What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

I still havent heard any good reason why the engine HAS to be a L4 engine instead of a V6.

I don't think there are reason for a MUST format. But the engine working group had some good reasons to select the L4 format.
One good reason is that two additional cylinders of a V6 produce more friction and use more fuel compared to a four cylinder. A second good reason is a strong interest of automotive manufacturers in the 1.6L L4 GRE format.

[ringo]

Another reason is that it is easier to manufacture. It's half a V8.
Ferrari seemed to forgot that one.
Ferrari need to turn to FIAT for some help, if the cant make a 4 cylinder in 2 yeards. They might have to increase the size of the FIAT logo on the car as well.
The L4 is more basic and fundamental. I think the engineers would prefer the L4 as the best platform to experiment with.
The V6 is superior, power wise and flow wise, but it has been done already. It's time an L4 become the centre of attention.
It's a good opportunity to develope the most used engine world wide.

I personally hate the L4, i like straight sixes. But the L4 hasn't had the opportunity in F1 like the other V engines. Who knows what the teams will contribute when they start developing the L4.

I hope BMW makes a return as well as Honda. The L4 will draw them in.

[rjsa]

Another reason is that it is easier to manufacture. It's half a V8.
Ferrari seemed to forgot that one.
Ferrari need to turn to FIAT for some help, if the cant make a 4 cylinder in 2 yeards. They might have to increase the size of the FIAT logo on the car as well.
The L4 is more basic and fundamental. I think the engineers would prefer the L4 as the best platform to experiment with.
The V6 is superior, power wise and flow wise, but it has been done already. It's time an L4 become the centre of attention.
It's a good opportunity to develope the most used engine world wide.

I personally hate the L4, i like straight sixes. But the L4 hasn't had the opportunity in F1 like the other V engines. Who knows what the teams will contribute when they start developing the L4.

I hope BMW makes a return as well as Honda. The L4 will draw them in.

There is a difference between can't and won't. Ferrari's first engine was a 1.5L V12 for crying out loud.

I suggest those interested in a L4 only formula to look at SuperV or Formula Ford. I'ts been done and it aint that cool.

[WhiteBlue]

I suggest those interested in a L4 only formula to look at SuperV or Formula Ford. I'ts been done and it aint that cool.

Frankly spoken this pointing to lower formulae to support a particular technical preference is getting a bit long in the teeth. It is not funny, not cool and it is not the kind of technical argument we should be using at this board.

One great point against your view is the magnificent role that L4 engines have played in North American top racing series for decades. The Miller and Offenhausen Indy engines were exciting and very successfull.

But the main point is that downsized turbo charged and direct injected inline four engines can beat the power output of bigger naturally aspired V8s, have more torque, less weight and need to carry far less fuel. So by every criterium normally used for racing engines the modern engines will simply be better.

If you want to know how it is being done read the report Turbo'd for Fuel Economy

[010010011010]

Since when F1 has to be relevant to road cars and not, let's say, super sport cars?
I could accept GT cars as reference to every day cars, but F1 !?!?!

All this ... move is ONLY to attract those manufactures who ONLY wants to use F1 as the best sponsor to sell 4-cyl road cars. Don't lie saying thats because you care about "green" and wich engines are going to be mainstream in 10 or 15 years.

Not EVERY engine in the world will have 4-cyl. So just limit the max capacity and let everyone make the engine they want.

I have to say, that is a really good point. Im looking through the used car section of the auto trader, and I aint seeing any v12, v10 or v8 runabouts.
Yet F1 was using these engines all the time.

Whats the sudden urge to use road derived engines? Its the wrong way around!

Free up the engine regs sure to allow new technologys to be developed, but we dont need the EXACT same format. As everyone says, the L4 is closely related to the V8, so the technology shoud be transferable within reason.

Everyones says that Ferrari dont want a L4 for marketing reasons, which no doubt is true, its a waste of money on their part. But equally, F**k all of the engine that will be sitting in the back of an F1 car is going to be the same for a cheap road car. So to me the others only want it for marketing also.

[rjsa]

I suggest those interested in a L4 only formula to look at SuperV or Formula Ford. I'ts been done and it aint that cool.

Frankly spoken this pointing to lower formulae to support a particular technical preference is getting a bit long in the teeth. It is not funny, not cool and it is not the kind of technical argument we should be using at this board.

One great point against your view is the magnificent role that L4 engines have played in North American top racing series for decades. The Miller and Offenhausen Indy engines were exciting and very successfull.

But the main point is that downsized turbo charged and direct injected inline four engines can beat the power output of bigger naturally aspired V8s, have more torque, less weight and need to carry far less fuel. So by every criterium normally used for racing engines the modern engines will simply be better.

If you want to know how it is being done read the report Turbo'd for Fuel Economy

Not funny or cool. Just dull and boring.


And I'm not getting into the fuel efficiency stuff being the most relevant aspect to F1 or not again. I just hope that FIA knows better or that Ferrari holds their ground and just veto the damn things.

[Scotracer]

I suggest those interested in a L4 only formula to look at SuperV or Formula Ford. I'ts been done and it aint that cool.

Frankly spoken this pointing to lower formulae to support a particular technical preference is getting a bit long in the teeth. It is not funny, not cool and it is not the kind of technical argument we should be using at this board.

One great point against your view is the magnificent role that L4 engines have played in North American top racing series for decades. The Miller and Offenhausen Indy engines were exciting and very successfull.

