2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[munudeges]

I find these restrictions utterly ludicrous. If 'homologation' has taught us anything it's that costs never go down. Ever increasing amounts of money are merely spent on ever smaller windows of change and development with that being a barrier to entry for new entrants. Result? No innovation and it just locks in any advantages or disadvantages any manufacturer might have with no right of reply for those behind.

Small wonder Volkswagen won't touch it with a pole. Why would they? They're bigger than any of the manufacturers in Formula 1 and it's they who are promoting what they sell on fuel efficiency.

[Tim.Wright]

Check out this table from F1Fanatic. Maybe it will change but it seems that some thought has already gone in to the freeze.

This freeze is the biggest joke of the new engine formula and proves that these powewrtrains are purely a marketing exersize.

Increasing complexity and doubling the purchase costs to arrive at more or less the same overall power goes against all engineering common sense.

Then freezing them to ensure nothing new can be developed is the final nail in the coffin...

[xpensive]

I think the biggest joke is swapping a few liters of gasoline for toxic throw-away batteries in the name of being "green".

[ringo]

Hahaha, that's a nice way of looking at it.

They'll be tossing out more batteries per season than anything else.

[wuzak]

I think the biggest joke is swapping a few liters of gasoline for toxic throw-away batteries in the name of being "green".

They don't have to use batteries.

Tail end Charlies may find it easier and cheaper to use flywheels that last the season - even if they can't store or use as much as the batteries.

[xpensive]

I doubt it, the engines are most likely to come complete with the gizmos, regardless of manufacturer, while I doubt developing your own flywheel will be any less xpensive, au contraire. The entire situation has become preposterous to my mind.

[GitanesBlondes]

The most puzzling thing about this formula, is that teams will be paying more for 5 engines than they would have paid for 100, V10 engines that could be developed throughout the season in the year 2000.

I truly believe that the FIA has zero clue about anything when it comes to economics and technical know-how. It might explain why the specialized press gets it so wrong consistently, since they probably believe everything that comes out of the FIA, right or wrong.

The economics of F1 are incredibly problematic. It also shows how beholden to their masters the specialized press has become, as they are all either afraid, or incapable of asking the correct questions. No wonder the sport has wound up with this stupidity driving it forward because everyone is afraid of saying anything.

[Pingguest]

What source does support your statement that the 2014 engines are (in real terms, hence not nominal!) more expensive than the 2000 V10-engines, GitanesBlondes?

[GitanesBlondes]

What source does support your statement that the 2014 engines are (in real terms, hence not nominal!) more expensive than the 2000 V10-engines, GitanesBlondes?

Why, Mario Illien himself was the one who said that he could produce 100 V10's in the year 2000 for the same price teams are paying for only 8 engines in the 2.4L V8 formula. The 5 engines in the 1.6L V6 formula are going to cost even more than the 2.4L V8's will.

Regardless, the locked engine formula is among the biggest con jobs in F1 history from a purely financial perspective.

I have mentioned previously that the cost per unit goes down the more a unit is produced; making a 1,000 of something has a lower cost per unit than making 100 of the same thing. If F1 was really interested in any reasonable cost-cutting, they'd be allowing open season on the number of engines a team can use for the whole season, as well as development.

If you want the sport as spectacle and as pushing technology, then it's time to bring back the qualifying specials running 5 BAR for 2 laps. Nothing innovates more than open engine development, and nothing adds more to the spectacle than engines running 900-1000BHP in race trim.

If you want a stagnant, and technologically irrelevant race formula, by all means, the FIA should continue on the path that that wise sage Mosley set things upon.

[autogyro]

F1 has simply outgrown its usefulness as a base for technical innovation.
It did so decades ago, it is only now that the motor heads are catching up mentaly.

Vehicle performance technology today can easily produce cars using ic engines that would be many times 'faster' than current F1 cars.
There is nowhere that such cars could be raced safely.
F1 is a spec formula with only one way to go, a way forced on it by cost and real world relevence.

1.6l v6 turbo F1 will impress nobody and achieve nothing technicaly.

My only regret is that Formula E electric racing has been brought out as some kind of F1 comparison which it is not.
FE will meet performance restrictions almost strait away because of city center safety issues.
The cars will be too fast.
We will have a few years of muddle now until electric racing establishes itself in the lower formula'.

[Pingguest]

I am convinced that standardizing, homologating and equalizing parts are not good for Formula 1. In fact, I have always been an opponent. It all started with the introduction of the post-qualifying parc fermé in 2003; I have not enjoyed watching qualifying since then. Other regulations made things even worse.

However, do you have a source or link to Mario Illien stating that the total cost for engines have risen due to the changes of the regulation?

[Blackout]

A question about the weight of the new engines/cars: Renault said new energy unit (V6+Turbo+Kers+ters+rads etc) will wight 200 kilos, 80 more than the V8 and his components and some people say that V8 cars weight 500 kilos while some other say 450 kg only. Is the driver's weight included in those 500 kilos or what? if we include the driver's weight. Let's say 80 kg, 2014 cars should weight 660 kg and that gives the teams 30 kg of ballast to play with. That seems to be sufficient on the paper but the teams do not seem to be satisfied with that...

[xpensive]

A question about the weight of the new engines/cars: Renault said new energy unit (V6+Turbo+Kers+ters+rads etc) will wight 200 kilos, 80 more than the V8 and his components and some people say that V8 cars weight 500 kilos while some other say 450 kg only. Is the driver's weight included in those 500 kilos or what? if we include the driver's weight. Let's say 80 kg, 2014 cars should weight 660 kg and that gives the teams 30 kg of ballast to play with. That seems to be sufficient on the paper but the teams do not seem to be satisfied with that...

I believe today's cars carry lots of ballast, perhaps the equal of a passenger, which is stupid enough as it is if you want it "green".
Introducing an 80 kg heavier engine with the same peak power to save less than 0.5 liter of gas per lap is even more so.

Less than 0.5 liter per lap?
- 120 kW of MGU-K for 80 s is 9.6 MJ. This is absolute maximum.
- 9.6 MJ is the equal of 0.28 liter of gasoline at 34 MJ/liter.
- 0.28 liter with twice the efficiency of the ICE is some 0.5 liter.

In reality it's far less of course, you are not on the throttle for 80 s and the battery discharge has a limitation to 4 MJ per lap.

[Blackout]

Ok. Thanks.
Axel Plasse from Renault sport says 2014 fuel tank carries 130l and consumption is between 35-40% less, we all know that Afair, but he also says 2014 cars will gain 3 seconds per lap and 30 km/h thanks to the ERS.
http://video.eurosport.fr/formule-1/f1- ... ideo.shtml

[Ogami musashi]

If you don't mind, i think it is better translated to "ERS will contribute to 3 sec/lap and 30km/h in top speed next year". Because in the interview he stresses that having the ERS sorted next year is vital compared to now with the KERS.