2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

the question with cost caps is how to police and what is the consequence of not adhering to it.

Of course you are putting the finger on a difficult point. I don't think that auditing by an FiA approved organization is difficult and if a team fails the audit penalties could be pre arranged. But there are other problems as you pointed out.

Engine suppliers will always have ways and means to utilize research gained from other adjacent fields. You cannot stop that. If Mercedes AMG power train or the Ferrari road car division for instance start a Le Mans prototype engine project with 1.7L, 4 cylinders and variable geometry multi turbo and multi ignition devices per cylinder nobody would be able to stop them transferring engineers between various projects. They could easily gain advance knowledge of technologies that may become relevant to F1 in the near future.

But I'm not so concerned about that, to be honest. The objective would be to attract more manufacturers who would all exploit such opportunities and thus put F1 on a broader financial and know how base. I reckon the five leading teams would quickly get a manufacturer involved. Red Bull obviously has already done so. McLaren, Lotus and possibly Williams could be following. I bet that P.U.R.E. would be back in business at the double if their secret backer sees a viable chance to enter F1 successfully. With each new manufacturer entering the sustainability would increase. At the point where you have six manufacturers with one customer only you would have much more stable and entertaining conditions than you have now. It is doable in my view.

[Dragonfly]

WB, who's gonna pay the auditing companies? And how much will it cost?
And ... I am afraid this has nothing to do with new engines.

[WhiteBlue]

As always the teams pay for the expenses of competing. Why do you think a problem like that has nothing to do with the engines? To avoid facing a discussion? These things are obviously connected and the introduction of the engines will only happen if they sort all the conflicts that surround the issue. Cost is one of the most serious problems.

[Dragonfly]

This is a technical forum, the thread is about the technical aspects. I am a mere mortal user and it is neither my business, nor do I care how companies and teams spend their own money. The basic principle is "You have money, you spend it. You have no money, go find something else to do." And I am afraid you are overproductive in propagating your cause here and in other places.

[WhiteBlue]

Dragonfly, If you are so concerned to keep economic questions out of the thread why did you ask the questions in the first place? I have discussed plenty of technical issues in this thread with people who are interested in the technical matters. I would be more than happy to continue doing so if there were technical issues at the moment. Unfortunately it looks like the focus in the paddock is on economic and politics now.

[garrett]

This is a technical forum, the thread is about the technical aspects. I am a mere mortal user and it is neither my business, nor do I care how companies and teams spend their own money. The basic principle is "You have money, you spend it. You have no money, go find something else to do." And I am afraid you are overproductive in propagating your cause here and in other places.

Dragonfly, we all would be happy if we could debate the sole technical aspects of the new engines in here as it would be reasonable. But, unfortunately, as somebody has to do his dirty political games like he did 30 years ago and causes trouble, at the moment we have to discuss the economics and politics in first place. And of course, the teams are worried because of higher bills. But it should be discussed on a certain head-level.These three aspects are inseperably linked regarding the engine question and cannot be separated, at least as long as Waldorf and Stettler are continuing to throw a spanner in the works.

But the reason for my login should have been another in first place: I would like to remind you that a new Mercedes car will be on market in June of 2013, the long-awaited Mercedes-Bent SLS AMG Coupe Electric Drive, a sportscar equipped with four electric engines with a power of app 750 hp/1000 Nm torque. It´s a cooperation of AMG and Mercedes High Performance Powertrains at Brixworth, which, as you know, is as an expert responsible for KERS and delivering AMG Petronas Mercedes GP, Vodafone Mc-Laren-Mercedes and Sahara Force India-Mercedes at the moment. So much about the future importance of 2,4 V8 F1 engines at the moment. This is the way the story goes, as the "equipment" of the combustion engine is getting increasing significance.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/184747/1/c ... mpaign=rss

F1 engine builder Cosworth has revealed that it would love to be a part of the sport's new technical age, provided it can find a suitable partner to make the development of a turbocharged 1.6-litre V6 viable.

While rivals Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari are all known to be well underway in the race to be ready for the new formula in 2014, Cosworth's future was less clear, having made it clear that it was looking for a major manufacturer tie-up or substantial financial help to make the project a reality. One potential player for 2014, Craig Pollock's PURE operation, has already been hit by monetary setbacks and appears to be out of the picture, but Cosworth's Kim Spearman told journalists at Suzuka that his employer would love to continue, having enjoyed partnerships with Williams, Caterham, Marussia and HRT since its return in 2010.