But the main point is that downsized turbo charged and direct injected inline four engines can beat the power output of bigger naturally aspired V8s, have more torque, less weight and need to carry far less fuel. So by every criterium normally used for racing engines the modern engines will simply be better.

If you want to know how it is being done read the report Turbo'd for Fuel Economy

Given the I4 BMW Turbos from back in the day weighed 170kg+ with all ancillaries, I wouldn't say they were necessarily lighter.

The day that F1 creates engine regs purely around fuel efficiency is the day I lose interest and move on to another sport. Problem is, I'm fast running out of sports where 'proper' petrolhead engines exist. Top Fuel, anyone?

I move for at least 6 cylinders - any less and the cars just wont sound like F1 cars. Just think of a 1.6 V12 Twin-Turbo @ 11,000rpm. What a noise that would be. I really don't mind turbo-charging but would prefer N/A.

[WhiteBlue]

And I'm not getting into the fuel efficiency stuff being the most relevant aspect to F1 or not again. I just hope that FIA knows better or that Ferrari holds their ground and just veto the damn things.

In case you are still not getting it, I'm not arguing green. I'm saying that the new generation of engines will simply run rings around a clapped out, naturally aspired eight pot. The new technology engines have more grunt, more power, better power to weight ratio, carry less fuel and beat any old engine to the finish line in a fair contest. If you can have an engine that is stronger, faster and gives you twice the miles to refueling why bother with the old shite?

Given the I4 BMW Turbos from back in the day weighed 170kg+ with all ancillaries, I wouldn't say they were necessarily lighter.

Those were the days with iron engine blocks and no CAD. The next engine generation will weight at 70 kg or less.

[riff_raff]

With regards to race engine formulas, there is a good reason for using turbocharged engines. As Champ Car learned, it is easier and less costly to make adjustments to the rules using boost limits than with any other method. Especially if a spec fuel (like methanol) is being used.

All an engine power rule change usually requires is some remapping.

[xpensive]

It's interesting how you try to toot your own horn by reading someting from bland statements like those from Michael and Lowe? Lowe never said McLaren supported any engine layout specifically, and Michael was obviously hesitating.

Later on you contradict yourself, again, by saying;

In case you are still not getting it, I'm not arguing green. I'm saying that the new generation of engines will simply run rings around a clapped out, naturally aspired eight pot. The new technology engines have more grunt, more power, better power to weight ratio, carry less fuel and beat any old engine to the finish line in a fair contest. If you can have an engine that is stronger, faster and gives you twice the miles to refueling why bother with the old shite?

- If your not arguing "green" why have you been so hellbent on limiting fuel capacity then?

- Earlier you have frequently argued less fuel to reduce power and as a consequence air-resistence and downforce, now you say we can have both more power and less fuel, pardon me but I'm getting confused here, please enlighten us?

[mx_tifoso]

...

The day that F1 creates engine regs purely around fuel efficiency is the day I lose interest and move on to another sport. Problem is, I'm fast running out of sports where 'proper' petrolhead engines exist. Top Fuel, anyone?

I move for at least 6 cylinders - any less and the cars just wont sound like F1 cars. Just think of a 1.6 V12 Twin-Turbo @ 11,000rpm. What a noise that would be. I really don't mind turbo-charging but would prefer N/A.

I'm glad an engineer is on the same page as me.

The good news for now is that the V8 will be around for 6 races and 2 complete seasons more.

One could hope for a sensible (and appealing) choice by the FIA but I'm not prepared to hold my breath.

[FW17]

Jungle juice played a major role in boost pressure whuch resulted in higher boost pressures and power.

With todays closer to pump fuel there is going to be a lot of challenges for the engineers.

[xpensive]

Jungle juice played a major role in boost pressure whuch resulted in higher boost pressures and power.

With todays closer to pump fuel there is going to be a lot of challenges for the engineers.

Shouldn't be much of a problem really. With a 50cc/sec restricted fuelflow to a 1.6 liter engine at 12 kRpm,
boost will effectively be limited to little more than 1 Bar, an outragous simplification will give this;

With a mix of 1:12 and 100% filling, 160 liter/sec of compressed air, ambient air at a density of 1.2 kg/m^3,
fuel density of 0.75 kg/liter, you need 375 liters of ambient air; 375/160 equals 2.3 absolute or 1.3 of boost.

Still about 750 Hp though.

[CMSMJ1]

Those were the days with iron engine blocks and no CAD. The next engine generation will weight at 70 kg or less.

Engine weight is mandated now at 95kg. WHy do you think they'll change it?

Car weight is getting heavier and you know that these engines will be far from the cutting edge devices we want to see in F1.

The engines, if GRE, will be built down to a price and IMO will just plain suck arse..

F1 is not relevant to road cars. It never really was.

There are more teams making F1 cars as their sole business than there are teams that use F1 to develop road technology.

[djos]

Jungle juice played a major role in boost pressure whuch resulted in higher boost pressures and power.

With todays closer to pump fuel there is going to be a lot of challenges for the engineers.

Shouldn't be much of a problem really. With a 50cc/sec restricted fuelflow to a 1.6 liter engine at 12 kRpm,
boost will effectively be limited to little more than 1 Bar, an outragous simplification will give this;

With a mix of 1:12 and 100% filling, 160 liter/sec of compressed air, ambient air at a density of 1.2 kg/m^3,
fuel density of 0.75 kg/liter, you need 375 liters of ambient air; 375/160 equals 2.3 absolute or 1.3 of boost.

Still about 750 Hp though.

Wake me up when they are back to 900hp! [-o<