4 cylinder turbos out, 6 cylinder turbos in (theoretically)

autosport.com - F1 News: F1 considers move to V6 turbos
BBC Sport - Formula 1 delays introduction of ‘green’ engines until 2014

if this goes through, it's good news. Postponing it also makes sense. Let's hope all engine manufacturers (and some new ones) like this and keep supplying engines to F1. goodness knows what this means for PURE though, meanwhile it would have made sense to go for the same engine rules as IndyCar, so we could see Honda, Chevvie and Lotus units, but V6T is an improvement on V4T.

that'll be goodbye renault then i assume

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

that'll be goodbye renault then i assume

---

So what - Renault have come and gone as they pleased in the past........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

that'll be goodbye renault then i assume

---

the autosport article seems to indicate that all current engine manufacturers have agreed to the change, in which case Renault should be staying. Renault were the only ones supporting the changes anyway, so the news that a compromise has been reached suggests renault have agreed to it.

I'd be much happier with sixes than fours! Sixes have a wonderful gatling-gun sound, and perhaps they'd be a bit more relevant to the manufacturers.

The sound of a 4 pot turbo egine is much nicer than a 6 pot turbo engine. But they both suck when compared to a howling V8, V10 or V12!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

The sound of a 4 pot turbo egine is much nicer than a 6 pot turbo engine. But they both suck when compared to a howling V8, V10 or V12!

---

Agree.

V12 Turbos. :eek: :crazy:

An N/A engine always sounds nicer than forced induction IMHO, but that said any engine capable of kicking out several hundred ponies will sound meaty enough so I don't think we need to fear.

I was just reading this on the BBC F1 site. Great news as far as I'm concerned, and an unexpectedly sensible decision when taking into account the noises involved!

Four cylinder engines (with a couple of exceptions) sound about as boring as it is possible to imagine. V8s with flat-plane crankshafts just sound like four cylinder engines (with one exception I can think of), so that's just as bad. Any configuration six-cylinder engines sound great - flat-plane crankshaft or otherwise - so the new regulations get a big thumbs-up from me.

:)

I actually don't understand what the reasoning is behind specifying the cylinder configuration in the rules.
The last time we had turbo engines, there were inline-4s, V6s and V8s and they all had their own distinctive engine notes.

According to Honda's research in the late 1980s, the ideal size for a cylinder in an Otto cycle engine is about 298cc (I did see the calculations once, hooboy!); therefore at 1.6L ideally the best engine config would either be an inline-5 or a V5. To the best of my knowledge, only Honda and VW-Audi have put V5 engines into production. I5s have been used by far more companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

So what - Renault have come and gone as they pleased in the past........

---

Because they supply a fair few teams and want to supply one more. Who would step in? Cosworth?!?!

hopefully it appears that Renault are on board with the new rules, agreed they've gone before, but at the moment they supply the fastest team, one other competitive team as well as an improving Lotus. Likely to add one more to the list too. There are not many alternatives these days, and at the moment I don't think Cosworth are at the level or Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari. At the moment we need a 4th competitive engine supplier IMO

2014? The world will end 7-8 times by then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

2014? The world will end 7-8 times by then

---

LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I actually don't understand what the reasoning is behind specifying the cylinder configuration in the rules.
The last time we had turbo engines, there were inline-4s, V6s and V8s and they all had their own distinctive engine notes.

According to Honda's research in the late 1980s, the ideal size for a cylinder in an Otto cycle engine is about 298cc (I did see the calculations once, hooboy!); therefore at 1.6L ideally the best engine config would either be an inline-5 or a V5. To the best of my knowledge, only Honda and VW-Audi have put V5 engines into production. I5s have been used by far more companies.

---

The reason is simple: they speficy the the cylinder configuration to even out the playing field just a little bit and to avoid excessive cost that would go into research to find out which is the optimum cylinder configuration. The differences between the engines could be huge if the rules were more free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

the ideal size for a cylinder in an Otto cycle engine is about 298cc

---

So then what you're saying is that a 4.8L V16 engine would be the best. Gets my vote! :D

:laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce D

So then what you're saying is that a 4.8L V16 engine would be the best. Gets my vote! :D

:laugh:

---

How about a 1.5 litre V16? If they got 600bhp out of one in 1947, then surely 1200+ should be no problem now. That would really be something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

According to Honda's research in the late 1980s, the ideal size for a cylinder in an Otto cycle engine is about 298cc (I did see the calculations once, hooboy!); therefore at 1.6L ideally the best engine config would either be an inline-5 or a V5. To the best of my knowledge, only Honda and VW-Audi have put V5 engines into production. I5s have been used by far more companies.

