2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[doink]

Overall we're going to be seeing the same performance that we are seeing now. What is the overriding strong argument against these engines? Can someone please enlighten me, because I'm finding it very difficult to see what the problem people have, aside from these engines are apparently not "man" enough for the sport or the engines wont be loud enough.

Well, since the V8s are what we currently have, i think the question should go the other way around. To semi quote you, what is the overriding strong argument for these engines?
I respect that the engine makers expect more bang for their marketing buck, they have to make money after all. But they could achieve similar objectives wasting a lot less resources with the current machinery, and isn't that what the green lobby wants?

Because we, as a species, are gradually destroying our environment and any future for our grandchildren's children. Oil is getting harder to extract and prices are sky rocketing. The world is changing and I'm afraid that F1 has to also. Even if this is engine change is purely a PR stunt, and it most certainly is, it's absolutely vital, because it sends a message to the motor industry that even the pinnacle of motor racing is willing to embrace change. Who knows what benefits engine manufacturers will come up with during the development process, whatever they develop will soon be passed down to road cars and will benefit us all.

I have said this before and I'm sorry for repeating it, but this is a hugely important change, it's not there to bring us joy by providing us with better races, it's there because F1 has to be become relevant to what is going on in the real world. We can no longer develop engines that run on penguins and baby seals because that isn't where the motor industry is heading.

We'll still have great races, we'll still have blinding fast cars with incredible technological innovation. Sacrificing a bit of noise (and I love the engine note of a V8 running at 18,000 RPM) to do the right thing is the way forward IMO.

[Dragonfly]

Instead of forcing all manufacturers to spend big money for practically developing one and the same engine they should set only the general requirements and ranges and let them decide what type of engine to build. This will be a real contribution to auto industry - the most successful solutions' concepts can be copied by the others.

[noname]

Because we, as a species, are gradually destroying our environment and any future for our grandchildren's children. Oil is getting harder to extract and prices are sky rocketing. The world is changing and I'm afraid that F1 has to also. Even if this is engine change is purely a PR stunt, and it most certainly is, it's absolutely vital, because it sends a message to the motor industry that even the pinnacle of motor racing is willing to embrace change. Who knows what benefits engine manufacturers will come up with during the development process, whatever they develop will soon be passed down to road cars and will benefit us all.

To impose even bigger changes we should produce less and less cars and instead of them use our own muscle. Less cars = less pollution. No big programs aimed on rescuing automotive industry and pumping up car sales.

And we should kill the cows, their farts are doing so much harm to Mother Earth.

[xpensive]

As stated so many times before, talking fuel-efficiency of open-wheelers with a Cv of more than 1.00, is rather pathetic.

A full bodied racer with the current V8 would probably slash the fuel needed with at least 30-40%.

[FW17]

As stated so many times before, talking fuel-efficiency of open-wheelers with a Cv of more than 1.00, is rather pathetic.

A full bodied racer with the current V8 would probably slash the fuel needed with at least 30-40%.

So will a ground effect car with 6 wheels, but we are not talking that, or are we?

[alelanza]

... Even if this is engine change is purely a PR stunt, and it most certainly is, it's absolutely vital, because it sends a message to the motor industry that even the pinnacle of motor racing is willing to embrace change...

Again, this PR stunt could be pulled off with the current engines with much less waste, or it could be done with a far more intelligent implementation of the new engines as some people have pointed out in this thread. And the motor industry needs no messages, they only build what they think they can sell for the largest profit, so if anything it's the public that needs that education. And with gas prices as they are, trust me, the general public is getting an education on what to buy day in and day out, they don't need a message from F1. Emmissions, those are legislated, again, F1 won't change that.

Who knows what benefits engine manufacturers will come up with during the development process, whatever they develop will soon be passed down to road cars and will benefit us all.

I think that's very unlikely, to quote myself from another post:

I think it's important for people to remember that F1 is no lab for magic technology, the teams that spend the most are only spending the equivalent of a portion of a manufacturer's marketing budget and focus those $ on making a 600+ kg open wheel/cockpit single seater go around a closed circuit while fighting similar machinery, using parts that will be deemed useless after a few hundred/thousand miles. Somehow a few people have got it in their heads that a side effect of such a process is to discover the magic perpetual motion machine that could not be engineered by those same manufacturers while using their far larger R&D budgets that actually focus on covered wheel, mostly roofed, usually multi passenger, 1200+ KG, and hopefully capable of 200000+ miles vehicles that take people from A to B under very strict rules that among many other things ensure people don't have to fight for bits of tarmac on their way to getting a beer or their dog's food.

...F1 has to be become relevant to what is going on in the real world....

