2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
andrew
andrew
0
Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 15:08
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Re: What will come after the 2.4 V8?

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:For those who never pay attention I will explain it all again....
Accept my apologies, but when the mindless and baseless Ferrari bashing begins I tend to doze off. Can you provide any evidence (not claims or opinions but confirmed and undeniable fact) to confirm that Ferrari alone are behind the decision to go with a V6 format?

Why single out Ferrari? Mercedes are pretty much the same, only their road car arm is much larger and across a broader range of vehicles.

If you care to read the link I posted earlier, you will see that Mercedes (as well as Ferrari) voiced concerns over the proposed engine format and Cosworth wanted clarification. Renault it seems want to remain in the sport and it is likely I think they will go with whatever format is agreed upon.

As for Cosworth, to be brutally honest, if they are wanting to compete at the top level they should have the resources available to allow them to compete. Harsh but that is the way I see it.

I don’t see your reason to single out Ferrari as all the engine manufacturers have been involved in this process.

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

Expensive was right from the very begining !!!!

:shock:

What in tarnation, a V6?

:lol:

The 4 banger was too low class for ferrari. :lol:

So much for light weight single turbo.

It's obvious now that the engines will be mid bank turbo like the BMW v8 engines, or the audi lmp1 car.

At least it will sound better than the 4 cylinder.

I doubt any team will use 2 turbos. They'll have to sit down and look on the pros and cons.
For Sure!!

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula as of 2013

Post

HampusA wrote:F1 considers move to V6 turbos
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92510
Hurrah!!!! [-o<
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: What will come after the 2.4 V8?

Post

andrew wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:For those who never pay attention I will explain it all again....
Accept my apologies, but when the mindless and baseless Ferrari bashing begins I tend to doze off. Can you provide any evidence (not claims or opinions but confirmed and undeniable fact) to confirm that Ferrari alone are behind the decision to go with a V6 format?
I hardly need to bring any more evidence than Montezemolo's own words. He said he would fight the I4 with all he has and he was true to that word. Haug has said it often enough in the past that Merc would support the FiA in the I4 plan because the result of the working group was achieved with Mercedes input. He supported the 2013 engine plan until it became clear that there would not be a cost agreement unless Ferraris wishes were bowed to. You do not expect anybody in F1 to spell it out any clearer, do you? Just read the respective quotes and you know very well what went on.

Mindless Ferrari bashing is hopefully not directed at me or I would need to involve the moderators. I have good reasons not to be fond of Ferrari and Montezemolo. None of them are mindless. This story simply adds another nail in the coffin.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

The I4 was simply the wrong solution for F1, the V6 is the right solution and Im thrilled they finally settled on this configuration! =D>

I've been saying since April 2010 that a small Twin Turbo V6 was the right solution for F1, I may have been out by 200cc but im glad we have finally got this sorted:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6508&p=160386&hilit ... bo#p160386

PS, I also used "unobtainium" before Avatar. :lol:
Last edited by djos on 23 Jun 2011, 03:41, edited 2 times in total.
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

ringo wrote:It's obvious now that the engines will be mid bank turbo like the BMW v8 engines, or the audi lmp1 car. At least it will sound better than the 4 cylinder.
I wonder how you come to that conclusion. Nobody has ever heard those engines. I cannot remember that the Ferrari V6 turbo was sounding any better than the BMW I4 turbo. So please allow me to call this baseless speculation.

People who are impressed by the cylinder number tend to have emotional reasons. So it is sad that even engineers fall into that trap instead of applying logical thinking. The engines will still have the same displacement and the same rpms, will be fuel restricted and feature all the new technology. The sound will be very similar regardless of the number of cylinders. The freqency spectrum will probably be slightly higher due to the higher firing order but I dobt that will have a huge impact on how the engines will sound. IMO the sound is totally over rated anyway.

andrew wrote:If you care to read the link I posted earlier, you will see that Mercedes (as well as Ferrari) voiced concerns over the proposed engine format and Cosworth wanted clarification. Renault it seems want to remain in the sport and it is likely I think they will go with whatever format is agreed upon.

As for Cosworth, to be brutally honest, if they are wanting to compete at the top level they should have the resources available to allow them to compete. Harsh but that is the way I see it.
Your source does not take care to quote the positions over the time with exact quotes. I have pointed out several times that Mercs and Cothworth position became affected by the cost implications of a race without resource restrictions. They never wanted that as you can read in Dave Killne's quote of Cosworth's Gallgher. The so called sources like Bernies pet web site Pitpass deliberately falsify the position of the other manufacturers.

Regarding your pet idea of an unrestricted spending on engine development have a look at what Ron Dennis thinks.
Ron Dennis wrote:I'm very, very nervous about the long-term economics of motor racing and the ability of teams to sustain – 107 F1 teams have come and gone since 1966.
The cost containment of engines is equally important as the one on chassis development and racing teams. Coswoth is crucial in that regard. They are a perfect indicator what should be spend by a profit organization that has the customer's value proposition in mind. Their position over the whole process is 100% consistent. Ferrari on the other hand are not credible. They argued against the I4 to be too expensive and now they forced the other manufacturers to throw away the investment of the last seven months and make engines that are even more expensive.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 23 Jun 2011, 03:49, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

WhiteBlue wrote: I wonder how you come to that conclusion. Nobody has ever heard those engines. I cannot remember that the Ferrari V6 turbo was sounding any better than the BMW I4 turbo. So please allow me to call this baseless speculation.
The BMW i4 sounded ok but nothing to get excited about imo!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niQ26ASiVT4[/youtube]
WhiteBlue wrote:People who are impressed by the cylinder number tend to have emotional reasons. So it is sad that even engineers fall into that trap instead of applying logical thinking. The engines will still have the same displacement and the same rpms, will be fuel restricted and feature all the new technology. The sound will be very similar regardless of the number of cylinders. The freqency spectrum will probably be slightly higher due to the higher firing order but I dobt that will have a huge impact on how the engines will sound. IMO the sound is totally over rated anyway.
It's not just the cylinder count that is important in this case, it's the configuration as well - i4's are simply uninteresting compared with a nice compact little V6 motor which can be a fully stressed member bolted to the gearbox just like the current V8. I4's simply dont lend themselves as well to this kind of installation.

