2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

I reckon that Honda simply wanted to fire a warning shot saying: "Don't mess with the V6 turbo plans any more than you already have if you want us in F1. Same thing could be true for the VW rumors.

[FW17]

I have not been reading the rules much, but is the V6 configuration a must? or is it that I4 will also be allowed?

If I4 config is allowable, are there a chance of engine prep companies such as mecachrome, judd, mugen etc. preparing WRC or WTCC engines for F1 or the power differential too much?

"BMW Motorsport will continue to further develop the 1.6-litre turbo engine in conjunction with Prodrive." Can this engine be modded for F1 customer teams?

Any thoughts on this?

[Holm86]

Regulations says it has to be a V6.

[FW17]

I reckon that Honda simply wanted to fire a warning shot saying: "Don't mess with the V6 turbo plans any more than you already have if you want us in F1. Same thing could be true for the VW rumors.

Lot of manufacturers are probably deterred away from committing by the Italiano influenza and soBE.

If that old twat leaves all who left will be back.

[Raptor22]

Regulations says it has to be a V6.

Although think that may be relaxed if the the 1.6L Straight 4 proves to be a cost effective alternative.

[WhiteBlue]

Regulations says it has to be a V6.

Although think that may be relaxed if the the 1.6L Straight 4 proves to be a cost effective alternative.

Interesting idea. I wish it would work that way in formula 1. Unfortunately there are always many stake holders that have influence on the rule making and the L4 vs V6 issue has been fought with an immense expenditure of political chips by all parties. There is a historical precedence for those issue to become very static once they are decided. All parties have used up so much energy and political influence that nobody wants to relive it again.

[skgoa]

And by now they are too far into the development of the V6. That engine will come, all three major engine manufacturers have invested too much money in this already. TBH I would like them to relax the engine regs and only impose a fuel quality and quantity limit. That would keep engines from spiraling back to 1000hp and it would reward the development towards higher efficiency. But going by what I heard, a certain french manufacturer had other ideas...


Regarding VW:
Why would VW get into F1 right now, though? Their only two marques that could benefit are Audi and Porsche and both are very successful right now both as manufacturers of road cars - Audi has overtaken Mercedes and is now the biggest german "premium" marque and Porsche has successfully transitioned away from just basicly making an updated 911 every year and into a more diversified lineup - and as constructors of winning race cars in many differen series and classes. And they both are commited to LeMans/WEC for the near future. Unless we assume Audi just outright make Sauber the designated works team (not too unlikely, they already cooperated on the development of Audi's LMP1 cars) they are going to be nothing more than Cosworth now is: an engine supplier for midfielders and backmarkers. That just isn't worth spending $200 million on an engine development program. The original I4 formula would have at least given VW a chance to leverage and showcase their "downsized" engine tech. You couldn't even use the "road relevant tech" card here, because LMP1 is where these technologies are developed and pushed. And both Audi and Porsche already use Williams' flywheel KERS in some of their cars.
So I really don't see a realistic reason why they should risk getting their noses bloodied like BMW and Mercedes did, with very little reward in the best case.

[Raptor22]

They could use Bugatti and Lamborghini too....

to be honest the only way I see VAG as an F1 works team is if they revive the Auto Union name.
They could then then offer the engine to other teams under any one of their other brand names. The wealthier teams using the Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini names while the poorer teams could use SEAT (HRT SEAT) and Skoda (Marussia Skoda).

But you're right, I don;t think they have too much interest in F1 under the current rules that I suspet were politically motivated by FIAT to keep VAG out.

[Cold Fussion]

They could use Bugatti and Lamborghini too....

to be honest the only way I see VAG as an F1 works team is if they revive the Auto Union name.
They could then then offer the engine to other teams under any one of their other brand names. The wealthier teams using the Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini names while the poorer teams could use SEAT (HRT SEAT) and Skoda (Marussia Skoda).

But you're right, I don;t think they have too much interest in F1 under the current rules that I suspet were politically motivated by FIAT to keep VAG out.

I highly doubt VAG would waste the marketing opportunity by using the auto union name (which is essentially audi any case).

