V6 Or V8

[inimitablestoo]

I'll second that last bit. Not sure DRS is really necessary now that the tyres are the way they are.

[Mark]

You can't really get rid of the energy recovery systems etc as that's the entire point of the engines being hybrid petrol electric.

[kfzmeister]

I don't mind the current formula. I think Bernie always thinks in terms of money and there are many that complain about the (lack of) of noise, so he wants to do something. Viewership is down and i even read that TV is considering not renewing with F1 for broadcasting rights due to lack of viewership.
Not sure what the problem is, but they could do something about the current engine noise/ experience for the fans, especially at the tracks.

[journeyman racer]

They should've allowed both. However with automotive manufacturers wanting to invest in something other than the old V8 boat anchors, there should be an understanding that of a performance favouritism towards the current turbo cars.

The problem this time round has been the implementation of the rules. Last race of 13, everybody using na 2.4l V8s. Next race, the first race of 14, everybody being forced to use ers 1.6l turbos. In any context of life, too much change (even if it's for the better) causes pain.

Go back to the first era of turbos. There had been rule to include them for 11 seasons before anybody thought of it. Then Renault debuted with one at the 1977 British GP. At that point, it wasn't til the 84 Austrian GP that the whole field used turbos. The change was organic. It was a natural transition, was not forced, that took just over 7 years.

Similar could've happened now. It could've opened up the possibility of even cheaper engine deals for using a V8 (by a manufacturer or specialist supplier) on the understanding you'd more likely be at the middle/rear of the field. While also allowing manufacturers to get value for developing the ers turbos, which seems to be where automotive industry is going.

[zako85]

Considering the runaway engine cost situation, I think they should consider 4-cylinder turbos, as was originally planned years ago. The smaller engine will have two less cylinders than V6, which means less valves, pistons, etc, which hopefully reduce the price of the engine by about one-third.

[Rollo]

Considering the runaway engine cost situation, I think they should consider 4-cylinder turbos, as was originally planned years ago. The smaller engine will have two less cylinders than V6, which means less valves, pistons, etc, which hopefully reduce the price of the engine by about one-third.

Won't.
The price of the engine has to do with the development costs and the testing which goes into producing it. The actual cost of fabricating the components is probably a peppercorn amount.

The whole reason why Honda and Renault went with the V10 engines in 1989 was because the ideal capacity for a cylinder in a reciprocating engine is about 298cc. There's some calculus to describe why but it basically has to do with Charles's gas law.
3500/8 = 437.5
3500/10 = 350
3500/12 = 291

12 should be the best for a 3.5L formula but a V12 or flat-12 requires 3 main bearings; whereas a V10 needs only 2. For a 3L formula, a V10 is a fait accompli.

For a 1.6L formula 1600/298 = / 5.36. A V5 or inline-5 is probably the most ideal answer.

[N. Jones]

I liked the sound of the V8's. The V6's do not sound right.

[schmenke]

...

For a 1.6L formula 1600/298 = / 5.36. A V5 or inline-5 is probably the most ideal answer.

Results in an undesirably high centre of gravity.


Interesting post though Rollo.

[Rollo]

Results in an undesirably high centre of gravity.


Interesting post though Rollo.

Maybe a V5 might do, but an inline-5's centre of gravity wouldn't be any higher than any other inline engine.

Inline-5s won the WRC more than 30 years ago in the Audi Quattro. They sounded glorious - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHVaeULSuO0

[zako85]

Won't.
The price of the engine has to do with the development costs and the testing which goes into producing it. The actual cost of fabricating the components is probably a peppercorn amount.

The whole reason why Honda and Renault went with the V10 engines in 1989 was because the ideal capacity for a cylinder in a reciprocating engine is about 298cc. There's some calculus to describe why but it basically has to do with Charles's gas law.
3500/8 = 437.5
3500/10 = 350
3500/12 = 291

12 should be the best for a 3.5L formula but a V12 or flat-12 requires 3 main bearings; whereas a V10 needs only 2. For a 3L formula, a V10 is a fait accompli.

For a 1.6L formula 1600/298 = / 5.36. A V5 or inline-5 is probably the most ideal answer.

You're talking about what's the fastest, but I am talking about what's the most affordable Inline-4 has less parts, and therefore costs less. By this logic, an inline-3 would work quite well too