Also, writing off emotional attachment to certain engine configs is simply stupid, any sport without emotion is no sport at all!
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

djos wrote:It's not just the cylinder count that is important in this case, it's the configuration as well - i4's are simply uninteresting compared with a nice compact little V6 motor which can be a fully stressed member bolted to the gearbox just like the current V8. I4's simply dont lend themselves as well to this kind of installation.

Also, writing off emotional attachment to certain engine configs is simply stupid, any sport without emotion is no sport at all!
The myth about the the I4 being unfit in a stressed engine design has been debunked many times. Just go back a few pages where you find several examples to the contrary.

As I have said the whole thing is purely emotional and Ferrari and Ecclestone did a clever job to play on those emotions. People like you should confess that they simply like this concept and stop repeating the bullshit about I4s not being fit for a formula 1 car that Montezemolo sprouts off.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

hecti
hecti
13
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 08:34
Location: Montreal, QC

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

But WB, the truth is that I4s arent f1 worthy... f1 shouldnt be using the same engine that all other fia series will use.
Stop protecting the I4 and you can stop playing the devils advocate. Its over, the decision has been made and you seem like the only person that is unhappy about it.Get over it...

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

hecti wrote:But WB, the truth is that I4s arent f1 worthy... f1 shouldnt be using the same engine that all other fia series will use.
Stop protecting the I4 and you can stop playing the devils advocate. Its over, the decision has been made and you seem like the only person that is unhappy about it.Get over it...
Well said mate! =D>
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

I'm not unhappy, I have actually expressed my happiness that we have a solution in the end. I just can't stand the nonsense the Ecclestone propaganda is spreading.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula ... 878359.stm

For some facts the BBC article seems to be having some. Main points are:
  • resource restrictions will apply to engine design and development projects
  • fuel flow and fuel cap restrictions will be carried over from the 2013 rules
  • rpm restrictions will be the same
  • power output will probably be slightly lower as efficiency is not as good as the I4 would have had but will still target 750 hp including recovery
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

xpensive
xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

Somebody wrote the following on another thread on April 29th;

What you have to ask yourself marcush, who loves the four-pot turbos anyway (xcept from WB of course)?

- MrE obviously don't
- Montezuma hates it.
- Mercedes is definately reluctant to give up the position they have.
- Chassis builders don't like the lack of lateral stiffness.
- Cosworth is no way near to have the money for the investment.

Which leaves Renault, which is French but Todt is a Peugeot man so that liasion will hardly stick.

I have a strange feeling that this formula was tailored by MrM to suit VW, but Piech has now changed his mind. Again.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

riff_raff
riff_raff
132
Joined: 24 Dec 2004, 10:18

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

Regarding race engine configurations with small displacements and a limited number of cylinders, maybe we should take a look back at the history of GP motorcycles to see just how clever engine designers can be. In GP bike racing, we've seen twin-crank 2-stroke V4's, oval piston 32-valve 4-stroke V4's, and even 4-stroke V5's. They all worked well and sounded great.

As for Ferrari, they will not leave F1, regardless of Montezemolo's recent protestations. Ferrari does not advertise, and F1 racing is their primary marketing tool. F1 and Ferrari both need each other. Ferrari claiming it doesn't want F1 using turbo I4 engines because they don't sell a car with such an engine is silly. Unlike Ferrari road cars, Ferrari F1 cars don't have any roof, only have 1 seat, have full composite chassis, have carbon brakes, etc. In fact, back in the early 80's Ferrari briefly ran a V6 engine with a Comprex supercharger (C126), which is something they would never have considered putting on a production vehicle. Ferrari has a company culture that is (thankfully) still driven mostly by technical achievement, rather than fiscal bottom lines. Even if the F1 rules specified single cylinder lawn mower engines, Ferrari's engineers would produce the most awesome single cylinder lawn mower engine the world has ever seen.

National and company pride are powerful motivations. Ferrari competes in F1 for the same reason Audi spends hundreds-of-millions each year to win LeMans. To demonstrate that they are the best there is. As soon as Audi passes up Mercedes for LeMans wins, they will likely end their LMP race program, and Mercedes will probably restart theirs.

riff_raff
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"

bot6
bot6
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2011, 19:30

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

It would be great if Merc restarted theirs earlier. How cool would it be to have Audi, Peugeot and Merc all fighting for the Le Mans win?

But back on topic, I think it's great news they switched back to the V6. More "noble" so Ferrari will be OK with it, but still "sensible" enough for the other manufacturers. It's the right compromise in my opinion, and the blocks will be more laterally stiff which will help with chassis design. And more compact than the current ones, which will help with aero options.

Things, for once, are looking good!

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Formula One 1.6l turbo engine formula

Post

xpensive wrote:
I have a strange feeling that this formula was tailored by MrM to suit VW, but Piech has now changed his mind. Again.[/i]
Piech will not enter F1 as long as Ecclestone or CVC take out the kion share of the profits and the manufacturers are supposed to sink a billion into a successful F1 campaign. Not good for business if you can have almost the same message to the market by winning Le Mans ten times.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)