"[We'd] love to do it," he insisted, "If we can find a commercially sustainable way to provide a competitive platform for some potential customers, we'd like to do that. We are in useful negotiations with customers and, hopefully, we'll find a way to be in. We've been in business for 54 years, much of it in F1, [and] we've got passionate people back at Cosworth who want to stay in F1 and we'd like to get there."

Asked whether the company has any ideas 'on paper', Spearman revealed that Cosworth had been 'working on the engine for 18 months', as well as continuing to develop its existing powerplant.

"For 2012, obviously we turn our attention to the next six races and helping out teams to do the best they can," he noted, "We're trying to consolidate [Marussia]'s situation in tenth place in the constructors' [championship] and, as you've probably read, they've re-signed and partnered with us for 2013, when they'll use a KERS-enabled package, which we hope will bring yet another step up in pace for them. We're very excited about that, and we're still in negotiation with HRT."

Ferrari's Stefano Domenicali underlined the task facing prospective engine builders for 2014, particularly those, like his equipe, that also has to construct a chassis to mate the finished product with.

"We are developing our system together with our suppliers as part of the challenge of the 2014 powertrain project, to confirm the fact that we are already on full boost in our department, to make sure that we are ready in proper time for this new huge challenge, because, for us, it means that we had to start and update all the infrastructure, to make sure that these new engines and this new system are ready to run," he noted.

"We need to be ready with a new engine, trying to find the customers for the future and trying to make sure that we are competitive, because one of the things for 2014 is the fact that, for all of us, both from the chassis point of view, due to the regulations and also for the engine and powertrain regulations point of view, we are starting from target references that are purely self-made, without having any kind of information [regarding] the other competitors. It will be an incredible task, at least for us, as a small team to make sure that we are able, both, as I said, from the chassis project but also from the engine, to match strong teams like Mercedes, like Renault and all the other teams that are working very hard already."

I'm copying the full text here in order to conserve it for later discussions. From Domenical's remarks I do not get the feeling that Ferrari are having second thoughts, but they recognize that Merc may be strong.

[rjsa]

Any one with a bit of experience on managing anything would know that what you think, what you do, what you say in house and what you say to the public are more often than not unrelated.

So I'll keep going with what I see: the stunt failed to bring in VAG, P.U.R.E. was a dud and now Cosworth is bleeding to death. Deadlines will keep rolling.

[Absolutelee]

I've read this thread off and on for a while and there's one thing I don't understand. Why do people keep saying that these 1.6L V6 Turbos will be nothing near as powerful/good/fun/etc as the 1986 1.5L V6 Turbos. Why is this? Is it because of boost regulations? Were the 1986 turbos twin turbos? I guess the crux of my question is why does it seem that many people are saying the 1.6L V6 turbos will be terrible and such, while at the same time saying how 1986 was amazing and the golden age etc etc.

P.S. I'm aware there were turbos in other years, I'm just saying 1986 because that's the year everyone had them.

[garrett]

Pretty surprising that Cosworth is supposedly working on a V6 engine for 1 1/2 years. They wouldn´t have done it if they were bleeding to death.

[rjsa]

I've read this thread off and on for a while and there's one thing I don't understand. Why do people keep saying that these 1.6L V6 Turbos will be nothing near as powerful/good/fun/etc as the 1986 1.5L V6 Turbos. Why is this? Is it because of boost regulations? Were the 1986 turbos twin turbos? I guess the crux of my question is why does it seem that many people are saying the 1.6L V6 turbos will be terrible and such, while at the same time saying how 1986 was amazing and the golden age etc etc.

P.S. I'm aware there were turbos in other years, I'm just saying 1986 because that's the year everyone had them.

Because those turbos delivered between twice and three times the power the new ones are supposed to deliver when you discount the electronic gadgetry. And the noise and thrill comes from the stupid power levels and engine speed. Speed was not so high back then, but the amount of energy poured thru those exhausts was huge. Not to mention drivers actually had to control the power and shift on top of it.

[Absolutelee]

So basically you're saying it's the power limitation and over regulation that makes the new ones not as exciting? And the exhaust layouts and fuel restrictions?

[WhiteBlue]

I've read this thread off and on for a while and there's one thing I don't understand. Why do people keep saying that these 1.6L V6 Turbos will be nothing near as powerful/good/fun/etc as the 1986 1.5L V6 Turbos. Why is this? Is it because of boost regulations? Were the 1986 turbos twin turbos? I guess the crux of my question is why does it seem that many people are saying the 1.6L V6 turbos will be terrible and such, while at the same time saying how 1986 was amazing and the golden age etc etc.

