2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/09/22/t ... get-4456m/
Budgets 2008

Toyota: $445.6m
McLaren: $433.3m
Ferrari: $414.9m
Honda: $398.1m
Renault: $393.8m
BMW Sauber: $366.8m
Red Bull Racing: $164.7m
Williams: $160.6m
Toro Rosso: $128.2m
Force India: $121.85m
Super Aguri: $45.6m
Total: $3,073.45m

It is generally known that in 2006 engine budgets peaked. It was due to the introduction of the V8 engines and no engine freeze. The likes of Toyota, BMW, Honda and Renault are estimated to have spent well over $200m just for engines that year. The 2008 figures show the financial capabilities of the manufacturers at the hight of the cost race. If you want more sources you can buy the Formula Money report for that year. I'm not spending that money so I don't have the exact figures.

Manufacturers do not spend engine development money to help their customers but to push their own works team. They generally supply inferior specs to their customers unless they are prohibited by homologation to do so. Fota have negotiated capped engine prices in the past to recognize those facts. There is enough precedent to believe that there will be a kind of market regulation in 2014 again. Preferably they will operate under engine cost cap.

[bhall]

Thanks. But I'm more curious about how you arrived at these figures.

[...]
If there is no cost control and no price limiting the manufacturers could be asking $30 or 40m. If there is successful cost control and a price cap the price could be well below $8m. If you look at the pure manufacturing and service cost you can supply engines to a team at two million per year.
[...]
If they were supplying equal specifications to all teams [in 2006] they could have been asking $80m.

EDIT: I'd also like to know how you expect engine development to proceed in any form with a cost cap. You can cut costs, or you can develop engines. You can't really do both.

[...]

Manufacturers do not spend engine development money to help their customers but to push their own works team. They generally supply inferior specs to their customers unless they are prohibited by homologation to do so. Fota have negotiated capped engine prices in the past to recognize those facts. There is enough precedent to believe that there will be a kind of market regulation in 2014 again. Preferably they will operate under engine cost cap.

How does FOTA's move to reduce engine costs in 2008, two years into an engine freeze, set a precedent for similar constraints to be established in 2014 when engine development will be at full tilt?

[Nando]

right click to view in bigger size.

[Nando]

Contains an immense amount of information for a person like me who don´t know much about the technical aspect.
Looks to be quite an interesting formula this with the electronics working so in tune with the engine.

[WhiteBlue]

Thanks. But I'm more curious about how you arrived at these figures.

[...]
If there is no cost control and no price limiting the manufacturers could be asking $30 or 40m. If there is successful cost control and a price cap the price could be well below $8m. If you look at the pure manufacturing and service cost you can supply engines to a team at two million per year.
[...]
If they were supplying equal specifications to all teams [in 2006] they could have been asking $80m.

EDIT: I'd also like to know how you expect engine development to proceed in any form with a cost cap. You can cut costs, or you can develop engines. You can't really do both.

The figures are easily estimated when you start with the extrema that have been recorded or reported. Eight mil was the reported FOTA price which is now reported to probably be exceeded by at least 200%. Reports mentioned more than 20 mil for 2014 are likely. But as I have already pointed out historically teams were more likely to spend 50% of their budgets on engines (Source Wikipedia) which would be 125 mil at the current spending level of the top teams. So the truth will probably be somewhere between which brings us to 30 or 40 mil for customer teams. That is not an iron cast prediction because it might happen if nothing is done at all. But we do know that Todt intends to do something.

IMO you last sentence makes no sense for me. You can certainly cut cost and do development. It is done all the time by development departments in the real world. No automotive operation is without a budget and they go up and down all the time according to the economy and the cash flow of the company.

[...]Manufacturers do not spend engine development money to help their customers but to push their own works team. They generally supply inferior specs to their customers unless they are prohibited by homologation to do so. Fota have negotiated capped engine prices in the past to recognize those facts. There is enough precedent to believe that there will be a kind of market regulation in 2014 again. Preferably they will operate under engine cost cap.

How does FOTA's move to reduce engine costs in 2008, two years into an engine freeze, set a precedent for similar constraints to be established in 2014 when engine development will be at full tilt?

