2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[matt21]

Wish the 2015 regulations would rid the 1.6 V6 mandatory rule if engine is shared with LMP, while keeping only the fuel flow parameters.

Do you really want a situation like 1991 with the WSC.
Mr. E wants no competition to F1. This is why things happend like they happend wit wSC in 1991 (too much interest by sponsors, fans etc.) and the DTM/ITC (too much interest by ...).

F1 had lost its relevance for road cars over the last 20 years. This is one reason why the manufactures pulled out and left it to the ´garagists´. With the upcomin economy thing it is getting back more interest by automobile companies, as this is the way to go with future road cars. And the LMP cars are years ahead in this topic.

[FW17]

Mid field runners and tailenders need engines that are cheaper than what is on offer not engines that are same as in the works cars. Would love to see engines such as Judd, Ilmore, Cosworth, Hart etc back for the customer teams at about $5 million for the 12 (1 for test and 5 race) engines required for the year.

[Tommy Cookers]

overrun push up to zero torque (combined with the current blowing) is a very efficient way of using fuel, in race time terms
if in 2014 overrun push yields the same value in race time:fuel terms as the other modes of engine use then it will still be used
and no fuel quantity limit will stop this...

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here. ..... the exhausts will have very little if any influence in the 2014 design.
To be honest I don't understand much of your posting, Tommy Cookers. It would help if you could form simple sentences without excessive use of brackets and with coherent paragraphs.

I was not saying that overrun push will in 2014 be accompanied by blowing

OP is artificial running of the engine when the accelerator is lifted, to reduce or eliminate the engines resistance/'engine braking'
and the OP allowed could in 2014 artificially produce electrical power broadly equivalent to the MGU-K capacity
the fuel rate rules as written allow all the fuel needed for this, and more
in principle the ICE is fuel-constrained in producing crankshaft power but fuel-unconstrained in producing electrical power

the big question is, how efficient is this OP use of fuel in terms of race time ?
if it is efficient, a limit on fuel quantity/fill would not necessarily reduce or eliminate the artificial OP running
and could undermine the flag-to-flag racing concept that was to be assured by the novel concept of limiting fuelling rate

[WhiteBlue]

Ok, now I understand the issue. I would not want to speculate about such things other than saying that the benefits look very small

[rjsa]

The farce of the green fuel efficient Formula 1 is going kaboom.

[wuzak]

The farce of the green fuel efficient Formula 1 is going kaboom.

How do you figure?

The 2014 units will use substantially less fuel than the current ones.

[rjsa]

We will never really know, will we? May be it improves by the effcience gain provided by the turbo, bu not much more.

As of today it is safe to assume that almost all energy harvested by KERS comes from fuel burned on overrun. But no one is mentioning that, right?

[WhiteBlue]

We will never really know, will we? May be it improves by the effcience gain provided by the turbo, bu not much more.
As of today it is safe to assume that almost all energy harvested by KERS comes from fuel burned on overrun. But no one is mentioning that, right?

You are comparing apples with bananas. The new formula will reduce the fuel consumption by more than one third. That is a very big step and it is only the first step. The technology brings a paradigm shift towards simple power adjustment. When the engine makers find more and new power the fuel reduction will be adjusted. Honda is only coming back because they like the new rules. Oher manufacturers will surely follow.

[Tommy Cookers]

You are comparing apples with bananas. The new formula will reduce the fuel consumption by more than one third.

I think that it is the FIA that is comparing apples with bananas (when it is basking in the glory of the new formula 1)

because it is the same FIA that for 96 of the years since 1913 has had GP and F1 engine rules that discourage fuel efficiency
by limiting engine capacity, without a limit of fuel quantity

[pgfpro]

overrun push up to zero torque (combined with the current blowing) is a very efficient way of using fuel, in race time terms
if in 2014 overrun push yields the same value in race time:fuel terms as the other modes of engine use then it will still be used
and no fuel quantity limit will stop this...

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here. ..... the exhausts will have very little if any influence in the 2014 design.
To be honest I don't understand much of your posting, Tommy Cookers. It would help if you could form simple sentences without excessive use of brackets and with coherent paragraphs.

I was not saying that overrun push will in 2014 be accompanied by blowing

OP is artificial running of the engine when the accelerator is lifted, to reduce or eliminate the engines resistance/'engine braking'
and the OP allowed could in 2014 artificially produce electrical power broadly equivalent to the MGU-K capacity
the fuel rate rules as written allow all the fuel needed for this, and more
in principle the ICE is fuel-constrained in producing crankshaft power but fuel-unconstrained in producing electrical power

the big question is, how efficient is this OP use of fuel in terms of race time ?
if it is efficient, a limit on fuel quantity/fill would not necessarily reduce or eliminate the artificial OP running
and could undermine the flag-to-flag racing concept that was to be assured by the novel concept of limiting fuelling rate

I'm with you on this one Tom. I can see some major advantages to this to keep the electric capacity up through out the whole lap. I even did some testing on my own car trying to simulate some full throttle into a corner while under braking and some late down shifting in taller gears then normally I would use to see what power could be generated. Makes me wonder why some of the drivers today are having such late down shifts;) are they testing for the future...

