Irvine Proposes Reduced Engine Displacement

[EERO]

From the Daily F1 WebSite;

Some of Formula One’s top names have advocated a move to reduce engine capacity and configuration as a means of capping the spiralling speeds in the sport.

F1’s rulers were prompted into action last week when lap times at Melbourne were a whopping four seconds quicker than 2000’s. The tyre war between Bridgestone and Michelin has led to ultra-soft, high-grip tyres, which, combined with the lower downforce brought about by the FIA’s wing regulations, have resulted in exceptionally quick cars. Ironically the wing changes were introduced to slow drivers by cutting downforce, but because of tyres helping to generate abundant levels of grip in the corners, less downforce only means higher speeds along the straights because of less wind resistance (drag).

The answer, according to Jaguar driver Eddie Irvine, is to phase out 3.0 litre V10s and bring in the higher revving 2.5 litre V6 units.

‘Reducing performance is a difficult question,’ the Irishman told “The Guardian”. ‘But a V6 would slow speeds quite a lot, and personally, I don’t think that would hurt Formula One.



‘The noise would be fantastic because the engines would run to 20,000 rpm. People want to hear that sort of thing; they don’t really notice out-and-out speed as such, they just want noise and want to believe they are watching the fastest formula.

‘Of course this would also mean there was no need for traction control (which will be allowed again from the Spanish Grand Prix next month) and from my point of view that’s a very positive thing.

‘People want to see the cars sideways with the drivers fighting to put the power down. I think the spectacle of 650 hp – or whatever it might be – would be far better than 850 hp with traction control.’

Engine capacity was last changed in 1995 when the FIA ordered engines to be reduced from 3.5 litres to 3.0 litres. Power went down, but it has crept back up with the fierce rate of development. It is said a V6 would add in the region of four seconds to the lap times.

McLaren International MD Martin Whitmarsh agreed with Irvine.

‘I personally would support the move to a 2.5 litre engine, and I don’t think our partner Mercedes-Benz would be particularly distressed about it, provided they had sufficient notice.’

The FIA is to closely monitor speeds in Malaysia and Brazil before announcing any regulation changes. The Body would not implement changes as drastic as engine size reduction mid season, but could bring it in for 2002.


It seems like part of a reasonable proposal to rewrite the Formula to me. If it were coupled with a reintroduction of wide slicks and wider cars and less downforce, i think we'd have something. As much of a knucklehead as Eddie can be for speaking his mind, occaissionly he gets it right.

[Red]

Higher revving V6? I believe that such an engine would develop higher torque, but somehow I doubt about 20000rpm. I say bring those V6! Thus Toyota spends again several millions fine + 1 year in the lab, coz they won’t be able to develop from scratch another engine. That would be their third. Just kidding, leave F1 as it is, if you don’t allow another option such as: 3.5l NA, V12.

PS: The last option... you really mean it?

[EERO]

I didn't vote for it did I?

[Red]

No, but you thought it might be someone's choice...

[KC]

There will be a lot of excuses bandied out by the manufatcturers as why to continue with the current formula and not change engine displacement. Certainly it will be expensive to force everyone to develop new engines. The current V10 formula would probably revert back to V8 configuration due to volumetric effeciency. Some will complain about the emasculation of the sport. Isn't the idea to go fast?

Personally, they should make the change. The teams will always be fast. It is all they do. Make engineering solutions to meet the changing levels of performance in a fortnight.

[Gt_R]

What do they really want? Soon, we'd be better off seeing Formula Ford on the global TV!

I love F1 not just purely because of "the noise" and the believe that its the "fastest Formula". What i want is the exciting developement of technology, and supremacy of the machinery which are highly complex. And the extreme speeds these car do. Each car on the grid that looks the same, but are actually very different deep within.

In the past, FIA banned Turbo due to cars reaching 1200bhp. They also detuned engines frm 3.5l to 3.0l. All in a bid to slow them down. But it does not help things else soon, engineers find ways to bring cars back to before. STOP slowing these things down for god's sake! Cant they see they are not helping matterS? how bout a 1.6l engine?!!!

i would seriously have preferred if F1 cars are 4.0l V12, if i am to replace Max. What the FIA should do is to ensure that Man is always in control over machine, that the developement of safety features keep up with the developement of cars. There would be a time when the maximum power could be extracted from an engine, and that is when F1 would close up as well as the stablising of the teams status. Please. They have done F1 enough harm. Stop before they make F1 another **** show.

[Neil C]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Formula Ford on the global TV!

Now there's something I'd pay to see.

[Liz]

Back to the 1979 formula for me - huge turbos, big wide slicks, adjustable wings and skirts, and Real Men who have to do more than flip a switch when the little light comes on saying "Flip Switch Now". (Of course if the pilots keep getting younger, the words will be replaced by Nanny's warm and cozy voice saying "Shift now, duckie!")

But by all means stop trying to slow the cars down. This is racing, not sauntering.

And if Eddie Irvine really said that about "Fans want to hear noise" - that proves my contention that he belongs in the Idiot Racing League with Eddie Cheever, who has been wandering the earth for years in search of the same clue that apparently eludes Eddie Irvine.

[djb]

Speaking of noise, sure 20,000rpm isn't that far away, but am I the only one who would rather hear something throatier, and not a pack of cars sounding like a group of 125cc motocross bikes?

