2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[ringo]

Wow, that Pitpass article has to rank as one imaginative piece of fiction.

But this entire engine saga is becoming a nightmare. The original reason to move away from the current 2.4 liter V-8 was to have an engine more in keeping with today's reality of less waste, and a greener future.

A smaller displacement inline 4 was selected as the basis moving forward, but some teams weren't happy with the setup, and in the end, after a lot of public complaining, we have this new V-6, a testament to the legacy of Todt, that of compromise.

On a side note, anyone remember how Max did business, by force and intimidation, it's quite a change in management style.

Anyhewwwww... so a V-6 was the final compromise. But at the RPM's it was supposed to run at, the sound just wouldn't be exciting. So to ramp up the "Bernie factor", make the engine sounds more exciting by increasing the revs.

And in the end, what started out as a cheaper and greener engine is now going to be exposed to lack of financial control (another spending war) and be much less environmentally friendly compared to what was intended.

well said. The engine is neither here nor there. It's an obscure formula. Not really green and not really extreme.

[PlatinumZealot]

Like a V6.. :-"
Like a V6.. :-"

[Fil]

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.

In other words, you're agreeing with Andrew. Last I saw, Newey's vested interests lay with Red Bull, not Ferrari.
So more than just Ferrari didn't want the i4.


It really seems the only teams that wanted the i4 were Renault (anything to get away from the V8) and Audi (as a condition of their entry into F1).


This does show what value F1 put on attracting further engine manufacturers. They were willing to bow to the demands of any manufacturer willing to join the circus.

[Pierce89]

Wow, that Pitpass article has to rank as one imaginative piece of fiction.

But this entire engine saga is becoming a nightmare. The original reason to move away from the current 2.4 liter V-8 was to have an engine more in keeping with today's reality of less waste, and a greener future.

A smaller displacement inline 4 was selected as the basis moving forward, but some teams weren't happy with the setup, and in the end, after a lot of public complaining, we have this new V-6, a testament to the legacy of Todt, that of compromise.

On a side note, anyone remember how Max did business, by force and intimidation, it's quite a change in management style.

Anyhewwwww... so a V-6 was the final compromise. But at the RPM's it was supposed to run at, the sound just wouldn't be exciting. So to ramp up the "Bernie factor", make the engine sounds more exciting by increasing the revs.

And in the end, what started out as a cheaper and greener engine is now going to be exposed to lack of financial control (another spending war) and be much less environmentally friendly compared to what was intended.

well said. The engine is neither here nor there. It's an obscure formula. Not really green and not really extreme.

Well, I personally think it might turn out some quite interesting engines. Green Cred with a little bit of Gearhead Cred thrown in to boot.

[djos]

Considering Honda where very successful with their V6 Turbo's they may consider returning as an engine supplier - I'm sure RBR would love to be the number one team for Honda!

The only problem is that Honda have become an insanely conservative company in the past few years as shown by their mostly boring road cars that have only marginally more aspirational value than Toyota's vehicles for cardigan wearer's!

[riff_raff]

The current 18K RPM limit has actually turned out to be a good thing. If you look at the results from the past two seasons, you'll see that engine-related DNF's are almost non-existent.

A look back at the typical results from a GP race in the 80's, when there were 1.5L turbo V6 engines with no rev limit, engine failures were quite common both in the race and qualifying.

Much better without engine failures.

[djos]

The current 18K RPM limit has actually turned out to be a good thing. If you look at the results from the past two seasons, you'll see that engine-related DNF's are almost non-existent.

A look back at the typical results from a GP race in the 80's, when there were 1.5L turbo V6 engines with no rev limit, engine failures were quite common both in the race and qualifying.

Much better without engine failures.

I disagree, attrition adds spice to the race.

[Muulka]

Personally I think that the best way to go would be to have no boost or rev limit, but seriously restrict the amount of fuel available. How tense would the ends of races be, with people running out of fuel?

I'm actually quite excited by this new formula!

[kalinka]

Rev. limit is one of the worst regulations. It's quite dissapointing to watch if a car can get a good slipstream (with DRS or not, doesnt matter ), and the only thing that doesnt allow a pass is when rev. limit kicks on. It would be much esaier to introduce a time-limited boost ( rev. limiter override ), than DRS. It would be much easier to understand too for new fans, and it could be used anywhere on the track for a limited time, just like KERS, and without serious safety issues. Yes, if you use it too much it could blow your engine, but it's a risk that driver could take/or not. Just an opinion, unlikely to materialize with new V6 formula

[Dragonfly]

Rev limit is obsolete and is bad for the race quality.
Not needed with the current fixed number of pooled engines per car per season. No one is going to abuse their engines but at the same time they would have some tactical field to play on. Like using a small extra amounts of engine resources when they consider it worth.
And if an engine blows, well, that's racing and taking calculated risks is a part of the game.

I am not sure and don't have a solid proof, but as far as I can judge, Mercedes engines for example could not withstand higher revs in race conditions in 2006 and were allowed to go to 19 500 (and a bit over maybe) only for qualification. In the race their top was somewhere around 18 500 while the others easily had 1000 more. That's why 2006 was a weak season for Macs. RPM limit played into the hands of Mercedes IMO.

[theloniousmonk]

If the fuel flow is limited to a static value (say 50cc/s), thereby limiting the maximum potential energy the engine can produce;

What would be the benefit of higher revs?

Wouldn't having a higher revving shorter stroked engine simply create more engine wear at no improvement to efficiency (thereby power).

I do apologise if its a stupid question, but im rather ignorant to this all.

[rjsa]

Like a V6.. :-"
Like a V6.. :-"

I'd rather get the G6 in this case

[rjsa]

If the fuel flow is limited to a static value (say 50cc/s), thereby limiting the maximum potential energy the engine can produce;

What would be the benefit of higher revs?

Wouldn't having a higher revving shorter stroked engine simply create more engine wear at no improvement to efficiency (thereby power).

I do apologise if its a stupid question, but im rather ignorant to this all.

It depends on tunning the limit fuel flow limit and the fuel cap I think. A high enough fuel flow can be too much for a whole race, so you could have a buch of engine maps to choose from during the race.

[Dragonfly]

There should be a fuel cap but no flow limit. The same applies to revs.
I don't understand why everybody jumps on micromanaging restrictions, which will disable the tactical battle between teams and their engineers.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Wont the oil companies win more out of this?

Different formula for the compostion of fuel ie. more frugal more power etc etc.

It just takes the fight into the chemistry labs...