P.S. I'm aware there were turbos in other years, I'm just saying 1986 because that's the year everyone had them.

Because those turbos delivered between twice and three times the power the new ones are supposed to deliver when you discount the electronic gadgetry. And the noise and thrill comes from the stupid power levels and engine speed. Speed was not so high back then, but the amount of energy poured thru those exhausts was huge. Not to mention drivers actually had to control the power and shift on top of it.

The question is very appropriate. And the answer is not quite what rjsa makes us believe. The 1986 turbo's had very comparable performance to what we will see from the 2014 power plants in race trim. There are several reasons for that. In the eighties qualifying engines were allowed where the engines had a life of two or three laps due to very high boost. In this mode sometimes power beyond 1000 hp were achieved but this was never really utilized in the race where the power was typically well under 900 hp. Today qualifying engines are not a viable option any more due to huge cost implications.

Second, the power wasn't nowhere as controllable as it will be with modern turbos. The engines had terrible turbo lag which meant there was practically no proper control through and out of corners. The power was primarily useful on the straights. On a track like Suzuka the engine power was nowhere near as usable as it is today or will be in 2014.

Third, the development of the aerodynamics and tyres since the eighties has seen a massive increase of downforce which brought us more performance from the engine power particularly in fast corners. This has lead to a safety philosophy of limiting cornering performance by capping power and downforce. It is undesirable to exceed 800 hp and produce two tons of aerodynamic downforce which would make the cars exceed 5g lateral acceleration through corners. There are limits to what makes sense from a physiological point of view.

The reasons for fighting the V6 turbos are largely emotional rather than rational. It is a combination of fear, myths and a bit of nostalgia. In reality the new V6 turbos will have very exciting sound and performance qualities when you look at the data that are available from the design engineering side. One can only hope that we will soon see some engine tests on the tracks to confirm that.

[rjsa]

The question is very appropriate. And the answer is not quite what rjsa makes us believe. The 1986 turbo's had very comparable performance to what we will see from the 2014 power plants in race trim. There are several reasons for that. In the eighties qualifying engines were allowed where the engines had a life of two or three laps due to very high boost. In this mode sometimes power beyond 1000 hp were achieved but this was never really utilized in the race where the power was typically well under 900 hp. Today qualifying engines are not a viable option any more due to huge cost implications.

I overstated my case here and stand corrected. The V6 is way betten than the L4, but I'd like to see free revs. After you watched the 20K RPM V10s live it's been downhill all the way.

Second, the power wasn't nowhere as controllable as it will be with modern turbos. The engines had terrible turbo lag which meant there was practically no proper control through and out of corners. The power was primarily useful on the straights. On a track like Suzuka the engine power was nowhere near as usable as it is today or will be in 2014.

And that's a bad thing. We are not the ones driving, we are watching in search of thrill, and mule kick engines are more thrilling.

Third, the development of the aerodynamics and tyres since the eighties has seen a massive increase of downforce which brought us more performance from the engine power particularly in fast corners. This has lead to a safety philosophy of limiting cornering performance by capping power and downforce. It is undesirable to exceed 800 hp and produce two tons of aerodynamic downforce which would make the cars exceed 5g lateral acceleration through corners. There are limits to what makes sense from a physiological point of view.

I guess you should review what you've written here. Tyres increasing downforce and downforce improving engine performance... nah.

The reasons for fighting the V6 turbos are largely emotional rather than rational. It is a combination of fear, myths and a bit of nostalgia. In reality the new V6 turbos will have very exciting sound and performance qualities when you look at the data that are available from the design engineering side. One can only hope that we will soon see some engine tests on the tracks to confirm that.

You see, the business of F1 is the one of intertaining people and convincing them to buy things they don't need. None of this is rational.

Those who pay the bill (by freely lending their eyes to be rented to advertisers, the sponsors) are really not concerned with the engineering side of anything, neither the rational behind things. They (we?) want thrill. Not playing chess against the computer or running matlab as a hobby.

[Absolutelee]

The question is very appropriate
...
One can only hope that we will soon see some engine tests on the tracks to confirm that.

Thank you very much WB. That makes a lot of sense. Clear and well written as usual from you haha.


Edit rather than make a new post: Why are these turbos less powerfull than the 80's ones? They are 0.1L bigger. Is it because of the boost?