What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[hecti]

gp2 is producing 580hp, so theres only going to be ~90 hp difference???

[010010011010]

At least GP2 is NA, which iis much more impressive

[agip]

At least GP2 is NA, which iis much more impressive

hmm I used to think like you until... i would say... a couple of days ago. But WhiteBlue is convincing me slowly. (ironic that this emoticon is called "Mr. Green")

I love the sound of a high-rev NA engine, and im sure i'll miss it a lot. But change is sometimes very good. Let's see what happens.

[hecti]

At least GP2 is NA, which iis much more impressive

hmm I used to think like you until... i would say... a couple of days ago. But WhiteBlue is convincing me slowly. (ironic that this emoticon is called "Mr. Green")

I love the sound of a high-rev NA engine, and im sure i'll miss it a lot. But change is sometimes very good. Let's see what happens.

I agree change is great, but 670hp...hmmmmm...

[djos]

At least GP2 is NA, which iis much more impressive

hmm I used to think like you until... i would say... a couple of days ago. But WhiteBlue is convincing me slowly. (ironic that this emoticon is called "Mr. Green")

I love the sound of a high-rev NA engine, and im sure i'll miss it a lot. But change is sometimes very good. Let's see what happens.

I agree change is great, but 670hp...hmmmmm...

I'd really like these 1.5 Bi-Turbos to be made from really sheap materials so they can toss them after 1 race weekend and get 900hp in race trim and more in qually and OT mode, that would awesome imo!

And yeah, less aero, bigger tyres and wider track too please!

[alelanza]

but adhesion in fast corners would be reduced so that they become a spectacle again. Today a toddler can take Eau Rouge flat out in an F1 car.

What do you mean by 'become a spectacle again', what are they nowadays?
Plus there are a few other corners in the current championship that are harder than eau rouge, hopefully you may have noticed them. Some of them lay at the same track in fact!

[010010011010]

At least GP2 is NA, which iis much more impressive

hmm I used to think like you until... i would say... a couple of days ago. But WhiteBlue is convincing me slowly. (ironic that this emoticon is called "Mr. Green")

I love the sound of a high-rev NA engine, and im sure i'll miss it a lot. But change is sometimes very good. Let's see what happens.

I agree change is great, but 670hp...hmmmmm...

I know, but the FIA arent going to let power increase much for safety reasons. Which means were stuck with the same power, more efficency, less sound and less 'wow' to the lay man.

Ah well, not point in resisting it, since its almost decided now anyway...

[autogyro]

Most people watch F1 on TV, so the sound (wow) is no problem, simply turn up the background noise in editing.
All the motor heads would not even realise.

[Belatti]

So XXI century F1 turbos will the half powerful than in the 80s...

Will the 1.5T at least be lighter than the 2.4V8?

620Kg is way too heavy for today availiable technologies, some cars carry up to 100KG of ballast and the V8s have a minimum of 95KG while they could be arround 80KG easily.

It was part of the Colin Chapman philosophy to downsize and lighten things up.

[autogyro]

This is a crucial time for F1 and the FIA.
It is essential to structure F1 regulations to encourage energy recovery and the continued development of ic technology to its logical conclusion.
Restrictions must also be included to maintain safe power and cornering levels but still improve overtaking and the over all spectacle.
It is probably one of the most important and difficult calls in the history of F1.

IMO the motoring press and media are selling the fans short.
They should be doing their jobs far better and placing a complete coverage of all the deliberations that the FIA and its advisors are going through in the decision making process. Instead they simply publish releases and in many cases, not so educated guesses.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't know if comparable engines naturally aspired and blown would have had the same weight in the eighties. The turbos look like a lot of metal to carry around and due to the heavier load the blocks would have to be designed heavier than the n/a as well. If you look at the GRE spec for rallying which was already approved by the WMSC you see a minimum weight of 82 kg. So it looks like weight will come doen from present 95 kg.

The weight change from 605 to 620 was meant for the additional KERS and should have been corrected for 2010 already but FOTA wanted it so. I guess it may be removed if they find they don't need it any more.

If they have half the peak power (for 20 miles of qualifying) or 70% of race power for four times the life time the result is also comparable. Longevity is the price F1 pays for being affordable.

On the other hand the engines will be three times more efficient than those of the first turbo era. They will be vastly superior to anything comparable in that regard.

We know that the FiA aims for cars with similar performance but with much improved carbon footprint. The new engines will be a very strong statement for F1 that it supports green policies in racing. The acceptance of the sport with sponsors, fans and governments will grow accordingly.

Informed criticism is a positive thing but taking figures out of context to let them look bad isn't helpful in my view.

[King Six]

Interesting blog from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson ... r_the.html

Some points:

- F1 cars to be more like fully fledged Hybrids, rather than KERS-style of 2009, new engines to facilitate that

- Blog says more likely to be 1.6L or 1.8L

- Gasoline direct injection

- Refuelling may be reintroduced (doubt it, I think he's getting abit too excited about F1's relevance to normal cars and talking about how you need to refuel normal cars, lol)

- Fuel usage to be drastically reduced over a race (so hopefully with lighter cars, lighter engines, less fuel onboard, smaller tanks will mean the cars may even be faster than right now...hope FIA reduce minimum weight of car/engine in line with all this downsizing)

--

Overall a blog in which I agree with most of the opinions laid out.

[WhiteBlue]

The 1,6 L 4 cylinder would be identical with the FiA rally engine.

Global Race Engine specifications for WRC
Four cylinder in line 1,6 L turbo engine
Audi, BMW, Citroën, Chevrolet, Ford, Mitsubishi, Renault, Seat, Skoda, Subaru, Renault, Volvo and VW agreed
smaller air restrictor than current
direct fuel injection
throttle diameter max. 50 mm
ban of exotic materials like beryllium and magnesium
no variable valve drives
min weight 82 kg (without inertial fly wheel, intake, outlets, electric generator)
min crank shaft weight 12 kg
min fly wheel weight 3 kg
min connecting rod weight 450 g
min piston weight 400 g
min piston center distance 92.9 mm
mandatory cylinder diameter 84 mm
max intake valve diameter 35 mm
max outlet valve diameter 31 mm

[ISLAMATRON]

1.5L is too small, they wont have enough torque, 2L is better especially since every manufacterer in the world has a 2L engine, and most have a turbo'd 2L.

Where is the 670 number coming from? It is absurd to put a cap on power, they should only limit fuel, and the number of engines per season... and possibly boost if the speeds start getting way out of hand. That way if they want to bump up the power for qually or for a pass during the race they can do so, but the max fuel used during the race must be capped.

[machin]

If they're keeping approximately the same power, but drop the revs the torque will HAVE to go up.... you can get plenty of torque from a turbo'd 1.6litre engine, so don't worry about that. Plus more and more road car manufacturers will be down-sizing in the near future (and the engine sin't going to be an ACTUAL road car engine anyway... it'll just have similar architecture) so there's plenty of relevance there.

I can't wait... just hope they divulge more of the technical info rather than keep it all secretive....