747heavy wrote:the more interesting question is perhaps:
How would you "force" them to run at 16000pm?, as with free boost limits and only a fuelflow limit, I´can´t see that someone ever would want to run this high rpm´s, as you can make the power lower down.
I was allready hard pressed to see, why engine designers would want to run 12000 rpm in the first place, given the sketchy frameworks which where mentioned. (fuelflow limit, total fuelcap, single turbo 12k or now maybe 16k pm).
I think, if they really want them to rev this high, some serious boost limit´s or an rpm dependent fuel flow limit is needed, to go there. IMHO
The potential liberation to 16,000 rpm has initially no technical meaning if they keep to the fuel flow limit, which I fully expect the FiA to insist on. It was already confirmed that the fuel limit will not be increased due to the V6 decision. It will be kept as low as set for the I4 in order to cut fuel expenditure to 65% of the 2011 use (of 180L). Long term the rpm liberation would trigger an arms race for faster direct injection systems which run higher rpms at the same efficiency. This isn't a problem for the FIA and the ecological side, but it may constitute a problem for Cosworth who will not profit from the technology as Merc and Ferrari will do. They can only use it in a hand full of racing engines. The manufacturers can use it with millions of cars and secretly use funds of their road car divisions to push the technology. I think this is the reason why the FiA and the working group has put a stop to it.
andrew wrote:So it wasn't Ferrari that caused the rethink on the engine format and timing? Oh dear.
That is wishful thinking IMO. Neywey has a vested interest that the formula stays aerodynamically close to what he knows best and excels at the moment. Ulrich Baretzky has said it clearly that an I4 can be easily made as rigid as you like it without using a full subframe. You can go semi stressed like the FBMW cars with just a pair of reinforcing rods or you can add the necessary ribbing and webbing in a CAD design.
But if the whole aero and packaging game changes by employing either the slimmer and higher I4 or by ground effect and tunnel use Newey is out again in the open with the other teams to find new solutions. Traditionally the leading teams have always opposed fundamental change. It is no different with Red Bull. They would shoot themselves in the foot if they would not lobby to keep the advantage they have now. So its no surprise that Red Bull prefer a known configuration.