---

Agree, V5 isn't common configuration. It's not real V engine, but rather a VR5 engine, five cylinders sharing a single bank. Four cylinders doesn't sound so good for an F1 car, but the turbo might help it sounds better. The best choice perhaps would be 1.8L V6 turboed engine.

Personally, I’d love to see a mix of V6, V8, V10 & V12 engines. Not going to happen however. The car industry is going to small capacity turbo charged engines – Motorsport has to follow – WTCC, WRC have gone 1.6T engines, now it’s F1’s turn to follow suit.

Generally speaking V8's are the best engines for racing. They sound good, are pretty reliable, powerful, easy to get more ooommmfffff out of etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

The car industry is going to small capacity turbo charged engines

---

I always laugh at statements like this - there are almost no small capacity turbo engined cars on the South African market. The closest thing to it is a 1.9L turbo diesel Polo, or the 2.0L turbo Golfs. So where all these manufacturers are changing to this small capacity turbo engine I don't know. Maybe in European markets its happening but not world-wide that I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

So what - Renault have come and gone as they pleased in the past........

---

Care to tell us who, other than Ferrari, didn't?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce D

I always laugh at statements like this - there are almost no small capacity turbo engined cars on the South African market. The closest thing to it is a 1.9L turbo diesel Polo, or the 2.0L turbo Golfs. So where all these manufacturers are changing to this small capacity turbo engine I don't know. Maybe in European markets its happening but not world-wide that I can see.

---

The only other model that comes to mind over here is the new Golf TSI's which employ 1400cc engines with a supercharger and a turbocharger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce D

I always laugh at statements like this - there are almost no small capacity turbo engined cars on the South African market. The closest thing to it is a 1.9L turbo diesel Polo, or the 2.0L turbo Golfs. So where all these manufacturers are changing to this small capacity turbo engine I don't know. Maybe in European markets its happening but not world-wide that I can see.

---

And I always laugh at statements like this. Since when is South Africa a representative market world wide? :rolleyes:

Fiat, VW Group are doing 1.4 and 1.2 petrol turbos in place of 2.0l engines in Europe and can only assume this will spread. BMW are downsizing and starting to turbo charge even their "M" cars. Even the supercar manufacturers are making some slightly smaller and lighter engines. I think Ford are replacing the 2.5l and 2.0l petrol engines in the focus with 1.6's now. and they are largely getting the same or more power and better mileage. I expect you'll start to see this in S.Africa pretty soon, expecially the VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda's depending on which actually sell down there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And I always laugh at statements like this. Since when is South Africa a representative market world wide? :rolleyes:

---

We have a large car market and a lot of the BMW's, Audi's, Mercs, VW's etc you drive are made right here in our little piss pot called South Africa and exported. Even the original Noble was built in our fair Eastern Cape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

The only other model that comes to mind over here is the new Golf TSI's which employ 1400cc engines with a supercharger and a turbocharger.

---

which is in Skodas, Audis, Seats etc. Peugeot/Mini share a 1.6 turbo.

The Golf and Scirocco "R" models that previously had 3.2l V6's now employ 2l turbo's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

We have a large car market and a lot of the BMW's, Audi's, Mercs, VW's etc you drive are made right here in our little piss pot called South Africa and exported. Even the original Noble was built in our fair Eastern Cape.

---

Rest assured the Audi's and BMW's and Mercedes and so on we drive in Europe are produced here. Heck even the Japanese cars sold in Europe are mostly produced in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Rest assured the Audi's and BMW's and Mercedes and so on we drive in Europe are produced here. Heck even the Japanese cars sold in Europe are mostly produced in Europe.

---

I can assure you that we export cars to Europe. We even supply Mercs into Germany, no bull****!

