2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[autogyro]

The 'technical issue' is that it is impossible to develop effective mechanical handling and powertrains capable of meaningful energy conservation/harvesting so long as the huge downforce on the cars dominates over all handling and car control.
It is making an ever increasing 'joke' out of the concept of F1 as the peak of vehicle development.
Next year the formula will be laughed at.

[Holm86]

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.

I can't see how reducing aero will reduce cost. I would even say that the less aero the more it would cost to develop. As its much harder to find more downforce. The only ways to bring down the cost is by defining a maximum budget or defining spec wings. But budget control will be very difficult. And spec wings and floors would be boring imo.

[Ogami musashi]

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.

There's nothing about that in neither whitmarsh or mallya articles. they talk about the the cost associated with relative freedom of technical solutions concerning the new engines. No aero here.

[autogyro]

They are making excuses to protect the huge investment in aero, as you well know.
Downforce aero compromises all potential development in mechanical handling and the effective use of powertrains that recover and apply otherwise wasted energy.
Huge downforce levels USE huge amounts of energy that could otherwise be utilized much more efficiently.

[WhiteBlue]

I was primarily concerned with the fact that Whitmarsh is spreading Ronspeak about the engine cost issue without any historical correlation of his claims. The 2005 V8 development was hugely more expensive than the new turbo V6es. It is all just propaganda to cover the fact that FOTA and the teams failed to do an efficient cost control. So now he tries to shift the blame to the manufacturers, which is a dirty trick in my view.

[Cold Fussion]

They are making excuses to protect the huge investment in aero, as you well know.
Downforce aero compromises all potential development in mechanical handling and the effective use of powertrains that recover and apply otherwise wasted energy.
Huge downforce levels USE huge amounts of energy that could otherwise be utilized much more efficiently.

Efficient in what respect?

[Ogami musashi]

They are making excuses to protect the huge investment in aero, as you well know.
Downforce aero compromises all potential development in mechanical handling and the effective use of powertrains that recover and apply otherwise wasted energy.
Huge downforce levels USE huge amounts of energy that could otherwise be utilized much more efficiently.

I still do not see the link with the two articles...there's simply nothing about aero in there and the two person actually speak against the cost associated with development of ENGINES.

That you are thinking aero is a culprit, fine...but this is not what is said by the people quoted in the articles.

[autogyro]

Formula 1 needs to be seen by the world public as the breeding ground for the best 'performance' result from the smallest amount of fuel.
The 2014 engine/powertrain regulations were framed primarily for this purpose.

60 percent of the teams financial budgets is still spent on developing downforce aero and most of those posting on F1 technical matters either have a vested interest in this aero or see it as F1's main purpose.

These huge levels of downforce prevent meaningful development in mechanical handling and powertrains.
The technique used by teams to 'blow' the rear diffusers under deceleration makes a mockery of the current Kers system.
In 2014 making regenerative braking work will be almost impossible without tearing off the rear tyres or losing control of the rear of the cars.

This years tyres have been designed as a fore runner to next year.
The tyres are at present at the barest minimal consistent with full race distance use.
This should allow a tyre improvement next year to compensate for the horrendous problem the teams will have setting up the cars rear ends.
It might be possible it might not, even so the result will NOT be cars promoting F1 as a fuel efficient formula.

[Ogami musashi]

Formula 1 needs to be seen by the world public as the breeding ground for the best 'performance' result from the smallest amount of fuel.
The 2014 engine/powertrain regulations were framed primarily for this purpose.

60 percent of the teams financial budgets is still spent on developing downforce aero and most of those posting on F1 technical matters either have a vested interest in this aero or see it as F1's main purpose.

These huge levels of downforce prevent meaningful development in mechanical handling and powertrains.
The technique used by teams to 'blow' the rear diffusers under deceleration makes a mockery of the current Kers system.
In 2014 making regenerative braking work will be almost impossible without tearing off the rear tyres or losing control of the rear of the cars.

This years tyres have been designed as a fore runner to next year.
The tyres are at present at the barest minimal consistent with full race distance use.
This should allow a tyre improvement next year to compensate for the horrendous problem the teams will have setting up the cars rear ends.
It might be possible it might not, even so the result will NOT be cars promoting F1 as a fuel efficient formula.

Sorry autogyro i'm not really interested in discussing it with you i don't have too much time unfortunately, i just wanted to stress that it was not aero withmarsh and mallya were talking about but engines.

[olefud]

Formula 1 needs to be seen by the world public as the breeding ground for the best 'performance' result from the smallest amount of fuel.

Racing, like most enterprises, has objectives, means to gain the objectives and obstacles to be overcome to reach the objective.

The objective in racing is to cover a designated course in the least time. The means to accomplish this end comprise aero, engine power, suspensions etc.

Among the obstacles to be overcome are mass, air resistance, etc. etc. Among the etc. etc. is the limitation on the amount and rate of availability of fuel. If people are paying F-1 prices to see the best performance results from the smallest amount of fuel, they are at the wrong venue. There are economy runs in which contestants attain well over 1000 mile per gallon.

Again, the green washing is an obstacle not an objective.

[WhiteBlue]

A very simplistic view of racing. Be happy with it. Some will not, particularly those who have a wider view of the world and are aware of other objectives that should be pursued by society. People with your view are happy with what they have and it is legitimate that some fans take that view. Most people learn during adulthood that the world is not black and white and their view becomes wider to accommodate conflicting objectives. They learn to make multi dimensional compromises and find solutions that fit many needs. Just my personal opinion, other people may legitimately hold different opinions. I will respect that but not agree with them.