I don't see why, it never has, but it's your opinion of course so i'll leave it there.

...We'll still have great races, we'll still have blinding fast cars with incredible technological innovation...

Depends on your definition of innovation, as already pointed out technology will simply move from road cars into F1, and the teams will figure out how to turn the wick up and adapt that tech to going as fast as possible.
So, from the teams perspective, you're limiting them to use a base configuration that may not be optimal. From the general population perspective you're grabbing already existing technology, restricting it with many regulations, and putting it in an application with hugely different goals to those of road going vehicles, and that as a consequence will be developed (if allowed) in ways that are not compatible with human transportation needs.
This may be an extreme analogy, but it's like expecting to cure world hunger with knowledge gained during the creation of the miss universe diet plans.

[xpensive]

As stated so many times before, talking fuel-efficiency of open-wheelers with a Cv of more than 1.00, is rather pathetic.

A full bodied racer with the current V8 would probably slash the fuel needed with at least 30-40%.

So will a ground effect car with 6 wheels, but we are not talking that, or are we?

Unless you noticed, the main argument for an I-4 turbo is fuel-consumption, which is what I tried to relativize.

Taking time to read a few posts upstream can be useful at times, before going wiseguy on other members I mean.

[hardingfv32]

How about we keep the V8's and eliminate one of the fly away races. And no more hospitality trailers on the Continent. That should go a long way to saving the world for those precise grandchildren.

My opinion: 95% of F1 viewers have no idea what type of engine is in the car... and never will!

Brian

[WhiteBlue]

Well, since the V8s are what we currently have, i think the question should go the other way around. To semi quote you, what is the overriding strong argument for these engines?
I respect that the engine makers expect more bang for their marketing buck, they have to make money after all. But they could achieve similar objectives wasting a lot less resources with the current machinery, and isn't that what the green lobby wants

If you don't know the objectives you should go back to the previous thread and read up on the basics instead of making inaccurate statements.

There is no chance at all that the fuel efficiency objectives of the turbo I4 can be achieved by the current V8s. At least not without a massive power cut that would make them, useless for the purpose.

Can we please have some objectivity and proper technical facts for the debate?

[alelanza]

...There is no chance at all that the fuel efficiency objectives of the turbo I4 can be achieved by the current V8s. At least not without a massive power cut that would make them, useless for the purpose...

Well, V8s being frozen would have a hard time, otherwise i don't think that statement is necessarily true

Can we please have some objectivity and proper technical facts for the debate?

Proper how? Weren't you the guy that translated stuff from german and made that pass as your own opinion, but in the same translation couldn't differentiate an ignition event from a fuel injection event and constantly got them mixed up?

[machin]

you're limiting them to use a base configuration that may not be optimal. From the general population perspective you're grabbing already existing technology, restricting it with many regulations, and putting it in an application with hugely different goals to those of road going vehicles, and that as a consequence will be developed (if allowed) in ways that are not compatible with human transportation needs.

Haven't the FIA asked all the clever people currently in F1 what the answer is to this question:- "You have 100kg of petrol to use over the normal race distance, and the engine must be a 4-stroke Internal combustion engine, what engine would you build for your race car?"

The response would have been "95% sure it'd be a 4 cylinder turbo", to which the FIA said "OK, we'll mandate a 4 cylinder turbo so that all the team's don't have to go away and each individually research what the abolute optimum is".

?????

[strad]

For them it is just a waist of petrol and Formula One is bad for Earth.

A lot a points..most of which I disagree with...but mostly with the above...F1 has never cared what those people thought and I don't think it should be now.
Think what you will about climate change, a small group of zillionaires playing with their toys has zero influence on the climate problem.
WHen you care enough to quit creating islands the size of Texaz of floating garbage in the Pacific , When you quit decimating the rainforest to force farmers plant soy beans nobody wants or needs..when ban the limit air travel to help your percious planet, 50,000 commercial flights a day alone...Then...Then I I'll see where you have some right to come after li'l ol' F1.

[Dragonfly]

@strad
=D>

[xpensive]

The strange thing with the FIA and MrT's ambitions to become "greener", is why they don't go the whole nine yards in their zeal to be politically correct, where ethanol or methanol would on paper leave F1 home free on "global warming"?

CART and IRL realized that many years ago, why they cannot be critisized for wasting natural resources either.

[djos]

CART and IRL realized that many years ago, why they cannot be critisized for wasting natural resources either.

Actually they can, IRL use corn based ethanol which wastes food production land!

The only racing series using truly sustainable ethanol is the V8 Supercars which use Sucrogen BioEthanol (E85 blend) produced from the waste products of Sugar Manufacturing that used to be thrown away.