Naacam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I actually don't understand what the reasoning is behind specifying the cylinder configuration in the rules.
The last time we had turbo engines, there were inline-4s, V6s and V8s and they all had their own distinctive engine notes.

---

The man from Cosworth:

Quote:

---

Mark Gallagher writes:
“The answer is predominantly to do with achieving technical equivalency to ensure that no one technical solution gains a massive competitive edge, and this is closely aligned with the need for financial prudence.

“If you limit the CC and leave freedom on cylinders, it would be possible for a manufacturer to have a different engine based on development cost and architecture and this inevitably leads to a spending war. If one went for a V8, someone would go for a V10, and if that worked better then someone else might go on to a V12… the dollars start to disappear down the drain.

“And if you homologated the engines for 3 years, the one with the worst configuration would be screwed (technical term…) for the entire period, and the one with the most money/best configuration would dominate. If you didn’t homologate for 3 years with a freeze, you would have annual development and possibly different numbers of cylinder-engines from teams from one season to the next.

“By having tightly controlled rules governing capacity, fuel allowance, number of cylinders etc you generate a framework for financial control and ensure that engines are not a source of competitive advantage i.e. what we have now works. Competitive edge comes from the Constructor (chassis constructor) and Driver’s championship titles. There is no World Championship for Engines. Sadly.

“Finally, by having common engine size/architecture, teams are not penalised if they swap engine supplier. A Renault will fit in the back of a Team Lotus car, or a Cosworth in the back of an RBR, without huge changes in weight distribution, redesign of car, wheelbase, gearbox interface etc. Again it’s all dollars.”

Your F1 engine questions answered: Why define the number of cylinders?- James Allen on F1 – The official website

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

How about a 1.5 litre V16? If they got 600bhp out of one in 1947, then surely 1200+ should be no problem now. That would really be something.

---

Or, how about a petrol version of the 18 cylinder Napier Deltec engine!? Wouldn't be allowed of course as it is a 2 stroke, but is not turbocharged, relying on a scavenger/blower for aspiration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Care to tell us who, other than Ferrari, didn't?!

---

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

£5.99 for two fish and chips on Fridays at the Queens Head. That's what I call value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

£5.99 for two fish and chips on Fridays at the Queens Head. That's what I call value.

---

That's good, but it's not a hen.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

---

You should tell us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

The man from Cosworth: Mark Gallagher
"By having tightly controlled rules governing capacity, fuel allowance, number of cylinders etc you generate a framework for financial control and ensure that engines are not a source of competitive advantage i.e. what we have now works."

---

In other words to stifle competition in the name of lowering costs and ensuring a better "show". But yet the FIA still gets bullied into deciding which configuration the engines will be in the first place. The engine manufacturers with the most clout will try to ensure an advantage for themselves.

Gallagher himself admits that: "you would have annual development and possibly different numbers of cylinder-engines from teams from one season to the next"
Personally I'd call the the march of technology and progress, but I suppose that F1 isn't about that as much as it was, so long as "the show" is the thing that matters eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

but I suppose that F1 isn't about that as much as it was, so long as "the show" is the thing that matters eh?

---

At first appearance cost-cutting and 'The Show' has rarely been mutually exclusive.

Take for instance homologated engines and rev limiters. Is it to benefit the manufacturers or 'The Show'? The former pretty much will form the latter, not vice versa. NASCAR has been reluctant to use fuel injection not because of the fear of the detriment of 'The Show' but because of increase in cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You should tell us.

---

I simply pointed out that Renault have come and gone to suit themselves - I wasn't referring to any other manufacturer and their position (other manufacturers) when discussing Renault is irrelevant. There will always be supertec or meccachrome to fill in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

At first appearance cost-cutting and 'The Show' has rarely been mutually exclusive.

Take for instance homologated engines and rev limiters. Is it to benefit the manufacturers or 'The Show'? The former pretty much will form the latter, not vice versa. NASCAR has been reluctant to use fuel injection not because of the fear of the detriment of 'The Show' but because of increase in cost.

---

Are they still using carbs? Jeez, if there is a way to pi55 fuel up the wall, the yanks will embrace it with open arms!

They'll come up with a 6litre pushbike next, it will comprise a normal pushbike, but will involve emptying 6litres of unleaded on the ground - it'll be called a gas guzzler!

*this post is not serious*