[garrett]

For sure, some manufacturers seem to be quite happy with such a wider view . For example, Honda is back already; but during the Monaco event, Swiss journalist Mathias Brunner from "Speedweek" picked up a rumour about Ford being a potential returner to F1 with the new engine rules while he was on his way in the paddock. Furthermore, it should be Cosworth who will be responsible for the engine!! Just paddock tattle? Or more?

http://www.yallaf1.com/2013/05/30/repor ... ra-return/

Should it become true at last what Max Mosley and Jean Todt conceived, after the engine regulation spat has finished now for gods sake? Should the manufacturers now roll in? =D>

[olefud]

A very simplistic view of racing. Be happy with it. Some will not, particularly those who have a wider view of the world and are aware of other objectives that should be pursued by society. People with your view are happy with what they have and it is legitimate that some fans take that view. Most people learn during adulthood that the world is not black and white and their view becomes wider to accommodate conflicting objectives. They learn to make multi dimensional compromises and find solutions that fit many needs. Just my personal opinion, other people may legitimately hold different opinions. I will respect that but not agree with them.

Sorry, didn’t mean to sound like an advocate. My point is that if in fact F-1 is to have as an objective the best performance result from the smallest amount of fuel, the big money and acclaim should be awarded along the lines of Lemans’ Index of Thermal Efficiency. As long as time and distance are the criteria, the engineers and designers are most reasonably going to subordinate other considerations to this end. This I submit as analysis only.

[Forza]

AMuS reports that Fia will gradually freeze engine development by 2018. Till then there will be a special points system in place to limit the development : Turbo-Motoren ab 2018 eingefroren

World Journal of Modelling and Simulation - F1 2014: Turbocharged and Downsized Ice and Kers Boost

Abstract.
The paper discusses the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) new regulations for F1 powertrains. The new regulations will see the 2.4 liter V8s currently used replaced by 1.6 liter V6s engines starting in 2014. The power units will have high pressure gasoline direct injection up to 500 bar. Engine speed limits on the new engines will be reduced from the current 18,000 rpm to a maximum of 15,000 rpm. The more environmentally-friendly units will be supported by augmented power output of the engine via energy-management and energy-recovery systems. The paper discusses the possible performances the novel F1 cars could achieve with these novel engines and kinetic energy recovery systems, as well as the declared goal of making the F1 racing greener, the relevance of F1 to road cars, and finally the use of resource restrictions in F1. The major issue with new F1 rules is not just the total cost of research and development within the budget, but the ability to make the most out of the investment made for a more sustainable and greener road transport. The proposed high torque 475 kW 1.6 liter V6 turbo engine coupled with the proposed small 0.3 MJ 120 kW mechanical KERS may permit fuel savings of 40% vs. today’s low torque 525 kW 2.4 liters V8 naturally aspirated and even better driving performances on the most part of the race tracks.

[WhiteBlue]

From the AMuS Report

Ab 2018 soll die Entwicklung der V6-Turbos eingefroren werden, so wie das bereits seit vier Jahren bei den V8-Motoren der Fall ist. Wer später auf den Zug aufspringt, für den gelten nicht etwa die Regeln eines Neueinsteigers, sondern die Statuten des jeweiligen Jahres.

Im ersten Jahr des Turbo-Zeitalters sind den Herstellern die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten praktisch freigestellt. Sie können nach Belieben auf technische Probleme oder auf einen Entwicklungsrückstand reagieren. Ab 2015 tritt eine Matrix mit Punktesystem auf den Plan. Die Motoren dürfen in rund 60 Bereichen verändert werden.

Jede Änderung wird individuell mit einer Punktzahl versehen. Vereinfacht gesagt: Eine Kolbenmodifikation wird höher bepunktet als ein Eingriff an der Ölpumpe. Insgesamt darf jeder Hersteller in der Saison 2015 eine Punktzahl von 32 erreichen. 2016 werden die Eingriffsmöglichkeiten auf 15 Punkte reduziert und 2017 sollen es nur noch 8 Punkte sein. Immer mehr Modifikationen sind überhaupt nicht mehr erlaubt. Zuerst fliegen konzeptionelle Maßnahmen aus Entwicklungsfahrplan.

Translation

From 2018 development of the V6-Turbos will be frozen like the V8 engine freeze since four years. Those who later jump on the band wagon are not treated as new entries, they are also subject to the regulations of the respective year.

In the first year of the turbo age the manufactuers have total freedom to continue development. They are free to react to technical problems or any development deficit. From 2015 a matrix with a points system will be introduced. Engine modifications from 60 different assemblies can be made.

Each modification will be rated by an individual point score. To put it simply: A piston modification will have a higher point score than a change to the oil pump. In 2015 each manufacturer may reach a total score of 32 points. In 2016 the development scope will be reduced to a total of 15 points and in 2017 only 8 points will be available. A rising number of assemblies will be blocked for development. The first things to get frozen are change of concept changes.

This is an interesting piece of information which was not available before. It appears to be a recent modification to the engine plan that is designed to increase the pressure on future F1 power train manufacturers and to limit the development cost. Obviously for new manufacturers like Honda there is still the chance to make substantial modifications in 2015/16/17 when they will be running the engines in the McLaren cars. If Toyota, Ford or Porsche made a decision to come back into F1 say in 2017 they would loose many of those development opportunities as complete assemblies have to remain as they are initially designed and the general scope of change gets reduced significantly.