What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

There is still some jockeying for position for what is to be the "world engine".
F1 does not need the "world engine", it needs and F1 engine.

VW have put a lot of pressure on FIA to make a standard engine for a a whole set of Formulae. The rumoured 1.6 turbo will be available for WRC and Touring cars in various forms of tune, with F1 receiving the highest tuned version.

Personally I feel this route is the death knell of F1, as it will no longer be a premier technical showcase.
The idea itself is flawed, as all the formulae differentiate from each other in very fundamental ways. Ferrari and Mercedes will not go Rallying in much the same way as Skoda will not race F1.
The vested interest is for a company like VW with many faces to push for a world engine as it would save it millions in development costs by entering 1 engine for its various marques in the chosen categories. But you have to ask yourself the question, what is good for WRC or Touring cars is not going to be good for F1.

This is probably the biggest reason why Mercedes-Benz, Ferrari and even Renault have not been very forthcoming on the idea. Easy for VeeDub to spend £500 million on 1 engine for 5 marques over countless categories, less so for the others with only 1 category that meets their needs.
For me its clear...but then i guess I'm biased right????

[747heavy]

never say never JET
http://www.race-cars.com/carsold/other/ ... 7616lx.htm

would not be the first time, they give it serious consideration.
http://www.rallye-info.com/carmake_profile.asp?make=6

and a Ferrari engine has powered one of the most sucessful rally cars in history.


But you have a point in regards to the GRE, IMO

I doubt that you could stretch the concept that far, to cover WRC,WTCC and F1 with the same engine.
Sure, you can use a T/C I4 in all categories, but I guess, in the end, the engines as such will be quite different. Sure there is some carry over in basic developments and costs.
The GRE idea/concept as such has some merits, but I would think, that it would be sufficient to use it in WRC,WTCC, maybe DTM, F3 and LMP2.
This would be a huge improvement, and go some way for some serious cost savings.
I would not mind if F1 goes don the same route as Indycar biturbo V6, but I guess their ego stands in the way for that.

[xpensive]

Snap out of it members, the so called GRE was the brainchild of MrM at a time when he was at his peak of power-intoxication.

When you start thinking like that you will end up with four-cylinder IRL-cars for a variety of diciplines. Imagine that, after qualifying poorly at Monaco, all you have to do is to fit some bodywork and turn down the boost to go to Le Mans?

With different wheels and a lookalike body you can take on the Swedish rally in January, but V8 racing down under...hmmm?

[Pingguest]

But you have a point in regards to the GRE, IMO

I doubt that you could stretch the concept that far, to cover WRC,WTCC and F1 with the same engine.
Sure, you can use a T/C I4 in all categories, but I guess, in the end, the engines as such will be quite different.

And they will be. WRC and WTCC will use production-based engine, but Formula 1 won't. At least, it won't be mandated.

[WhiteBlue]

The GRE concept is very powerful and cost effective.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/ ... ng-engine/

You can have a 2L 800 hp Indycar engine for $400k per season that runs 6000 km between rebuilds but you can also have lower formula naturally aspire 1.6L engines that cost you only $30k. It is not a spec engine. They only agreed certain parameters like the bore 84 +/- 3mm, the minimum weights of components and running time of the engines. The concept can bring affordable racing to many more people that cannot go racing at this point in time. So to give it a bad name is silly in my view.

The real question is wether it would be appropriate to apply it to F1 as a total system. In my view it would not be the correct thing to do. The GRE engine weights between 82 and 110 kg depending of the ancillaries that you include in the balance. I believe that it is too much weight for the objectives you pursue in F1. You also do not need to come down quite so low in cost as $400k. An F1 engine can easily cost ten times that and is still affordable compared to $200m that some teams were prepared to spend in 2006.

So the obvious option for F1 would be keeping the GRE geometry and go to a much lower total engine weight which would still be higher than an ultimate low weight engine but affordable to teams. The current minimum weight rule for a 2.4L V8 is 95 kg. If you compare a 1.6L V4 or L4 with the turbo to the same criteria you can set a weight of say 65 kg and you save 30 kg in engine weight and still stop silly spending. The engines would be good for 2000 km instead of 6000 and you would have five engines per car for a total cost of $5m per team and year. The individual engine would cost you $500k before you start bolting HERS and KERS on it. Engine manufacturers would have to spend between $20m-$100m initially to join the club but this has never been a big obstacle for car manufacturers in the past.