[Tommy Cookers]

And by now they are too far into the development of the V6. That engine will come, all three major engine manufacturers have invested too much money in this already. TBH I would like them to relax the engine regs and only impose a fuel quality and quantity limit. That would keep engines from spiraling back to 1000hp and it would reward the development towards higher efficiency. But going by what I heard, a certain french manufacturer had other ideas

the stated intent surely is to cut the fuel rate as the years pass ? (in part to prevent a power spiral ?)

IMO the fuel regs are currently (intentionally?) open enough for someone to start a fuel war

meaningful limits of fuel quality are very difficult
more likely is a 'working truce' (as today), but what happens when one engine manufacturers falls behind ?

I don't know how fuel quantity (gravimetric rate 100kg/hr) can be ensured, accurate to say 10 parts per million !

[WhiteBlue]

the stated intent surely is to cut the fuel rate as the years pass ? (in part to prevent a power spiral ?)...I don't know how fuel quantity (gravimetric rate 100kg/hr) can be ensured, accurate to say 10 parts per million !

The intend is threefold:

• switch the power limitation from basically air limit to fuel limit
• provide an incentive for a sustainable reduction of fuel use
• provide a fair and flexible method of power curbing which does not affect the developments of particular teams

I believe the flow rate of 27.8 g/s will be monitored by a common electronic fuel injection system. The SECU will be fully aware of the consumption and will not allow engine maps exceeding the specified fuel flow limit.

[Raptor22]

Correct, the ECU will limit the fueling rate.

[Tommy Cookers]

so there is control of the signal period(s) applied to a piezo-electric device valving on and off at high frequency a very high pressure reservoir of fuel of unmandated hydraulic characteristics and unmandated density through a nozzle against another very high and very variable (combustion chamber) pressure ?

and this will control the gravimetric fuel rate to 10 ppm (a race winning or race losing margin) ?
sincerely, I don't think it can be done (without control fuel etc etc)
there would be a tendency to draw a greater fuel rate than intended, whilst complying with the rules
(as happened over boost limits)

the point of fuel rate limiting is to avoid giving the impression of an economy run
in reality they will also need to enforce a meaningful fuel allocation for each race (and keep quiet about it)
there will be the same 'rule creep' that we see currently with evolving aero rulings, but with even more bad feeling and suspicion

(sincerely though) ....... roll on 2014 !!

[WhiteBlue]

so there is control of the signal period(s) applied to a piezo-electric device valving on and off at high frequency a very high pressure reservoir of fuel of unmandated hydraulic characteristics and unmandated density through a nozzle against another very high and very variable (combustion chamber) pressure ?

We can not totally rule out clever engineering but your biggest nightmares are not going to happen. The whole injection system is standardized and it will not involve a hydraulic accumulator AFAIK. It will be a pump based system with identical nozzles, identical actuators and tight control of the mapping. The peak injection pressure is mandated at 500 bar if I recall correctly. The cylinder pressure is negligible compared to the injection pressure. You can play to a certain degree with the fuel but that is what we already have. Whoever does it better inside the limits of the rules deserves the advantages gained from it.

[Raptor22]

so there is control of the signal period(s) applied to a piezo-electric device valving on and off at high frequency a very high pressure reservoir of fuel of unmandated hydraulic characteristics and unmandated density through a nozzle against another very high and very variable (combustion chamber) pressure ?

and this will control the gravimetric fuel rate to 10 ppm (a race winning or race losing margin) ?
sincerely, I don't think it can be done (without control fuel etc etc)
there would be a tendency to draw a greater fuel rate than intended, whilst complying with the rules
(as happened over boost limits)

the point of fuel rate limiting is to avoid giving the impression of an economy run
in reality they will also need to enforce a meaningful fuel allocation for each race (and keep quiet about it)
there will be the same 'rule creep' that we see currently with evolving aero rulings, but with even more bad feeling and suspicion

(sincerely though) ....... roll on 2014 !!

I'm not sure why it can't be done in F1 when its done in a passenger cars engine every day.
The feedback mechanisms include O2 sensors, exhaust flow sensors, fuel metering sensors, pumping rate of the injector mechanism, injector durationand yes a very narrow density range of the fuel is already specified. My TFSi engines management does this constantly. The difference is that it is not linked to the fuel mass in the tank.