2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[andrew]

So the V6 will be more of an engineering challenge than an I4 in terms of fuel efficiency.

That to me confirms that they have made the right choice by going for the V6 format.

[Giblet]

Whitmarsh also said that the V6 was preferred. Its not all Monty, but like it or lump it, Ferrari has influence. They have been in the sport since the start, and as much as people like to believe otherwise, the Red Hats that dominate every race on the planet proves that they are an important draw to the sport. To the spectacle.

It's a sport, people watch it for entertainment, and the entertainers themselves have decided that an inline 4 is not very awe inspiring and costly to develop. They understand the V's. They work.

Forget the numbers, most people in and out of the sport do not want an I4 in F1, and most people who watch an F1 race know that engine would never be in their car.

Regardless, the teams have decided on a V6, so the debate about the I4 is almost as relevant as the 3.5 litre V12.

So lets keep this topic on the new engine, not the new engine we would gave preferred.

I will change the topic accordingly.

[Giblet]

Also, WB, I noticed you have changed your tune since the first page.

That is great news!!! We are going to have progress with the engines eventually. I don't really mind that they mandate a L4. It is not so short and rigid as a V4 but should be very efficient friction wise.

So isn't a v6 a perfect compromise, in a sport completely about compromise? A v4 would be in your words more rigid, so of course a 6 will be. it will also be a shorter engine, important in a sport where they are mounted in line with the vehicle, not longitudinally.

[munudeges]

You simply have to specify the stiffness and the designers will optimise the shape in stressed or semi stressed design to your requirements and you can choose whatever fits your preferences better.

Extremely tenuous I'm afraid. It's well know that V engines have a more torsional stiffness regardless of whether you get something 'made to your requirements' and it is just inherently more compact. It is what it is.

Going back to school, I think we should have all learned that triangle shapes in engineering are inherently stronger than anything else. There's nothing you can do to change that and anything else is simply the wrong choice for a Formula 1 chassis designer and has been for a very, very long time. When was the last time you saw an inline engine being considered in Formula 1 for engineering reasons?

[WhiteBlue]

[...]

[PlatinumZealot]

The V6 has more friction as said above... what else makes it less fuel efficient? Accelerating a larger rotating mass I presume?

I remember reading an article on website saying that V6 are not made below a certain displacement for the reasons above. The friction power becomes a larger portion of the losses as the dimensions go down. That's why we don't have V8 lawn mowers. Interesting still.

[flynfrog]

The V6 has more friction as said above... what else makes it less fuel efficient? Accelerating a larger rotating mass I presume?

I remember reading an article on website saying that V6 are not made below a certain displacement for the reasons above. The friction power becomes a larger portion of the losses as the dimensions go down. That's why we don't have V8 lawn mowers. Interesting still.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xanOeYcQpcM[/youtube]

[Giblet]

There was a little Mazda MX-3 that had a 1.8 litre V6. It apparently responded very well to turbo charging.

With these smaller more compact engines, is there any chance of going longitudinally in F1?

I know in bikes the direction of the crank turning is a huge influence on handling and power.

[gridwalker]

*youtube video of V8 lawnmower*

That only goes to prove that people will go to any length to say that their mower is better : I've witnessed "lawn wars" syndrome before

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRA9Qa-08k[/youtube]

[WhiteBlue]

[...] What he politely says is that the choice of the V6 is a step back from an I4 and we know that the engine will always be less power full than the I4 would have been. I would certainly not be so dumb to wish for such an engine when I could have more power, collectively spend €40m less and get the new engines 1 year earlier. I think that most rational thinking engineering and business people will agree with that. Its not a challenge for F1 it is some people thinking with their balls instead of their heads.

The V6 has more friction as said above... what else makes it less fuel efficient? Accelerating a larger rotating mass I presume?

I remember reading an article on website saying that V6 are not made below a certain displacement for the reasons above. The friction power becomes a larger portion of the losses as the dimensions go down. That's why we don't have V8 lawn mowers. Interesting still.

It is not only the friction, the thermal efficiency also suffers due to bigger heat exchange surfaces. And despite the contrary posts you also have more manufacturing cost, weight and space for the V6 engine.

[noname]

Lower engine efficiency does not have to translate into lower car efficiency. Wide angled V engine gives the chance to improve packaging and thus have efficient aero. You can put the turbo between cylinder banks and have enough space on the sides for radiators to still have reasonably small sidepods. Kind of approach used by Audi with R18.
You may also be able to use shorter exhaust manifold (less losses) and twin-inlet turbine, which itself creates few quite interesting opportunities.

[CMSMJ1]

I'm with you my Scottish friend..

What is our WB brother on about?

It is a good thing and agreed to be so, by the powers that be, to be looking forwards to a decent motor for the cars.

IL4, whatever you say WB, is not what any premium manufacturer would like to have as their flagship motor.

There is a reason that Ford, Hyundai, GM, VW and so on are not in the game to play F1 - it is because they do not aspire to the kudos that a winning F1 effort brings.

As you rightly say, they race in other series. Series that are road relevant.

F1 should be a pinnacle, an achievement and something special. V6 engines, to the layman, are special.

I am looking forwards to this and hope to catch a car testing with a V6 soon!

[Giblet]

Well, the debate is over.

Please move on to the discussion of the V6. If you would like to start a thread of why an inline 4 is better for Formula1, go right ahead. All day one can discuss friction, losses, whatever, but at the end of the day, what is best for Formula1 is a subjective opinion, and not one that is entirely founded in pure logic.

I would rather hear 6 cylinders on my big home speakers, and coming through my earplugs at the track. That's not logical. It doesn't matter. Nothing is logical about F1. Its completely bag of hammers insane, but that is why I love it. An I4 barely has any chaos to it all, and the V6 is tenuous.

LOUD NOISES!!!

We have a new engine formula decided, and it's (somewhat )wide open. Its a fertile area with possible compound turbo chargers, better integrated KERS, new valvetrain ideas, etc. The engine guys in F1 with their long standing engine freeze must be busting at the seams with all kinds of ideas.

What V angle would be best? Will it be mandated? Is a 1 degree V a V, or a boxer? How open will the valve train be for development? Will the FIA let them go all out for the first year in each area of the engine? Will the ECU be opened up somewhat?

[xpensive]

What is intriguing is if the new formula will be regulated as stricly as today's V8s, with max bore, CoG, and V-angles?

I guess the general idea is to ensure compatibility between engines, but makes the technical side xtremely boring.

[Pierce89]

On autosprt it says they've also raised the rev limit from 12k to 15k. Hells jeah!!