Printable View
Current 2.4-litre V8s to 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo engines with energy recovery systems and fuel restrictions.
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/9255871.stm
BBC Sport has been told the regulations will go before the F1 Commission - a group of stakeholders that agrees all rule changes - on Thursday 9 December before being rubber-stamped by the World Council the following day.
What a ****ing joke.
Why was I stupid enough to hope for V10 or V12 when I clicked on the title?
There was a guy down the road from me selling a 4AGE claiming 550hp down the road from me. Why the hell would I or anyone else care?
We want the pinnacle of motor sport, blood thirsty v12 (or v24 :D or something even more diabolical) not some pussy 1.6 4cyl Honda Civic motor.
If we are going that way, lets just use 500cc motorcycle engines instead.
I hope the world does end in 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koz
I don't care about the engine size, as long as the cars are still powerful!Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/9255871.stm Care has been taken to ensure the performance of cars will not be affected and total power outputs will remain at current levels - approximately 750bhp.
It's worth noting that turbo-engines tend to have less cylinders, so we aren't going to see anything extraordinary unless I interpreted something wrongly. Even the big fan of V12 - Enzo Ferrari - used a V6 turbo engine in the 80's.
What exactly is your problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koz
V12, V10 and even V8 engines are not at all representative for the automotive industry.
And having fuel limitations is what they should have always done in order to push the research in the right direction.
I can see Ferrari being against this move as they are the only one who has bugger all knowledge of such small engines. Maybe Fiat will do the engine development for them?
The question is, does it make sense to change the engine formula and all that cost to develop the new engines? What exactly are the supposed advantages of changing it, besides for change's sake, and the apparent "environmental" angle, which is iffy at best? Is it expected that this angle will attract more manufacturers interested in high performance/low fuel consumption engine research for their road cars?
Homebrew 1.6 toyota and hondas are capable of as much power as F1 (although they probably wouldn't last a lap). My unmolested 25 year old car has more torque than current F1 cars anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronRooster92
F1 means different things to different people, and I guess I am the way that I am.
For me KERS is bad enough, this whole "green" images, I don't like it.
I want fast cars, I don't want races without refueling (although I admit this season wasn't anywhere as bad as I expected last year, it was a very good season in fact). I don't want a single tyre manufacturer.
My god, look at the road the WRC has taken... 25 year ago, no one would have thought the WRC would be as big a joke as it is now. But hey, **** happens.
F1 with it's clean green image will be a joke too.
I want the roar of the mighty V10s and V12s, I'm happy with the V8s.
Meh. It's just my opinion.
It's good news that F1 will move away from the technology of the last century and try to stay high-tech instead of being a dinosaur.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
Koz, don't get me wrong, the V12 engines sounded fantastic, but F1 has to move with the times. Just think, the turbo charged cars in the 80s sounded great (IMO) so why won't the new engines?
Indeed, infact I think this is a very exciting prospect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
interesting new technologies there which is good. at least these engines are turbo charged! even if it is only 4 cylinders and 1.6 litres;
turbos are back baby!
Now, correct me if im wrong but some teams in the late 80s used 4 cylinder turbos, so this is good news.
ofcourse i would prefer turbo V8s, but thats because I'm a dreamer :)
and another good thing; we will see a return to the classic 'roll over hoop' instead of the 'airbox' designs one would expect, an added bonus.
that's for 2015, with the hybrids :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Koz
I just hope they sound good.
As long as they're enormously powerful and don't have stupid gimmicks like push to pass, I will be happy.
I just found this article:
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=396025
This part made me laugh: "We have a very good engine formula."
Only Bernie Eccelstone could look at annoying rev limits and a maximum of 8 engines used in a season and say, "That's very good."
I do think that if they are to use turbocharged engines, 1.6 liters may be too large. A 1.6 liter engine with 1.5 atmospheres of boost has the effective displacement of a 4 liter engine.
