[Rules] Formula 1 set to adopt global racing engine

[Pingguest]

Formula 1 is close to introducing new regulations, including the reintroduction of ground effect underbodies and turbo engines.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341
http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/n..._10090209.html

The likely reintroduction of ground effects is already being discussed here:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...121520&page=38

Formula 1 is likely to introduce a 1.6-litre straight-4 turbo engines. To promote fuel-efficiency a fuel-flow rate limit will be introduced too. According to Motorsport-total the turbo boost will be limited to 3 bar and KERS will stay as a boost button, limited to 30 seconds per lap. According to Autosport it is planned to allocate drivers only five engine per season. In both articles a rev-limiter is not mentioned.

With this plan Formula 1 is set to adopt the global racing engine. Its an innovative concept invented by Ulrich Baretzky. His idea is to have one set of engine regulations for a variety of racing series. A set of rules which stipulate a small, inexpensive, powerful, fuel-efficient and road relevant engine. Engines would then only be altered for specific racing series in the interest of safety, cost reductions and relative pace compared other series.
http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...racing-engine/
http://www.gordonkirby.com/categorie..._is_no228.html

What are your thoughts on the proposed engine regulations?

[gttouring]

It's F1 these should be a unique formula and be a bit more racey than this world engine I wouldn't mind the current spec or an open 2.4liter of any piston count with turbos and kers or some such assist for fuel Eco assist but this capacity is to grandfather in current blocks etc I would go to 3.0 and a rev limit and a third as many engines as races so 7 limit for 21 races

[Pingguest]

In the ideal situation engines would be let free and unregulated. Fuel consumption limits and/or flow-flow rate limits would then reduce power, costs and make the engines more road relevant. However, with the current economic situation such a set of rules may be found too expensive. Therefore tighter regulations are necessary. In my opinion the introduction of the global racing engine would then make sense. With only one engine block manufactures could then participate in a number of racing series. From Le Mans Prototypes to Formula 1, from Indycars to Formula 3.

The configuration of a 1600cc L4T sounds sensible to me. Most manufactures have such a configuration in their road cars and they could well decide to race with a production-based engine. For the interest of road relevance and cost-savings a rev-limiter of 10,000 rpm should be introduced as well. However, I don't want to see turbo boost limits and think that a limited number of engine per driver per season should go. Instead, regulations should such that using more than five engines per season would not be beneficial.

[gttouring]

Of course you are speaking of a production based block . I was expecting a bespoke block- which they end up being anyway. There are other bits of tech to decrease consumption of fuel but making it all more "road car relevant" is more lip advice by the muckymucks and PR guys than reality. A "junk " formula would work better by using any in production block and engine and setting a fuel cap per event and that will sort out either the best engine for it or new ideas for conserving fuel and being fastest. 1.6 liter motors witha turbo can suck a lot of fuel in a full throttle run so much at rpm as well . To wit, at a trCk day a 1.8 liter turbo Honda guy had to fuel up his 10gallon tank twice, while the viper and vette guys did a whole session on one tank. Even if it held 4-5 gallons more the engines had bettr tech than the boost mad high revving Honda and it was fast but used the fuel to be so- not as fast as the viper tho. This could be poor fuel managment or running rich but it can swingeither way it is not alwAys this way but this was the last exAmple I experienced as funny and nonsensical to the idea of a smaller turbo not needing as much fuel

[NaBUru38]

Except for the displacement and quantity of cylinders, a 600 or 800hp 1.6L 4-cylinder engine can't be that production-based and road relevant.

[bravo]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Except for the displacement and quantity of cylinders, a 600 or 800hp 1.6L 4-cylinder engine can't be that production-based and road relevant.

Well the turbos of past were production based - didn't the Renault use blocks that had 60k+ road use and had been sat outside the back of the factory for a while, as these were more likely to be free from material failures? Or is that a urban myth?

Poor Ferrari - all Fiat and Alfas new petrol engines are 1.4 or 1.8 turbo based - no 1.6s.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by bravo

Well the turbos of past were production based - didn't the Renault use blocks that had 60k+ road use and had been sat outside the back of the factory for a while, as these were more likely to be free from material failures? Or is that a urban myth?
...

I dont think those engines had sat outside the back of the factory, thats a myth afaik

[PabloTeK]

Use the same fecking engine as the IRL FIA! Surely it'd bet better to have 2 series with interchangeable motors...

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by PabloTeK

Use the same fecking engine as the IRL FIA! Surely it'd bet better to have 2 series with interchangeable motors...

Maybe IndyCar should use the same engine as F1, and not get bent by Honda

[E.B]

Originally Posted by bravo

Well the turbos of past were production based - didn't the Renault use blocks that had 60k+ road use and had been sat outside the back of the factory for a while, as these were more likely to be free from material failures? Or is that a urban myth?

That was the BMW in-line 4 Turbo engines, not the Renault (which was a V6 turbo). Whether it is myth or not I would not like to say, but the story is they were road used blocks (from the BMW 2002ti) subsequently left out the back of the factory in Germany and the staff were encouraged to get rid of their used beer over them.

It was something to do with the metallurgy experts in the BMW F1 race engine dept. wanting the ex-road blocks left outside in all the elements, and treated like a lemon tree..... something to do with minimising specific types of stresses in the iron block being beneficial to the reliability when fitted with steel liners, the liners having to help reduce the capacity from 2000cc to under 1500cc needed for F1 Turbo engines at the time. The sort of stresses in producing a road block from an engine originally producing some 130-150 bhp and maybe 5,500-6000 rpm in late 70's 2002 roadcar form to the F1 qualy trim alleged 1500+ hp, and 11,000+ rpm...... admittedly assisted by some fancy electronics and some even fancier Castrol superbrew fuel.

