2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Cold Fussion]

What was that small twin that Ferrai played with? Back in the 50s I believe by Columbo.
Anybody recall that?

Don't know........

But a 500cc V twin is very much like MotoGP isn't it?

Motogp are 1L inline 4''s mostly.

[Tommy Cookers]

'proper' MotoGP bikes are Honda V4s, Ducati V4s and Yamaha st 4s ?

BTW how is the 2014 F1 fuel rate to be controlled to the mandated level ?
(avoiding a MotoGP style overall fuel limit becoming dominant ie a potential 'economy run')

can a practical in-car device control gravimetric fuel rate without reliance on volumetric or fluid properties of the fuel ?
(mandating the fuel rate gravimetrically does not prevent a fuel war ie more energy/kg ?)

turbocharged engines have hitherto been boost-limited, because it works

[strad]

What was that small twin that Ferrai played with? Back in the 50s I believe by Columbo.
Anybody recall that?

It was basically a 500mondial/750 Monza engine cut in half ,right? -I think it vibrated the dyno to pieces ,didn´t it?
That engine family had a monoblock construction so it was well suited to turbocharging...

Might well be the same because I remember something about it breaking the dyno.
Since he wound up at MV Agusta building 500cc engines it all comes full circle.

[WhiteBlue]

...
The rules concerning ERS and MGUH are very precisely to prevent any "arms race".
...
Joe Saward recently explicitly said the new engines will not be postponed. I think he should know.
...

Kindly elaborate on the first, how is this so precise?

As for the second, why should Joe Sewer know anything?

I was told that we have a rating system in place and this site will not rely on the 'wisdom' of moderators alone to determine what is valuable input. It has convinced me to make some remarks to this thread, which I care much about.

Garrett probably thought about the relatively narrow spec for the MGUH and the whole energy recovery system. In my view this would discourage to a certain amount an 'arms race' by the law of diminishing returns. But there are equally good points which would suggest this method of curbing expenses will not work. Historically only a freeze, mandatory longevity of parts or resource restrictions have ever made a positively measurable contribution to cost saving in F1. Logic would suggest that even a tight spec will not keep engine manufacturing teams to run away with a competitive advantage if it can be had at a lower price than in other fields like aerodynamics. So a narrow spec isn't an absolute tool. You have to balance it by some other curbing measures.

Regarding Joe Saward I think that he is very astute when it comes to political issues and that he has very good sources at the FiA. I agree with Expensive that his sources will not keep him from posting some not so informed entries to his blog when it comes to engineering issues. Technical simply isn't his thing. I agree with Garrett that JS should be a solid source when it comes to positioning of FOM or FiA. His journalistic quality is usually high and he is more often correct with his views how political/regulation issues shake out.

[hairy]

Whitmarsh has said so but IIRC they don't have a contract past 2013, yet.

Part of the Merc/Mclaren break up was an agreement to 2015 for the engine, but once the new engines come in, they have to pay for them. Mclaren are still in the process of buying back the Merc shares, and will have bought them all back by 2015, which is when their agreement terminates, afaik.

[garrett]

...
The rules concerning ERS and MGUH are very precisely to prevent any "arms race".
...
Joe Saward recently explicitly said the new engines will not be postponed. I think he should know.
...

Kindly elaborate on the first, how is this so precise?

As for the second, why should Joe Sewer know anything?

xpensive, with due respect: Why should YOU know - if Joe doesn´t ??

How ist it so precise? Well, if you take a look on F1 regulations 2014 yourself you will notice it runs like a common thread through the upcoming rules starting with the "ready-for-use" engine formula with only 90°V6 1 turbocharger engines allowed, where even the precise position of the turbo is defined (or like 5.1.9.); furthermore, the very precise regulations from 5.2.2 to 5.2.9., culminating in 5.4.4, where even the weight of the batteries (!) is defined between 20-25 kg; a flywheel system that transfers energy purely mechanically will be effectively forbidden by the requirement that the “mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the engine crankshaft” (5.2.7), and it seems even a flywheel that transfers power via electricity (like the Williams system ) is effectively banned by the rules on the ES. So it looks like a very restrictive rulework to me. They have put in so many details on how ERS can be done that designers will be very constricted. In some ways, it´s even near a freeze.

So WhiteBlue you are right I thought of it in first place, and I also agree with your arguments that these measures will not keep constructors away from starting an "arms race", because the teams always spend what they can get. In some ways, the cost cutting restrictions could even result in the opposite, when the price of the "arms race" because of over-restricted regulations is higher as if it would have been more liberal...think of the test preventions and the possibility the new power units will suffer from a lack of testing.

Another point is, if the purpose was that Formula One was going stimulate development in this direction, attract new manufacturers and try to transfer technology to road cars, wouldn´t it be hampered by constricting innovation in Formula One itself? Or is it only conceived temporarily and will become more liberal as far as the new engine concept has established??

Concerning Joe Saward, I´d like to say I appreciate him much as one of the best informed and most independent journalists in the paddock. He is no technician of course (being a historician), but doesn´t matter here as the ongoing discussion about the "canned V6" is not a technical question but a sole political topic.

[WhiteBlue]

Whitmarsh has said so but IIRC they don't have a contract past 2013, yet.

Part of the Merc/Mclaren break up was an agreement to 2015 for the engine, but once the new engines come in, they have to pay for them. Mclaren are still in the process of buying back the Merc shares, and will have bought them all back by 2015, which is when their agreement terminates, afaik.

