Four-cylinder engines in F1 'pathetic'

[mstillhere]

For once he is right. F1 with 4 cylinder engines would be a complete joke. I have accepted the stupid rule changes so far that have stunted the performance capabilities of F1 cars over the years. But if F1 goes to 4 cylinder engines, I will vote my dissaproval by using the red button on my TV remote

If I wanted to watch an eco-friendly racing series I would watch greyhound racing.

I completely agree

[mstillhere]

At Zeltweg, down the long straight to the Bosch Kurve, the car was throwing out 1400 bhp and just kept on pushing - you felt like you were sitting on a rocket.
- Gerhard Berger (speaking in 2007) on the B186.

Figures of 1750bhp have been thrown about for the M12/13, which is simpy phenomenal.

Besides which, why is di Montezemolo complaining about building four-cylinder engines for F1 just because the road cars don't need them? Ferrari was perfectly happy to build 1.5L V6s in the 1980s, 3L V10s in the 2000s and 2.4L V8s in 2010, and none of them were in road cars.

Ferrari will build engines according to the rules, just like they always have and will do. Does Mr di Montezemolo think that he's Mr Jong Il or something?

I would like for the record to point out that in this issue Di Montezemolo is not the only one showing disagreement. Mercedes is against it as well.

[mstillhere]

The 4cylinder turbos were making approx 1500bhp at around 11k with 1980's materials and technology. With today's technology I'm certain they could far exceed that output @ a 12K rev limit, if allowed to, which of course they won't be.

It kind of reminds me of the comparison of older cars and today's cars. My car in 1981 got high 30's-40 mpg with carburetors and breaker point ignition and were plenty comfortable and fully equipped. Now I have to buy a roller skate of a car that feels like it's a lunchbox, complete with plastic and styrofoam bumpers, all sorts of computers, electronic ignition, VVT, etc, etc etc. and I'm supposed to be excited when they can't get out of ther own way and struggle to get 30-32 mpg. WTF happened there? shouldn't I be making about 500 hp and getting over 100mpg with all that so called "technology".

Totally agree. The only winner in this case is the car maker not the consumer.

[555-04Q2]

It kind of reminds me of the comparison of older cars and today's cars. My car in 1981 got high 30's-40 mpg with carburetors and breaker point ignition and were plenty comfortable and fully equipped. Now I have to buy a roller skate of a car that feels like it's a lunchbox, complete with plastic and styrofoam bumpers, all sorts of computers, electronic ignition, VVT, etc, etc etc. and I'm supposed to be excited when they can't get out of ther own way and struggle to get 30-32 mpg. WTF happened there? shouldn't I be making about 500 hp and getting over 100mpg with all that so called "technology".

The problem lies in the fact that modern cars are a lot heavier than they were 30 years ago. This is due to government requirements for crash safety, ABS systems, air-conditioner units etc etc that make even small cars like the Toyota Yaris and VW Lupo/Polo heavy. Weight kills performance which requires more engine power/effort to make it move.

The average modern car today vs cars from 30 years ago is 20-30% heavier. Engines are a lot more fuel efficient than they used to be, but sometimes this is negated by the increase in weight.

[Sonic]

I have no particular problem with any ethos of engine configuration. Sure I'd love a free-for-all, but that simply won't happen this side of hell becoming a nice vacation spot.

So if we must have all engines conforming to one spec, four cylinders sounds fine to me. I have no doubt they'll make a decent noise (anything with several hundred horsepower will), but please, please, please can we do away with the silly restriction on stupid things like;

Artificial rev limits - the only limit that matters is when the valves start bouncing off the engine cover.

Engine freezes - we know they are doing via the back door anyway so what's the point.

Restriction on new technology - I'm still right behind KERS etc. Not because it makes F1 relevant (a sport shouldn't need to legitimise itself) but because it (and other tech like it) offers a chance for the thousand bhp monsters we all crave.

Here's hoping *crosses fingers*

[SGWilko]

The 4cylinder turbos were making approx 1500bhp at around 11k with 1980's materials and technology. With today's technology I'm certain they could far exceed that output @ a 12K rev limit, if allowed to, which of course they won't be.

It kind of reminds me of the comparison of older cars and today's cars. My car in 1981 got high 30's-40 mpg with carburetors and breaker point ignition and were plenty comfortable and fully equipped. Now I have to buy a roller skate of a car that feels like it's a lunchbox, complete with plastic and styrofoam bumpers, all sorts of computers, electronic ignition, VVT, etc, etc etc. and I'm supposed to be excited when they can't get out of ther own way and struggle to get 30-32 mpg. WTF happened there? shouldn't I be making about 500 hp and getting over 100mpg with all that so called "technology".

One word here, and this is 'part' of the reason F1 is going green - emissions.

Your '81 car was, no doubt, chugging out C02 in eye poppingly huge amounts. Just imagine the C02 output on a cold carburetta's engine, choke out and 8 stroking.....

Nowadays, Euro IV, V and even VI emissions regulations for new vehicles dictate that the engines are severely handicapped.

My bosses recent Bentley used to have blowers to add air to the exhaust when cold, just so the emissions were diluted enough to pass strict tests -

[AndyL]

Your '81 car was, no doubt, chugging out C02 in eye poppingly huge amounts. Just imagine the C02 output on a cold carburetta's engine, choke out and 8 stroking.....

CO2 emissions are linked directly to how much fuel you burn so if the '81 car was giving better overall fuel consumption it will have been producing less CO2. No doubt it would have been throwing out vastly more unburned hydrocarbons, soot and nitrogen oxides than a modern engine though.

[Mark]

As mentioned in the other thread I don't get this idea of saying 4 cylinders is less relevant to road technology when nearly all road cars have 4 cylinder engines!

[V12]

I have no particular problem with any ethos of engine configuration. Sure I'd love a free-for-all, but that simply won't happen this side of hell becoming a nice vacation spot.

So if we must have all engines conforming to one spec, four cylinders sounds fine to me. I have no doubt they'll make a decent noise (anything with several hundred horsepower will), but please, please, please can we do away with the silly restriction on stupid things like;

Artificial rev limits - the only limit that matters is when the valves start bouncing off the engine cover.

Engine freezes - we know they are doing via the back door anyway so what's the point.

Restriction on new technology - I'm still right behind KERS etc. Not because it makes F1 relevant (a sport shouldn't need to legitimise itself) but because it (and other tech like it) offers a chance for the thousand bhp monsters we all crave.

Here's hoping *crosses fingers*

Pretty much agree with all of that. I won't be happy with a field of four-pots, but no more than the all-V8 and all-V10 scenarios we had.

[555-04Q2]

Next they will want to fit 2CV engines in F1 cars.