What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[Pingguest]

What about the engine control unit (ECU)? Since 2008 the ECU is standardized for cost savings and a successful enforcement of the launch and traction control systems. A couple of months ago I read that those driver aids were to be re-legalized. So far, there's been no mentioning about the ECU and driver aids. Does anyone know more on this subject?

[rjsa]

and Ferrari will not agree to have a free choice either.

Care to share the reason for this thought?

[WhiteBlue]

and Ferrari will not agree to have a free choice either.

Care to share the reason for this thought?

Marmorini made the point that anything but a 1.8L V6 cannot be developed in time. The claim obviously is rubbish but it shows that Ferrari are lock, stock and barrel sold on the V6 and do not want to see freedom of choice.

[andrew]

Why is it obviously rubbish?

[WhiteBlue]

Why is it obviously rubbish?

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article. ... 5857&FS=F1

There you read: 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). The FIA are working hard at it and I'm sure things will be decided relatively swiftly.

You can also read my own analysis of Marmorini's claim at viewtopic.php?p=197226#p197226

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.

The lopping off of two cylinders was last proposed and executed in 2005 and it turned out to be a totally different engine according to the experts at that time. And those were both port injected NA engines that were on very similar rev levels and internal pressures. This time there would probably not be a single part to carry over. Not even the spark plugs.

[andrew]

Right, so the only evidence to rubbish the Ferrari claim is from a competitior and from a poster who is, shall we say, not a Ferrari fan. You'll excuse my scepticism.

Besides, the Ferrari claim is probably true until Ferrari themselves rubbish it.

[xpensive]

Rumour in Sweden is that a 1.6 liter I4-turbo rule would prompt Saab to join F1 for 2013, when they have a wealth of xperience with that type of engine since the mid-seventies. The new CEO, Victor Muller of Spyker already had a taste
of the sport, why he is pushing the idea strongly, even more so if Formula One would opt for Ethanol-fuel of course.

Quote from Victor Muller in today's Grönköpings veckoblad;

"If the new F1 regulations includes Ethanol, Saab would have a jump on every competitor with our Bio-fuel turbo I4 concept, but we will take it serious even with conventional petrol, we are already in contact with one existing team"

[rjsa]

Now it starts to smell like the budget cap. Awhole new world of newcomers to be let down by a last time regret.

Take note: V8, raise of the engine freeze and limited fuel amount for 2013.

[WhiteBlue]

andrew, you conveniently ignore the development time of the last "new" engine. The regulation was decided in December 2004 against firce opposition of BMW. The engine ran for the first time on track in December 2005 after just 12 months. The first race was on March 12th 2006 in Bahrain when all engine competitors turned up with V8s.

Second you are unable to argue any of the points I made.

[Scotracer]

The lopping off of two cylinders was last proposed and executed in 2005 and it turned out to be a totally different engine according to the experts at that time. And those were both port injected NA engines that were on very similar rev levels and internal pressures. This time there would probably not be a single part to carry over. Not even the spark plugs.

andrew, you conveniently ignore the development time of the last "new" engine. The regulation was decided in December 2004 against firce opposition of BMW. The engine ran for the first time on track in December 2005 after just 12 months. The first race was on March 12th 2006 in Bahrain when all engine competitors turned up with V8s.

Second you are unable to argue any of the points I made.

Way to contradict yourself in one page.

[Scotracer]

2. So you think all the guys of the engine working group are stupid? Not very convincing.

You just saw what the overtaking working group achieved...

That was a good try! The difference is the aero people in the overtaking working group were more concerned with conserving their own significance to F1 and less with overtaking. It is recorded fact that Brawn advised them about the double diffusor loop hole in the wording of the regulation and proposed a different wording. It was voted down. So one can speculate whether this was by following an agenda or by stupidness. I rather think they simply had the agenda to avoid a physical limit on downforce which had been proposed by the FiA for several years and keep their jobs important for some more years.