I believe that McLaren and Mercedes have finished the buy back of shares by now. I do remember press statements saying so. With regard to reserved customer engines there are different claims published. McLaren claim to have an option to continue with Merc but Merc indicated that the option is theirs to terminate earlier. It was also claimed in Merc public statements that they have shifted all their funding towards the works team. They used to make a contribution in excess of 80 mil/a in the old days. That is certainly terminated by now. Until last year I believe that McLaren did not pay the full price of the engines or perhaps very little, mainly for KERS. From this or next year their price is supposed to increase but they will still have special pricing for their ongoing Mercedes promotion in place.

One should remember that the turbo engines originally were meant to be introduced next year. So if hairy is right McLaren was supposed to pay from next year on. There seems to be little doubt that McLaren will continue with Merc and not do their own engine for 2014. The financial resources to fund a competitve F1 engine project and their road car program at the same time would probably not be available for a company of that size.

[autogyro]

I wonder if a Hamilton move to Merc is part of the deal?

[garrett]

The german newspaper "Sueddeutsche" reported today that, after some new facts are revealed concerning the BayernLB/Gribkowsky affair a prosecution against Bernie Eccclestone will be set in the course of autumn, as the Munich public prosecutors stated. As it emerged yesterday, Gribkowsky told the prosecutors during his summerly interrogations he was ridiculed as "civil servant" during an unfriendly conversation by Ecclestone. This remark could turn out to be crucial for BE, as Gribkowsky in fact WAS an official "civil servant" being head of the BayernLB, so Ecclestones payment would have been bribery of officials.

Could this be the reason for Mercedes` reluctance in terms of the CA and Michael Schumachers reluctance in signing a new contract as long as these procedures are not sorted out?

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/s ... -1.1478786

The further events could also be a matter of concern for this discussion group, as Ecclestone obviously is one of the most outspoken opponents against the new turbo engines.

[Nando]

I guess the name will change then?

Instead of Mclaren Mercedes it will be Mclaren only?

[hairy]

I guess the name will change then?

Instead of Mclaren Mercedes it will be Mclaren only?

Once Mercedes have completed their buy back yes. They still own, I think 10/11% as Mclaren couldn't afford to buy them out of the partnership in full at the time; they did own 40%. As Merc wanted out, they agreed a timescale of payback which was meant to conclude in 2011, but hasn't yet, I believe. Mclaren went to the markets last year for some money, for the new production facility, as they didn't have much of their own (something denied by RD).

The reason they wanted out, was because Mercedes wanted to buy Mclaren outright, and RD and the other partners refused, Merc threatened to make their own supercar in competition to the upcoming MP4/12C if they didn't, RD and partners still refused, and out of that was borne not only the divorce, but also the SLS.

Next year, they have to pay for their engines, but not full price as indicated; this deal lasts into 2015 season.

Mclaren look in a bit of trouble, as they aren't shifting the 1000 units a year they forecast to.

However, the new supercar they have developed is spectacular in every area. Should be seen next week in Paris.

Sorry for the ramble.

[Pierce89]

What was that small twin that Ferrai played with? Back in the 50s I believe by Columbo.
Anybody recall that?

Don't know........

But a 500cc V twin is very much like MotoGP isn't it?

Motogp are 1L inline 4''s mostly.

I'm pretty sure he's talking pre 2001, when 500cc was the top gp class.

[WhiteBlue]

Once Mercedes have completed their buy back yes. They still own, I think 10/11% as Mclaren couldn't afford to buy them out of the partnership in full at the time; they did own 40%...

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 10404.html

This German language source confirms a 2012 Wikipedia entry which mentions the return of the residual McLaren shares by Mercedes. So the holding is now zero.

[hairy]

Once Mercedes have completed their buy back yes. They still own, I think 10/11% as Mclaren couldn't afford to buy them out of the partnership in full at the time; they did own 40%...

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 10404.html

This German language source confirms a 2012 Wikipedia entry which mentions the return of the residual McLaren shares by Mercedes. So the holding is now zero.

I was speaking to a friend inside Mclaren, and I was actually wrong, the buy back clause, initiated in 2009, was intended to finish in 2011. I was under the impression, due to Mclarens failure to sell the target # of cars this past year, would have seen them unable to, given they also went to the market for capital last year. I'll look on Merc accounts, but yes, it looks like the pay back was meant to finish last year.

Interesting regards engines too, as they signed a 6 year partnership in 2009 with Mercedes, which will see them as *sponsor name* Mclaren Mercedes until 2015. I think Vodafone sponsorship finishes this year.

I guess this means free engines until 2015, so thats very interesting.

[Nando]

I guess the name will change then?

Instead of Mclaren Mercedes it will be Mclaren only?

Once Mercedes have completed their buy back yes. They still own, I think 10/11% as Mclaren couldn't afford to buy them out of the partnership in full at the time; they did own 40%. As Merc wanted out, they agreed a timescale of payback which was meant to conclude in 2011, but hasn't yet, I believe. Mclaren went to the markets last year for some money, for the new production facility, as they didn't have much of their own (something denied by RD).

The reason they wanted out, was because Mercedes wanted to buy Mclaren outright, and RD and the other partners refused, Merc threatened to make their own supercar in competition to the upcoming MP4/12C if they didn't, RD and partners still refused, and out of that was borne not only the divorce, but also the SLS.

Next year, they have to pay for their engines, but not full price as indicated; this deal lasts into 2015 season.

Mclaren look in a bit of trouble, as they aren't shifting the 1000 units a year they forecast to.

However, the new supercar they have developed is spectacular in every area. Should be seen next week in Paris.

Sorry for the ramble.

Ok so even if you own that small of a percentage, your name (i.e. Mercedes) will always show up in the full name for the Mclaren team? (i.e. Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes)

So it´s not a contract thing?