What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

A committee is capable of any irrational decision that no single responsible man would ever take. So I will not try to predict the outcome of the decision. I will only say that a fuel flow limit of 50 ml/s will not save a significant amount of fuel compared to today. With that amount of power available drag will be virtually on the same level as today and engineers would keep the engines on very high average fuel flow like 45 ml/s just to keep their blown diffusors running. You would be using 156 kg of race fuel in a 80 min race which is more than they use today.

[strad]

but I bet the FIA dictate an in line 4.

[WhiteBlue]

but I bet the FIA dictate an in line 4.

Of course you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But I would be interested if you can justify it. AFAIK since 01.08.2009 a Concord Agreement is in place again which says the rules are decided by the F1 commission and only rubber stamped by the FiA WMSC. This means the teams and Bernie are the rule making authority. I refer to the bolded part of the below quote.

It emerged this week that the broad outline of the sport's future rules has been essentially decided and agreed by the majority of the teams.

According to Italy's Autosprint, the famous Ferrari outfit is not among them.

Instead, the report said the Maranello based team wants Formula One to revert to a 1.8 litre V6 engine design, which would be much easier to adapt from the current 2.4 litre V8s.

Ferrari's engine boss Luca Marmorini reportedly insists there is not enough time to design a completely new engine for 2013 "with the necessary reliability to have only four units (per driver), as they would like", he said.

Marmorini also argues that a 4-cylinder design would require a complete overhaul of the chassis designs.

Amid Ferrari's staunch opposition last year to the proposed budget cap rules, the team threatened to quit Formula One.

In a new interview with Corriere dello Sport, team boss Stefan Domenicali said anyone who thinks F1 would be the same without Ferrari "is wrong".

He warned that, "depending on how the rules are configured", Ferrari is open to seeking new challenges in "Le Mans or the major American championships". report confirms this situation.

It does not come as a big surprise that Ferrari - and possibly some other manufacturer teams as well - oppose a formula that would bring F1 in line with the GRE decisions. It is not in their marketing interests to use the same engine layout as other forms of motor sport. The consequence would be much increased competition by other manufacturers supplying engines to F1. But it is well in the interest of independent teams to attract a maximum of manufacturers and have the most fuel efficient engine configuration. It needs no reminder that at present the voting ratio between manufacturer and private teams is 4:8.

Cosworth and the FiA are other stake holders in this game who have no real decisive voice. I understand the Cosworth position such that they are best pleased by not defining an engine configuration at all but leave it to each manufacturer to compete with his own design in a formula which is severely fuel restricted compared to today. The FiA are also dedicated to the most fuel efficient engine but are open to listen to manufacturers in and out of F1 in order to make the engine industry relevant. With that position both Cosworth and the FiA are probably not fully in line with Ferrari's proposal.

If I look at Luca Marmorini's points I see different merit in them. So lets have a look at what he says.

A 1.8 litre V6 engine design would be much easier to adapt from the current 2.4 litre V8s as there is not enough time to design a completely new engine for 2013 with the necessary reliability to have only four units per driver and year.

I believe that this is not the true reason for the proposed formula. An optimized 1.8L turbocharged V6 would have a completely different engine technology compared to a NA 2.4L V8. The engine rpms would be much lower in a turbo engine with direct injection. As a consequence the bore/stroke ratio would be different, which necessitates different engine and cylinder blocks, the firing order and the crank shaft would be different including the bearing technology. The loads from inertial forces and working forces would be different requiring a totally new design of pistons and connecting rods. The valve trains and ports would be different in a new formula due to the use of variable timing and lift. This would also impact on the cylinder head design. At the bottom line you see that nothing of the old engine would remain. There is no real option to carry anything over from the old formula into the turbocharged downsized formula.

A 4-cylinder design would require a complete overhaul of the chassis designs.

Luca seems to have a point here as the chassis design of the last 20 years was geared towards V engines with 8-12 cylinders and predominantly 90° V-angle. But again a careful examination reveals that F1 is embarking on a completely new chassis design concept anyway. The new chassis are supposed to have ground effect and side pots which are coming much more forward to protect the driver against side impact. Both points have a huge impact on chassis design. There will be more floor area further forward reducing the necessity to have big front wings. There is also the option to have dedicated venturi channels as used by the the American Champ Cars for many years. The slimmer L4 engine format would be beneficial to a chassis design with venturis. So again it turns out that Marmorini's point is not standing up to examination. It simply masks the fact that Ferrari serve their own agenda like everyone else in F1.

