- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
Sounds like Ferrari found that there is not wording in the regulations requiring the shielding on the turbo, and somehow Mercedes and Renault learned of this, are jealous of Ferrari's much lighter and potentially more compact engine with potentially lower CG, and are trying to make up for their own lack of precision with respect to reading the rules by using the pretense of safety to get the rules changed.Anon123 wrote:So Ferrari could be in trouble if they need to add protection?FrukostScones wrote:big trouble:
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl ... ml&act=url
Ferrai thinks there is no need for a turbo-protection-hull, Mercedes and Renault disagree, Ferrari saves some KG in a very sensitive area regarding COG
Do you think any teams expressed enough interest to motivate Cosworth to design the 2014 engine? I'd be surprised if they invested in this with no hint of teams being interested. =D> Always nice to see more variety in the sport.mrluke wrote:http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... ower-unit/
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-c ... worth2.jpg
Didnt expect to see this!
Wow, I don't think anyone did!
If Ferrari don't have a shield but have to add one it may be a problem for them. However, if that shield isn't counted as part of the power unit weight then it really isn't an issue, nor is it if the weight is part of the PU but Renault and Mercedes can't get to the minimum weight (which I believe is the case).mkable1370 wrote:Sounds like Ferrari found that there is not wording in the regulations requiring the shielding on the turbo, and somehow Mercedes and Renault learned of this, are jealous of Ferrari's much lighter and potentially more compact engine with potentially lower CG, and are trying to make up for their own lack of precision with respect to reading the rules by using the pretense of safety to get the rules changed.Anon123 wrote:So Ferrari could be in trouble if they need to add protection?FrukostScones wrote:big trouble:
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl ... ml&act=url
Ferrai thinks there is no need for a turbo-protection-hull, Mercedes and Renault disagree, Ferrari saves some KG in a very sensitive area regarding COG
That's a low idle speed. Doesn't sound anywhere near 4000 rpm.Holm86 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cY2E3ZZr00
If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.WilliamsF1 wrote:Interestingly the RCE article on the 2014 engine mentions that maybe Ford would be joining in 2015, wonder what was their source of that news.
Has there been a rumor elsewhere?djos wrote:If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.WilliamsF1 wrote:Interestingly the RCE article on the 2014 engine mentions that maybe Ford would be joining in 2015, wonder what was their source of that news.
We may have just started itWilliamsF1 wrote:Has there been a rumor elsewhere?djos wrote:If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.WilliamsF1 wrote:Interestingly the RCE article on the 2014 engine mentions that maybe Ford would be joining in 2015, wonder what was their source of that news.
Has there been a rumor elsewhere?[/quote]djos wrote:
If they did want back in to promote their ecoboost range of cars then Cosworth would be their logical partners IMO.
[/quote]FWIW I suggested the exhaust pipe length on one bank should be about 5"/12 cm longer than on the other bank (for single inlets ?)copperkipper1 wrote: ......
I wonder which system in regards to the number of inlets on the turbine housing is better? and what the benefits of each are.
Cosworth & Pure designs both show dual turbine housing inlets. Ferrari have yet to show their hand ....