There is no fundamental difference. There was a lot of development done in 2007 and 2008. The scope was greatly limited but it did not stop the manufacturers to do research and design into "reliability and consumption" improvements. The FOTA move was simply a cost cap for customer engines. It followed my theory that manufacturers cannot recover the cost of competing by selling engines to customers. They can only generate additional cash to burn. If you manage to make additional cash burning unattractive or prohibit it, they will usually agree to a pact that will keep the mid field teams viable. Manufacturers have no desire to kill off the competition and wreck the grid. They would rob themselves of the stage for their own triumphs.

[nordicf1]

Do the new 2014 1.6 V6 engine need to have DOCH camshafts or SOCH?

Can not read that ewen in FIA.com tech rules for 2014 engine, but the Renault article/pic looks like DOCH.

Anyone can tell 100%?

[WhiteBlue]

Do the new 2014 1.6 V6 engine need to have DOCH camshafts or SOCH?

Can not read that ewen in FIA.com tech rules for 2014 engine, but the Renault article/pic looks like DOCH.

Anyone can tell 100%?

5.1.8 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine component must be circular.

Four circular poppet type valves are stipulated. Typically F1 valves are actuated by DOHC and pneumatic springs. I assume that this type of design will remain. They are likely to cut just two cylinders and migrate to the new stipulated cylinder geometry with a very different piston and con rod design. For valve design I do not see much need to change. Variable timing or stroke is prohibited.

[Nowhereman]

Beginning of rant (disregard if your not in the mood for rants):
Just give the engine manufactures a set amount of fuel to finish the race and let them design what ever they want in order to finish! The diversity of engine types would add so much to f1. Why does everything have to be so political, revolve around "greenness" and be restricted by money. The rescission is over, people need to realize this. Carbon dioxides are not ruining the plant, people like al gore are with their faulty, misleading research.
Rant over.

Couldn't of said it better myself.
The FIA is very insecure.
They want everyone to know who they are and what they think they can do.
F1 has been bastardized by them for years now.
We need to keep the FIA focused on safety only and let the F1 teams decide on technology applications within a set of fixed boundries that encompass car design and application..........period.

[Nowhereman]

Do the new 2014 1.6 V6 engine need to have DOCH camshafts or SOCH?

Can not read that ewen in FIA.com tech rules for 2014 engine, but the Renault article/pic looks like DOCH.

Anyone can tell 100%?

5.1.8 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine component must be circular.

Four circular poppet type valves are stipulated. Typically F1 valves are actuated by DOHC and pneumatic springs. I assume that this type of design will remain. They are likely to cut just two cylinders and migrate to the new stipulated cylinder geometry with a very different piston and con rod design. For valve design I do not see much need to change. Variable timing or stroke is prohibited.

I for one have been waiting for someone to eliminate the cams altogether and use electronics to manipulate the valves via electro pneumatics.
Perfect power curves under all conditions and incredible rev potential.
Not too mention less moving mass in the engine.

[matt21]

Would it make sense to get rid of the pneumatic valve train?
Todays materials for springs can cope with the forces at 15.000 rpm (see MotoGP).
I would say, that it would be an advantage in regard to packaging and complexitiy of the drivetrain.

Also I´m not sure if the regulations allow cam-free engines.

[Cold Fussion]

Would it make sense to get rid of the pneumatic valve train?
Todays materials for springs can cope with the forces at 15.000 rpm (see MotoGP).
I would say, that it would be an advantage in regard to packaging and complexitiy of the drivetrain.

Also I´m not sure if the regulations allow cam-free engines.

Aren't all the motogp engines pneumatic valves apart from the Ducatti's which are desmodromic?

[matt21]

This season yes, but e.g. honda with the RC211V started with conventinal springs.
And a lot of street engines (CBR600, ZX6R) rev to 15.000 rpm with conventinal springs

[Holm86]

Why not go desmodromic?? Wouldnt that be optimal?? As far as i can see the regulations dont prohibit this.

[autogyro]

Hydro pneumatic is better but electro magnetic would be best.

[piast9]

As many people predict that turbo engines won't rev all the way up to their legal limit of 15k rpm they may use mechanical springs again if there was a benefit over air spring.