at me or I would need to involve the moderators. I have good reasons not to be fond of Ferrari and Montezemolo. None of them are mindless. This story simply adds another nail in the coffin.

So empty claims then? Your default position is to immediately attack Ferrari when the fact is that all the teams and manufacturers were involved in the decsion making process. Ferrari voiced an opinion and the FIA thought it was worthy of accepting that opinion. I think Xpensives post outlining that MrE, Montezuma, Mercedes are not keen and chassis builders don't like the lack of lateral stiffness and Cosworth don't have the cash for the investment is the true story.

To say that this adds a nail in the coffin of F1 is over dramatic. The world will keep on turning, false accusations will be aimed at Ferrari and F1 will keep on going. In the grand scheme of life, it has little impact.

[bot6]

Whoever had the idea, it doesn't matter. A V6 is way "sexier" an option for F1 than an I4. And yes, the block has more lateral stiffness, just because a V6 block has a wider cross section than an I4 (unless you put the cylinders transversely but somehow I doubt they would). It's just better for F1 than the I4.

So if it's because of Ferrari, good. If it's because of someone else, good too. If it's because of everyone and therefore everyone is happy, even better.

=D>

[PlatinumZealot]

I think the 4 cylinder is more expensive to develop since it is all new, but it will be cheaper to manufacture in the long run because it has less parts.

The V6 is cheaper to develop since you can chop off two cylinders from the V8 and adjust wall thickness and material etc. No need to make new mounting points etc. But, since it has more parts it will be more expensive to manufacture.

The V6 is also shorter, in theory at least.

I hope the rules allow the manufacturers free reign in where to mount the tubo charger and exhaust intake etc.

Also, it's titillating whether BMW would return to make a V6. BMW has never ever made a V6.

[King Six]

So what kind of V angle are we expecting, I'm guessing that'll be heavily regulated...

[HampusA]

I think the 4 cylinder is more expensive to develop since it is all new, but it will be cheaper to manufacture in the long run because it has less parts.

The V6 is cheaper to develop since you can chop off two cylinders from the V8 and adjust wall thickness and material etc. No need to make new mounting points etc. But, since it has more parts it will be more expensive to manufacture.

The V6 is also shorter, in theory at least.

I hope the rules allow the manufacturers free reign in where to mount the tubo charger and exhaust intake etc.

Also, it's titillating whether BMW would return to make a V6. BMW has never ever made a V6.

I really hope they will announce something
But i was dissappointed to see the fixed engine layout.

why not let Straight 6´es, V6´es, Boxer 6´es compete and find out which works best for F1?

Porsche i´m sure would be interested in it.

[HampusA]

So what kind of V angle are we expecting, I'm guessing that'll be heavily regulated...

I don´t think angle will be regulated. More like CoG, weight etc.

So in a sense it will be regulated but not specified.

[Steven]

So what kind of V angle are we expecting, I'm guessing that'll be heavily regulated...

I don´t think angle will be regulated. More like CoG, weight etc.
So in a sense it will be regulated but not specified.

We have no knowledge of anything about the cylinder bank angle at all, so can we stop speculating and just note we don't know yet?

[Holm86]

So what kind of V angle are we expecting, I'm guessing that'll be heavily regulated...

I don´t think angle will be regulated. More like CoG, weight etc.

So in a sense it will be regulated but not specified.

Knowing FIA the bank angle will proably be regulated.
The bore is still regulated right?

[Giblet]

There is a new engine configuration coming in F1. It is going to be a smaller engine than currently used, and the teams have agreed it will be a V6.

Therefore, my country is superior to your country. Don't try to argue, I have numbers to back up my off topic claim, and I will waste a page on it.




Funny how the second paragraph doesn't seem to relate. That's how this thread reads. We try not to stroke our own egos too much, and ranting about your own countries perceived superiority is no different than ego stroking.

Please, stay on the topic of the engine itself.

[HampusA]

Has the FIA regulated the banking after the millenium?

So what kind of V angle are we expecting, I'm guessing that'll be heavily regulated...

I don´t think angle will be regulated. More like CoG, weight etc.
So in a sense it will be regulated but not specified.

We have no knowledge of anything about the cylinder bank angle at all, so can we stop speculating and just note we don't know yet?

Just voicing my opinion/thought that´s all..

[agip]

1600cc V6 sounds a bit weird to me. Maybe they'll change the capacity to 1500cc?

(1600cc)/(6cyl) = 266,666666666666666666667cc/cyl

[alelanza]

Why is that weird? unless you hate floating point lol. Would 1596 cc please you?