Seems to me that Ferrari won a F1 world championship with a 1.5 litre engine so contrary to ioan they do have a clue about small engines.
How actual is 30 years old knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Drifter
Do you think that Mercedes and Renault build high performance cars with 30 years old technology?
This move will bring other players back into the sport, manufacturers who are producing impressive 4 cylinder turbo engines and IMO the fight will be very intense on track come 2013.
Acually it was 50 years ago but you didn't put a time frame on it.
I am sure somehow Ferrari can manage to figure out how to build a relatively small turbo engine, just like everyone else.
Yes, agree with this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
WT
Turbo's were used in the late 1970s so F1 is still a dinosaur in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
If you want to talk about dinosaurs then it should be NASCAR who stuck with pushrod V8s for decades which have no bearing on current engines; whereas in F1 the engine building technology has been transferred onto their road cars.
I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it?Quote:
Originally Posted by call_me_andrew
Silly question......if we do indeed go to Turbo engines, will this mean no need for an airbox on top of the drivers helmet, and will we simply have a roll-hoop?
I love the look of the airbox set up of current F1 cars and so imagineing if now no need whether the new gen of F1 cars will look a bit like the old CART cars in this area?
Sure they will, the question is how much time and money they will need to catch up with those who produce up to date 4 cylinder performance engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Drifter
No more or less than any other manufacturer of engines for F1. Nobody is going to adapt a street engine to produce the power and reliability a F1 engine will require.
To comment on the taxi cabs not only are they using pushrod V8's they are just considering, note considering, using fuel injection instead of carbs.
All it takes is a brief visit to a current car show to see that car makers really don't give a flying toss about F1 anymore. Its all about green tech and future alternative modes of propulsion.Quote:
Originally Posted by maximilian
Now you might argue that F1 doesn't need car makers anymore but you may have noticed that money is tight, very tight. So much so that even teams like Renault will only accept a second driver who brings his own sponsorship.
The carmakers brought loads of money and sponsors into F1 and they've taken them out with them when they withdrew. For F1 to revive again the sport needs to be more relevant to what carmakers are looking for. These engine regs are exactly whats required to make that happen IMO. Already VW and Honda are making noises about entering F1 as engine suppliers IF the engine regs are 'right' ie environmentally friendly. That won't happen if we stay with current engines.
As far as i understand it, engine covers are for normally aspirated engines, and the roll hoop style designs are for turbo charged engines. This does come from someone on another forum, but it makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe F1
In the great 80s turbo era we didnt see any airbox cars on turbocharged machines. this was after such a thing was invented in the 70s. It all changed in 1989, when turbos were banned....
Thus I'd expect a change to roll hoop designs. I quite like the thought of this. The sleeker F1 cars are the better, and the thought of them being slightly more CART like in such a manner entices me :D
The purpose of the airbox on non turbo cars is to create positive pressure in order to force as much air as possible into combustion chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR
On turbo cars, the air inlet is generally close to the turbo (exhaust, the gas from which drives the turbo) and is is drawn in rather than pushed in. If the blown rear diffuser prevails, there will need to be some clever positioning of the turbo and intricate routing of air intake in order to keep the bodywork lines clean.
Thanks for the technical insight there :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Why do they have to have engine restrictions at all? Just tell the teams how much petrol they have for the race and let them deal with it. Just reduce it every year to make it more green. It would be great to have some diversity back in F1.
rah: What are you ? Some kind of reactionary?
My (pick your own diety) thinking outside the box!
The F1 Gods have decreed the rules must be as complicated and have as many grey areas as possible to promote contraversy.
The FIA have decreed costs must come down and then promptly tweak the rules just enough so everyone has to produce a completely new car every year instead of developing what they have with tweaks.
There was a time when the same basic car could race for several years. Updated yes. But the rules were static.
