Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Just_a_fan]

And they would be examples of "preferential rules"...

[mrluke]

This is a post from F1f on the proposed 2.2 V6

For those who don’t know, Mark Gallagher is referring to Chevy and Honda Performance Development. Twin turbo, 2.2L V6 engines is the IndyCar spec. I’m sure Chevy and HPD would love to sell engines to some F1 teams, since it is widely believed they lose money on the cost capped, engine leases to IndyCar teams.

They never release official figures, but the most common reported numbers are that the engines make between 750 to 850 hp, depending on whether they are set up for a road/street course versus a super speedway. I’m pretty confident that the engines could easily make over 900 hp. There isn’t a maximum number of engines that a driver is allowed to use each season, but there is a minimum distance that an engine must be run before it can be replaced without a penalty. I believe that number was 2,500 miles for the 2015 season. My rough math is that would equate to eight or nine F1 race weekends, so it should be possible to tune them for higher performance and still last 4 or 5 races. Also, Indycar uses E85 (ethanol) fuel, and the engines would instantly generate more power running on gasoline/petrol.

Like I said before I’m sure Chevy/Ilmor would sell their engines. I bet HPD would too, but I don’t know if Honda Japan would allow it. Supposedly Cosworth also has an Indycar V6 engine design, but could never get a manufacturer to fund the testing and production of it.

If all of the above is true, these 2.2l could prove quite competitive. Especially if there's an additional simple KERS system added as has been talked about. There's still a question of fuel ofcourse as there's noway they can make it race distance on 100 kg.

Is there anything to show the engines would be instantly more powerful without E85? As i understand it E85 is very very knock resistant?

[NL_Fer]

E85 will make a turbo engine much more powerfull than gasoline. Just consumes much more of it, since ethanol contains less energy per liter.

[ScottB]

Copying Indycar engines would put quite the knock in the F1 claim of being the 'pinnacle' of Motorsport, certainly in engineering terms, wouldn't it?

[Tommy Cookers]

E85 will make a turbo engine much more powerfull than gasoline. Just consumes much more of it, since ethanol contains less energy per liter.

Ethanol has about 3% more energy than gasoline relative to the stoichiometric mass (or quantity burnable in a given engine)
so is maybe no better than current or N/A F1 'gasoline'

but Methanol similarly has about 10% more energy than gasoline

[NL_Fer]

E85 will make a turbo engine much more powerfull than gasoline. Just consumes much more of it, since ethanol contains less energy per liter.

Ethanol has about 3% more energy than gasoline relative to the stoichiometric mass (or quantity burnable in a given engine)
so is maybe no better than current or N/A F1 'gasoline'

but Methanol similarly has about 10% more energy than gasoline

Ethanol (and methanol also) has an oxygen component in it's molecule, so it needs less air to combust. For the same engine, this means you can inject more ethanol than gasoline. Also with ethanols better cooling capability and highe octane rating, you can generate allot more energy with E85 in the same engine.

[Tommy Cookers]

you do not seem to have understood my previous post
and you seem unaware that current F1 fuel has no (upper) limit of Octane number

by high evaporative cooling, alcohol fuel tends to reduce charge cooling and work by compressor (but only with fuelling pre-cylinder)
however the greater fuel vapour volume displaces more air and so demands greater compressor pressure for the required AFR
(traditionally the benefits were most important to (extend the limits of) Roots-type supercharging, not to the centrifugal type)

with DI the benefits are less than clear
Gilles Simon warned that super-high CR is impossible without sacrificing valve size

[Phil]

I think these new proposed alternative engines are a logical consequence of the situation that still many deem to be entirely just and fair. It isn't. It just goes on to show what crisis the sport is in.

Lets recap:

- The suppliers who are also competitors as factory-teams are controlling the sport - they are supplying their own teams with the newest spec versions while their customers are still on older engines. Further; They have the added benefit of optimizing their package under one roof - from perfect engine maps in regards to the fuel they use to the whole packaging around the car to find the best compromise for aero and cooling.
- They can dictate who they choose to supply; If it's some midfield team, no problem, they are happy to supply and spread the costs of investment for these PU - if the competitor is deemed too competitive (RedBull) they (from their POV rightly) do not.
- Honda being in an awkward position because of McLaren was foreseeable and logical. IMO it would benefit Honda to supply more than just McLaren, but if RedBull would then go on to beat McLaren, it would reflect bad on McLaren and defeat the whole purpose in going into an 'exclusive' partnership with Honda.

It's also an inherent conflict of interest, being a supplier of a competitive engine but also being a competitor. It's not the fault of the engine manufacturers, just a consequence of circumstance, the rules and how the sport underestimated the potential for failure and success of these new engines.

The threat of bringing these new alternative engines for 2017 is also a logical consequence of the unwillingness of Mercedes/Ferrari, also Honda to supply RedBull with engines - which is why I've maintained that the sport as a whole - and this includes Mercedes, Ferrari and also Honda, to decide what consequence will result of not supplying RedBull. They do not want to budge, which I can't fault them, but then the proposed alternative engines are a logical consequence.