[kalinka]

I'm quite OK with all engine proposals on long term, but what hurts me is the rev limit of 10k or whatever RPM. We saw what a rev. limit can do against overtaking in SPA, where Vettel was unbable to overtake just because hitting the rev. limit. ( I'm waay to far from being a Vettel fan ). And it's not a first time this year we saw this. In Monza we can espect more of that, because if you want your full engine power, than you have to use the full range of revs, but on a long straight you can get a huge overrun behind another car, and you'll be hitting the rev. limit even earlier.

[WhiteBlue]

Every engine has a rev limit, either by design or by regulation. To avoid unfavorable effects the race engineer needs to select his gearing carefully. This is true for any combustion engine with multi speed gearboxes.

[kalinka]

I'm not that stupid. I know every engine has a rev limit, but not an OBLIGATORY rev limit. Clearly the RBR's engine would rev more if it can, but again, clearly they set the limit to the max to extract every avaliable hp from it. If you have no obligatory rev limit then you can afford a higher rev in slipstream situation if you want.

[WhiteBlue]

For the purpose of competition it doesn't matter how the rev limit was established, by technical or by regulatory means. You simply have to respect it to be qualified. It is the same for all. So if one competitor makes wrong choices by gambling on a wetter or drier race than the actual race conditions he can only blame himself.

Turbocharged petrol engines with direct fuel injection simply have different rev levels compared to port injected naturally aspired petrol engines. It is a consequence of the rev level optimization for different circumstances. The turbos can run much higher internal pressure because they have forced induction. This means they are able to generate more torque and they simply do not need extremely high revs. Designers would do a bad job not to recognize that.

[xxChrisxx]

I'm quite OK with all engine proposals on long term, but what hurts me is the rev limit of 10k or whatever RPM. We saw what a rev. limit can do against overtaking in SPA, where Vettel was unbable to overtake just because hitting the rev. limit.

The answer to this is very, very simple. Gear 7th longer.

EDIT: And I already have my response message typed out for what I inevitably think is coming. It goes along the lines of "you can't have your cake and eat it too".

[gridwalker]

Additionally, the current generation of engines were never designed for the current rev limit : the rev limit was imposed following several years of "frozen" development and it is possible that this has affected some manufacturers more equally than others

When manufacturers have the opportunity to design an engine to operate within the specified parameters, you will find that the problem will be much less prominent than it is currently.

[WhiteBlue]

McLaren have distanced themselves from the Ferrari position and have pointed out that they support a 1.6L L4 engine.

Tim Goss, chief engineer of McLaren's 2010 car the MP4-25, said the British team is supportive of the new rules.

"I think for Formula One to show it is at the cutting edge of technology in regards to engines and to promote fuel efficiency, it's entirely the right thing to do," he said during a Vodafone teleconference.

Goss also contradicted Marmorini's claim that there isn't enough time before 2013 to design the new engines.

"As long as the decisions are made shortly, and I think everyone is in a frame of mind to bring it to a conclusion fairly promptly, (there is enough time)."

Interesting to see one automotive team to join the the privateers. It looks like Ferrari could be alone on this.

[747heavy]

not 100% related to F1 but to a similar debat V6 vs. I4 for a major race series.

Honda, which reigned in the turbo days of CART and won six consecutive championships before moving to the Indy Racing League in 2002, had been pushing for a V-6 turbo, publicly stating their lack of interest with an inline-4.

[xpensive]

McLaren have distanced themselves from the Ferrari position and have pointed out that they support a 1.6L L4 engine.

Tim Goss, chief engineer of McLaren's 2010 car the MP4-25, said the British team is supportive of the new rules.

"I think for Formula One to show it is at the cutting edge of technology in regards to engines and to promote fuel efficiency, it's entirely the right thing to do," he said during a Vodafone teleconference.

Goss also contradicted Marmorini's claim that there isn't enough time before 2013 to design the new engines.

"As long as the decisions are made shortly, and I think everyone is in a frame of mind to bring it to a conclusion fairly promptly, (there is enough time)."

Interesting to see one automotive team to join the the privateers. It looks like Ferrari could be alone on this.

I think you have developed a knack for reading your own preferences out of almost anything nowadays WB, where is Goss saying that McLaren wants an I4 and what makes you think that Ferrari would be alone favouring a V6?

[Byronrhys]

I'd rather see a turbo v6 1.8 than a 1.6 l4 , but as a comprimise how about a turbo l4 2.1 [-o< [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ELI1k8f8oI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he4n0yTOXsY[/youtube]

[strad]

edit sorry

[strad]

We will see but I'm not seein a V-6..twin turbo 4 me thinks.
I wouldn't mind a V-6 ..I just don't think it will go tht way.
With Bernies desire to avoid anything Indycar like they might go that way just for that reason though.
What's the target size again???