I believe that Marmorini (Ferrari), Cowell (MBHPE), Simon (FiA), Baretzky (Audi) and White (Renault) are all very intelligent and clever people. They do not make many dumb decisions. Going for more fuel efficient F1 engines with equal performance target will help all of them to improver their employer's brand image with the automotive users. Not such a bad thing to do.

Sweet Jesus you are infuriating.

If the underlying intent was to keep the DDD in the regulations why would so many teams ignore it until after the start of the season and even protest the diffuser of Brawn, Williams and Toyota?

Could it be a conspiracy or your unscientific, self-serving assumptions? I'll let the readers decide that one.

[andrew]

Second you are unable to argue any of the points I made.

How'd you work that one out? Because I don't answer within 30 secinds? FYI (not that it is any of your business), I am currently catching up on some work and am flicking between my work and F1 Tech as a breather every so often.

I wasn't looking for an argument but merely read a comment with wild claims being passed as fact and no source quoted. Always quote your sources when claiming facts. [-X

However, I apologise in advance of being extremely busy at work and having to catch up in my own time. I will endevour to advise a few client's that they will have to wait a few days for their reports etc. as WhiteBlue requested my reply.

Too sarcastic?

Patients is a virtue dear chap.

[WhiteBlue]

The lopping off of two cylinders was last proposed and executed in 2005 and it turned out to be a totally different engine according to the experts at that time. And those were both port injected NA engines that were on very similar rev levels and internal pressures. This time there would probably not be a single part to carry over. Not even the spark plugs.

andrew, you conveniently ignore the development time of the last "new" engine. The regulation was decided in December 2004 against firce opposition of BMW. The engine ran for the first time on track in December 2005 after just 12 months. The first race was on March 12th 2006 in Bahrain when all engine competitors turned up with V8s.

Second you are unable to argue any of the points I made.

Way to contradict yourself in one page.

No contradiction there. The V10 to V8 transition was a completely new engine and it was done in 12 months. There should really be no problem to to do a new engine again in 30 months. I think you do not understand what we have been talking about.

[Scotracer]

The lopping off of two cylinders was last proposed and executed in 2005 and it turned out to be a totally different engine according to the experts at that time. And those were both port injected NA engines that were on very similar rev levels and internal pressures. This time there would probably not be a single part to carry over. Not even the spark plugs.

andrew, you conveniently ignore the development time of the last "new" engine. The regulation was decided in December 2004 against firce opposition of BMW. The engine ran for the first time on track in December 2005 after just 12 months. The first race was on March 12th 2006 in Bahrain when all engine competitors turned up with V8s.

Second you are unable to argue any of the points I made.

Way to contradict yourself in one page.

No contradiction there. The V10 to V8 transition was a completely new engine and it was done in 12 months. There should really be no problem to to do a new engine again in 30 months. I think you do not understand what we have been talking about.

I wont post what I think of you. It violates a few rules.

Anyway, yes the engines were different but in the post about the new engine you mentioned loads of new technologies that weren't present in the V10/V8 transition. Invalid analogy and a contradiction in your claims. QED.

[WhiteBlue]

Second you are unable to argue any of the points I made.

How'd you work that one out? Because I don't answer within 30 secinds? FYI (not that it is any of your business), I am currently catching up on some work and am flicking between my work and F1 Tech as a breather every so often.

I wasn't looking for an argument but merely read a comment with wild claims being passed as fact and no source quoted. Always quote your sources when claiming facts. [-X

However, I apologise in advance of being extremely busy at work and having to catch up in my own time. I will endevour to advise a few client's that they will have to wait a few days for their reports etc. as WhiteBlue requested my reply.

Too sarcastic?

Patients is a virtue dear chap.

My chap, are you making detrimental comments about my view on an issue that you had no time to study and develop your own reasoning? That is not impressive at all. If you are competent enough to stand up for a reasoned opinion how new technology influences the next formula engine design you should have done your learning in time to understand my points that show the hollowness of Marmorini's claim.