Now I am an old f*rt but I remember going through the infamous 'Yellow Book' every year to see if they had corrected the loophole we had found. Then reading all sections pretaining to formula racing plus general racing rules to see if I could find a loophole. It took an evening.
I doubt if I could read the F1 rules in an evening let alone study them!
My suggestion, which will never happen because the powere that be cannot think that way, would be to take the entire F1 regulations and seal them in a time capsule to opened in a 1000 years and start with a clean sheet of paper.
Give them to a mechanic to develop. Not an engineer or designer. And keep the lawyers at bay with a greener (sawed off 10 gauge shotgun).
Make then simple and concise. The less rules the better. And anyone who does not think mechanics are smart just consider Steve Matchett, Chad Knaus (NASCAR) or Ron Dennis.
Will never happen.
Any word on F1 diesel engines?Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
I have always preferred the naturally aspirated engined over forced induction.
I am trying to like the idea of the 1.6 litre turbos, but can't quite come around.
I will sit on the fence until I hear one in Melbourne 2013.
or maybe not. ;)
Has anyone on here ever actually built an engine from the ground up?
When I was a race mechanic it was a standing joke I didn't do engines.
Actually I could and with my driver/mechanic we built race winning engines.
We just kept it quiet that we did it together. I just liked to keep it quiet that I knew how to assemble a race engine.
But we just assembled existing engines with good parts very carefully.
We never actually designed and built an engine.
We did design and build a fuel injection system but that was it.
So back to the beginning has anyone any experience in designing an engine?
You know, the same though went through my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
Forget the 1.5L screamers of the 70's. These "tame" turbo engines will be strangled to 10k revs.
The show will go on but the days of roaring, ear splitting power will be replaced by the lean, clean, green, bubble-wrapped F1 that the FIA is detirmined to create.
The FIA would feel less of a need for gimmicks like push to pass if their other regulations like the engine freeze and the rev limit didn't limit overtaking opportunities!
The engine freeze is a joke. So is the rev limit.
If they want to limit the amount that an engine is modified they could always try something like force the teams to openly display their design modifications to the other teams/public should they want to modify their engine.
But restricting the amount of modification a team can do to an engine just means that the teams will be looking to modify the aerodynamics instead. Which means less possibility to overtake. Which it seems for the FIA, requires more gimmicks like Push to Pass.
I really hope that the engines are more powerful than current engines. Neither the drivers nor fans want to see cars with less power and more grip. They want to see drivers feathering the throttle in corners like Eau Rouge, they want to see the cars visibly on the limit and breaking traction.
I feel your pain, but we do really have to get 'real'.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
Like it or not, Oil will, one day, become a scarce commodity. More and more influential figures are beginning to talk about 'peak' oild production. We will have to be weened off its use (and face it folks, there is not a lot we rely on every day that is not made with the use directly or indirectly of oil sourced products).
Why should our beloved sport not become the breeding ground for technologies and solutions that will help us find ways of ensuring we have effective and practical transport modes for decades to come.....?
or......Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Just accept we're screwed and we are heading back to the stone age so may as well have fun whilst we can by burning the last of the black gold on V24's spinning at 30,000rpm producing 2,500bhp! ;)
The most important question - Are they going to get rid of the silly engine freeze and let teams develop their engines?
As for the formula itself, it does make some sense, there is a general movement in engine technology away from large displacement normally aspirated units, to smaller, fuel efficient and turbo charged. F1 is only following a trend that is already well under way.
They may well follow WRC in limiting the engines by means of limiting the air intake allowed? Toyota might be interested in competing then ;) (A little joke for those who know WRC history!)
I have a 1.6 turbo charged engine in my car, sadly not 750bhp!
The phrase 'engine parity' keeps popping up in relation to the new units, so yes, would assume after a few months the engines will be frozen - RUBBISH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
;)Quote:
.
They may well follow WRC in limiting the engines by means of limiting the air intake allowed? Toyota might be interested in competing then ;) (A little joke for those who know WRC history!)