[Neil C]

So, Red, there's your answer to "who would vote for option 5?"

After too many years around race engines, airplanes and electric guitars, all race cars are starting to sound the same to me, but I loved the shreik of the small displacement, many-cylindered cars of the early 70's.

Liz, you soon may have to defend your characterization if the IRL series. A couple of bona fide IRL shoes recently posted in 10/10ths.

[Sonatrap]

Well said Liz.
Bring back the days of 1000bhp!

[EERO]

If the 1.5 liter inline 4's and V-6's of the early 80's gave 1200 HP in qualifying trim, what wouldd a 5 liter Turbo do. As I recall, Mark Donahue's Porsche 917-30, an aircooled Turbo flat 12 gave 1400 HP in 1973.

[Sonatrap]

Good question and there´s loads of fans and drivers who would like to find out.

[Red]

Yahoooo! Actually not 5l turbo scared me, but the variable geometry! Anyway, it won’t happen, sooner or later EU will impose a consumption of less than 10 pounds of fuel per 100 miles, catalyzer will be mandatory, Italian are already looking for a noise limit on tracks....

[Valve Bounce]

I think that the premise here is that the FIA wants to reduce speed on the track. On this basis, a reduction in engine capacity would be the logical way to go. However, I think that keeping the V10 configuration would mean that the factories would keep the basic engine and simply make minor modifications to achieve this reduction of 500 cc's. However, I would reduce the projected frontal area of those wings, and reduce the width of the tyres as well as getting rid of those stupid grooves.
Moreover, the introduction of a totally different engine would require massive expense and development time, something that the factories are surely not that keen on doing.
I don't know where Eddie got his idea from, but a 2.5 V6 will have larger pistons than a 3 litre V10, so to expect the V6 to rev to 20,000 would be very difficult. Anyway, I don't know where Mad Eddie gets his crazy ideas from - maybe he is just shooting the sh!t again.

[Neil C]

Well, they could go to 2 stroke engines. That would give them the revs they want. Of course the powerband would be so narrow it would require 17 forward gears, but since drivers dont do the shifting anymore, no problem there!

[Jeanburrasca81]

5 litres turbo's??? Well..if you want cars with 2000 hp. A reduction down to 2.5 litres woul bring something. After 1994 only in 2000 the engines reached the same hp's. This did not necessarily mean slower cars all the time. But how about a 2 litres engine. This could help us to get our slicks back. Cause when you have slicks this would make cars as fast as they are now even with a 2.5 litres engine...more or less...well, I dunno...lol. It's not my job to find such solutions.

[Gt_R]

How about limiting the cars to just 4.0m in length? and 1.8m in width? So as to destable it in corners and lower the turning speed?

Hmm...perhaps, Max should have just make all cars have their engines in the front, just like the way things starteD?

[Airhead]

Why not pay more attention to track safety. This would noticably decrease the risk to drivers. As always people concentrate on reducing speed. Probably because such a change is quantifiable, as in look I reduced outright speed by 50 klms and lap times increased by 10 seconds. Therefore the cars are slower and everybody can sleep at night again. But is driver safety enhanced? No.

The introduction to the bane of the spectators existance (the chicane) was the result of such thinking. It is also the most likely place for major GP accidents. It is not the speed as such that is the problem but the introduction of measures that intriduce situations where large speed differentials can be present between cars.

[Valve Bounce]

I'm with AM here, and I think that the track in Malaysia this week should be the starting point where track improvement should follow. This circuit is supposed to be very well designed for safety, and the FIA should look at this in detail and see where other tracks can be improved, if possible.

[Nuvolari]

Let's not miss what The Irishman is really saying here:

It's not simply blinding speed that makes for good racing. The fans want drivers and cars that are driven, not put on autopilot.

Sacrifice a few miles an hour? Why not, IF other changes are made that make it a true racing series again.

[Sparky]

Originally posted by Valve Bounce
...I think that keeping the V10 configuration would mean that the factories would keep the basic engine and simply make minor modifications to achieve this reduction of 500 cc's...
Moreover, the introduction of a totally different engine would require massive expense and development time...

I don't know where Eddie got his idea from, but a 2.5 V6 will have larger pistons than a 3 litre V10, so to expect the V6 to rev to 20,000 would be very difficult. Anyway, I don't know where Mad Eddie gets his crazy ideas from - maybe he is just shooting the sh!t again.

Well said, VB.

I also suggest keeping V10's, and by keeping the bore the same and reducing the crank stroke by 16.66% the result will be 2500cc and much higher revs!

We might just see a few more engines let go, though...

[EERO]

Thanks to everyone for checking in. I would like to point out that the "5 Liter Turbo" option was a bit of sarcasm on my part. As of 7:12 this evening, 9 sadists have chosen it.

I do fully agree with Eddie that the issue is relative speed. I defy anyone to really tell the difference between 170 and 180 MPH or lap times 5-10 seconds slower.

I also have to say thet I have always found V10's an unwieldy package. Bring back Inline 6's and V12's.

[Sparky]

I've had a revolutionary idea...

If the FIA want to increase laptimes...





...extend the circuits.

[Neil C]

Sparky, brilliant, but expensive. How about they just slow down their watches?