With very strict restrictions on fuel consumption you can initially save a significant amount of fuel by the introduction of the new engine. With time more and more of the fuel saving would come from drag reduction of the chassis and the addition of ever more effective HERS and KERS systems. There would be no development to the engine geometries, engine weight and CoG. Development will only be possible to fuel saving technologies like direct injection, ignition, friction reduction, engine aerodynamics, pumping losses and the turbo system.

[djos]

F1 is going about this in completely the wrong way, if they want to reduce costs then they need to set engine development budget caps and engine build price caps.

F1 could have for example an engine build price ceiling with a total manufacturing cost max of $500,000 for each engine ($5 million for an entire 20 race season) including turbos, 1 engine for 2 race weekends and development freedom within an overall development budget cap of say $20 million per year regardless of how many customers an Engine maker has.

The only other condition I would apply aside from capacity (1.6ltr or 1.8ltr doesn't bother me), is a smallish maximum size fuel tank that forces the teams down a path of maximum efficiency at the same time (max fuel flow is dumb imo and doesnt allow teams to get extra power when they want it for qually an overtaking).

The engine companies would have to be setup independently of the teams and run under strict financial supervision from the FIA but imo it's workable.

This imo would produce far more exciting racing and far more interesting engines than we have now and no KERS based green-washing would be required. If F1 really wants a green tint, then they could run on waste derived 100% Bio-Ethanol.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The Small tank idea is a very good one. As this forces teams to think more than just about power. It's also relevant.

@747 heavy

Yes the 450 rally car. Haug owns one and does doughnuts for the fans whenver possible! Interesting also that the 190E cosworth was initially developed for rallying instead of touring car racing. Until 4 wheel drive ended its hopes before it even began.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYqwLy9K ... re=related[/youtube]

[gibells]

The GRE concept is very powerful and cost effective.

I hazard a guess that the No racing at all concept is more cost effective.

Hell, why don't we do battle playing Dungeons and Dragons for F1 WDC & WCC and be done with it.

[machin]

if they want to reduce costs then they need to set engine development budget caps and engine build price caps.

The problem with budget caps is that they're difficult to enforce... I think someone previously gave the example of Shell Oil -they cam up with a new Oil that increased top end power by a small percentage... does this cost come out of the engine developement cost? Or How about the development cost for some fancy new injector that requries £MILLIONS to develop but was used for a manufacturer's Le Mans Project???!!!

Considering that the aim of the cost cap is to stop the big teams pushing the smaller teams out of the race due to huge budgets I think the only way to this is to allow the manufacturers to spend as much as they want under the proviso that any product MUST be available to ALL other teams, and at a pre-determined price... e.g engines £5MIL per season, etc....? That way the small teams can get the equipment that the bigger teams have, without all the additional costs....

[agip]

Haug thinks conditions for Porsche entry unlikely

The chances of seeing Porsche on the Formula One grid in the near future have taken a backwards step.

The Volkswagen group, perhaps with the Porsche or Audi brands, has flagged entering the sport in 2013 along with a radical new engine formula.

But the German marque has made it abundantly clear that it needs the FIA to impose the so-called 'world engine' concept; a basic engine formula that can be applied across various premier motor sport categories.

SID news agency quotes Mercedes chief Norbert Haug as saying: "In the Formula One meetings that I have attended, the 'world engine' was never a topic."

In fact, he indicated that reports suggesting F1's existing engine makers - concerned about the cost of implementing revolutionary rules changes - are pushing to retain some semblance of "stability" beyond 2012, are true.

[WhiteBlue]

Confirming the prior news then regarding the hesitations by the existing manufacturers. As I have said the GRE would be too heavy for F1 but they may use the geometry.

[agip]

So the big names want to keep its dominant position. They don't want surprises like loosing to VW/Porsche in its first year in F1. All at the cost of having only 4 engine makers -because I don't see any manufacturer entering the sport as it is now-.

What are exactly the changes they want, huh?

[xpensive]

Confirming the prior news then regarding the hesitations by the existing manufacturers. As I have said the GRE would be too heavy for F1 but they may use the geometry.

Sometimes WB, your zeal of always being right sometimes gets the best of you?

The GRE concept is very powerful and cost effective.
...

[WhiteBlue]

Xpensive, what would we do without your guidance. We had no way to a personal SWAT analysis.

You should charge Steven to post here.

[xpensive]

I know Tomba tells us to use PMs for this, but after beholding post after post from you in support of VW and the GRE thing,
you simply claim another "that's what I said", when reality goes in the opposite direction?