Another key factor in this alternative engines being proposed is also the unwillingness of both Mercedes and Ferrari (perhaps also Honda) to cap the price for engines to something affordable for smaller teams.

IMO I don't fault the FIA and Bernie for coming with these new engines. If Mercedes, Ferrari and Honda are unwilling to compromise for "the good of the sport" - the sport will do what is necessary to protect themselves. This includes also the survival of the smaller teams. The alternative engines might just do that. If not, then as a means to force the engine manufacturers into compliance.

It will be interesting how the situation develops.

As a F1 fan, I'm all for a more competitive field.

[Andres125sx]

To me the only way those 2.2 V6 would make any sense is if the rules are written for those to be second class engines. Otherwise if I´d be Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes or Honda, I´d be really upset.

If the new 2.2 are intended to compete with current PU´s that´d be too unfair for current manufacturers. They invested a huge amount of money, if now any team can get an engine equally competitive with just third of the cost that´d be amazingly unfair.

Obviously Mercedes, Ferrari and even Honda will never accept this, they´ll accept it only if sure those 2.2 engines will not compete with current PUs

[adrianjordan]

Another key factor in this alternative engines being proposed is also the unwillingness of both Mercedes and Ferrari (perhaps also Honda) to cap the price for engines to something affordable for smaller teams.

Except that all the manufacturers, yes including Ferrari and Mercedes, agreed last week to capping the costs of the current PU even going so far as to propose a tier 1 (latest spec) and tier 2 (b-spec) system to help reduce costs to smaller teams...

[sgth0mas]

To me the only way those 2.2 V6 would make any sense is if the rules are written for those to be second class engines. Otherwise if I´d be Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes or Honda, I´d be really upset.

If the new 2.2 are intended to compete with current PU´s that´d be too unfair for current manufacturers. They invested a huge amount of money, if now any team can get an engine equally competitive with just third of the cost that´d be amazingly unfair.

Obviously Mercedes, Ferrari and even Honda will never accept this, they´ll accept it only if sure those 2.2 engines will not compete with current PUs

Like bernie said...they invested that money for road car relevance right? How is it unfair when it was intended to benefit the road car divisions?

[Andres125sx]

If we take anything Bernie says as true, accurate and real....

[Phil]

To me the only way those 2.2 V6 would make any sense is if the rules are written for those to be second class engines. Otherwise if I´d be Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes or Honda, I´d be really upset.

Upset or not, if the consequence of each engine-manufacturer and competitor looking out for its own interest leads to teams ending without an engine and customer teams being handicapped even more than the benefit a works-team already has and enoys... the means of the sport (in this context Bernie and the FIA) to come up with solutions to level the game seems rather logical to me.

That something like this would happen was pretty much foreseeable for as long as this topic has existed... unless people seriously entertained the idea that losing two big teams, maybe a smaller money troubled team in the process like Force India or Sauber too, would be easily rescued by the willingness of Mercedes and Ferrari to supply 3 car teams (and lock out even more of the point finishes) for the "good of the sport".

Riiiiight.

Except that all the manufacturers, yes including Ferrari and Mercedes, agreed last week to capping the costs of the current PU even going so far as to propose a tier 1 (latest spec) and tier 2 (b-spec) system to help reduce costs to smaller teams...

Really? Do you have any link? From what I heard, precisely that point is in doubt - I quote from James Allen:

"According to Auto Motor und Sport, “The issue of limiting costs arose once again in Geneva. The idea was tabled of fixing maximum (engine supply) prices at 12 million euros for new engines and 8 million euros for one year-old engines. But Ferrari reiterated that if necessary, they would exercise a veto, should the rest of the teams vote for that.”"

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/10/m ... m-veto-it/

[turbof1]

Like bernie said...they invested that money for road car relevance right? How is it unfair when it was intended to benefit the road car divisions?

Because it's not only for road car relevance. I think the biggest factor is the marketing behind it, which would be considerably hurt if a simpler engine can defeat a very complex and very expensive PU.

Still, I think it is worth a shot. The low cost engine should however be by default less powerful then the high cost manufacturer ones. I still advocate opening up aero rules to allow potentional compensation for the lesser PU.

[FoxHound]

To me the only way those 2.2 V6 would make any sense is if the rules are written for those to be second class engines. Otherwise if I´d be Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes or Honda, I´d be really upset.

Upset or not, if the consequence of each engine-manufacturer and competitor looking out for its own interest leads to teams ending without an engine and customer teams being handicapped even more than the benefit a works-team already has and enoys... =

Which team will end up without an engine and why? Every team that requires and engine, has an engine. Apart from Red Bull who jettisoned their engine with no regard for where they would get their next one.
That is not the fault of F1, or the engine suppliers, but of Red Bull.

You keep pounding that drum even though we know ALL teams are happy with the performance of their engines apart from Red Bull.
I have even quoted every teams principal from Manor to Williams, all expressing their happiness with their PU's. The issue for them is one of cost.
Do not confuse and murky the differences between cost and performance, it will help this thread move along nicely.