So this kinda kills the green thing if they go about this with the rules that are in play. Or maybe they will introduce a "negative g" rule to keep them from using fuel while de-accelerating.

[autogyro]

IMO without using controlled engine torque during deceleration, it will not be possible to control the rear end of the car with such high downforce.
For decades all mechanical and powertrain development in F1 has been used to benefit downforce aero.
Trying to add a 'green' powertrain high tech development with the restrictions made for 2014 will spell disaster for tyre wear and car control.
I believe Merc are finding this out the hard way with new ideas on this years car.

[WhiteBlue]

A quiet riduculous statement by McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh
http://www.espn.co.uk/mclaren/motorspor ... 09273.html

Frankly I think it's too late. We missed an opportunity and the fact is the manufacturers have and are spending a lot of money developing these engines. They've got a lot of technical freedom and engineers will try to exploit that. Engineers wrote the rules and they're now exploiting them but in order to do so it's costing a lot of money. I'm sure that these manufacturers have - inevitably as they're a business - they've written their budgets and they've got to amortise that development as much as possible. So we as a sport scored a bit of an own goal and I don't think you can get it out of the net right now. The opportunity was we've changed the engine to be downsized, turbocharged, direct injection, lots of clever energy recovery systems; we should have put more constraint around some of those systems rather than really some of the most open regulations we've had in Formula One for some time. We let the engineers of manufacturers write a set of regulations that they'd enjoy, I'm sure they're enjoying them but there's a very substantial financial cost which is something that perhaps now people realise in the long term - although I've been going on about it - isn't such a big stress for McLaren but is going to be a big stress I think for some other teams.

Contrary to McLaren philosophy the engine specification wasn't particularly wide. In fact it was relatively narrow compared to any new engine development that was seen before. But the impact of doing a new design without any attempt of budget control makes it look expensive compared to frozen old down written V8s.

Is Whitmarsh kidding us here? If the teams had any reasonable idea of cost control in F1 they had agreed on a method and that would have covered budget control for engines as well. Now they are facing a huge mess and the engines are a relatively small part of it. They will cost 20% of the budget of the smallest teams. They would be affordable if the aero developments would not eat up 60% of the budget.

It sounds slightly more reasonable and convincing is you listen to the smaller teams like Force India's Mallya
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107744

Rather than reducing costs, one or two teams have decided winning at any cost is more important than the sustainability of the sport, so there is no resource restriction that is implemented, quite contrary to the fact that costs are going up. If you only want three or four teams in Formula 1 running three cars each you should proceed in the way it is now. But I think Formula 1 also needs the smaller independent teams as well, so everybody must also look at the common interests - not only the individual interests. The FIA and FOTA - when it existed in full strength - had resolved that we need to reduce the costs of Formula 1. Whether it is the commercial rights holder, the FIA, or the teams themselves, I think it is very necessary that all the important stakeholders sit across the table and find a viable solution.

That sounds more like the truth.

[autogyro]

Basicaly it is what some of us have been saying for decades.
Spending most of the development budget on aero is unsustainable and will in the end destroy F1.

Not only is this a budget issue it is a technical problem that is impossible to overcome unless downforce is reduced.

For 2014 the result will be lip service paid to energy conservation and a formula that will be diametrically opposed to world public opinion on environmental issues.

[Ogami musashi]

Whitmarsh and Mallya are not talking about aero..;but engines.

[Saribro]

Whitmarsh and Mallya are not talking about aero..;but engines.

The argument being that they would be able to spend more on engines if they spent less on aero.

Not only is this a budget issue it is a technical problem that is impossible to overcome unless downforce is reduced.

Reducing downforce wouldn't reduce spending on finding downforce. I'd even expect -more- spending in desperate attempts at finding some.

As long as teams are allowed to spend as much as they want, they will. Roundabout tricks like limiting the amount of FLOPS your CFD supercomputer can do, will just move the spending to more efficient software and its development. A very expensive exotic material effectively banned by a maximum tensile strength defined for materials will just move spending to more work researching structures or different alloys focused on weight or.... And so on and so forth.
All these measures just -move- spending, they don't reduce it.
If a team thinks that laser-guided, contact-activated, spring-loaded, artificial intelligence wheel-guns will help them win, they will spend money on it, if they can and there is no cheaper option.
If they have money, they will use it. Anywhere. Because they -can-.