Paul Rosche, the BMW Motorsports 'Super Mario' (Thiessen) of the time insists that the story is true, certainly the ex road use and outside exposure parts.

Its your call on whether the other part of the story is also true, or simply BMW and others taking the ****.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by gttouring

Of course you are speaking of a production based block . I was expecting a bespoke block- which they end up being anyway. There are other bits of tech to decrease consumption of fuel but making it all more "road car relevant" is more lip advice by the muckymucks and PR guys than reality. A "junk " formula would work better by using any in production block and engine and setting a fuel cap per event and that will sort out either the best engine for it or new ideas for conserving fuel and being fastest. 1.6 liter motors witha turbo can suck a lot of fuel in a full throttle run so much at rpm as well . To wit, at a trCk day a 1.8 liter turbo Honda guy had to fuel up his 10gallon tank twice, while the viper and vette guys did a whole session on one tank. Even if it held 4-5 gallons more the engines had bettr tech than the boost mad high revving Honda and it was fast but used the fuel to be so- not as fast as the viper tho. This could be poor fuel managment or running rich but it can swingeither way it is not alwAys this way but this was the last exAmple I experienced as funny and nonsensical to the idea of a smaller turbo not needing as much fuel

Probably me, but not really sure what you re getting at there.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by gttouring

Of course you are speaking of a production based block . I was expecting a bespoke block- which they end up being anyway. There are other bits of tech to decrease consumption of fuel but making it all more "road car relevant" is more lip advice by the muckymucks and PR guys than reality. A "junk " formula would work better by using any in production block and engine and setting a fuel cap per event and that will sort out either the best engine for it or new ideas for conserving fuel and being fastest. 1.6 liter motors witha turbo can suck a lot of fuel in a full throttle run so much at rpm as well . To wit, at a trCk day a 1.8 liter turbo Honda guy had to fuel up his 10gallon tank twice, while the viper and vette guys did a whole session on one tank. Even if it held 4-5 gallons more the engines had bettr tech than the boost mad high revving Honda and it was fast but used the fuel to be so- not as fast as the viper tho. This could be poor fuel managment or running rich but it can swingeither way it is not alwAys this way but this was the last exAmple I experienced as funny and nonsensical to the idea of a smaller turbo not needing as much fuel

I disagree. The new engine regulations will foresee in the introduction of fuel-flow rate limit to promote fuel-efficiency. As I read somewhere a rev-limiter at 10,000 or 11,000 rpm is very likely to be introduced as well.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Corrrrr I was saying to my friend the other day that I wasn't too sure what they'd drop the revs to, but I didn't expect it'd be that low...

Selby

[ASCII Man]

And they'll all sound like underpowered vacuum cleaners, oh joy.

[SennaTheGreat]

No thanks. This is F1, I can live with 1.6 V6 Turbo units against say a 2.0 V8/V10 Naturally Aspirated units but a 1.6 4 pot lump? Sounds too much like my road car!

[Sodemo]

If they sound anything like the BTCC NGTC 2.0L turbo units, then prepare to be underwhelmed.

[I Rosputnik]

So one engine can be used in F1, WTCC and WRC? I would be amazed if GT1 goes with 1.6 turbo engines...

[chunterer]

This can't be happening surely?

1. We get teams apparently agreeing on a fairly basic set of regs....

2. We get cars running small underpowered engines that unless they run some massive exhaust systems will sound like glorified GP3 cars...

3. We go back to ground effect racing which was banned 30 years ago for being too dangerous...

What on earth is going on?

This is truly horrible!

[Marbot]

Better get used to it!

It can't have escaped anyones attention that manufacturers are currently going down the 'down-sizing' route. Would have hoped that flat four and V4 engines would have been in there somewhere, but in-line fours can be leaned over a bit can't they.

[Spritle]

The "Pinnacle of Motorsport" will be a farce with that lawn mower engine and speeds only rivaled by...

...horse racing!

F1 will become a laughing stock especially in the US where NASCAR and the IRL will make F1 look like tractor race on the Austin track.

Sorry F1 but you will lose me with 10,000 rpm 4 cylinder "race cars".

[davyboy]

The root of the problem is this identity crisis F1 is suffering from... it doesn't know what its supposed to be. Is it...

o Entertainment.
Well then the 20K screamers we have now are just fine. They sound the business, go like stink and are incredibly reliable.

o Manufacturer road car relevant.
Stipulate a production car based 1600cc I4 motor from each manufacturer and allow them to tune the nuts off it.

o Cost cutting.
Stipulate a single supplier spec. motor and compel all teams to use that exclusively.

o Socially relevant R+D for the future.
Allow teams to use anything other than an internal combustion engine and compel them to channel their skills into developing fresh technologies for vehicle propulsion.

The solutions are all very straightforward, but somebody needs to decide what the purpose of F1 should be before blindly turning 90 degrees in yet another direction.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Spritle

The "Pinnacle of Motorsport" will be a farce with that lawn mower engine and speeds only rivaled by...

...horse racing!

F1 will become a laughing stock especially in the US where NASCAR and the IRL will make F1 look like tractor race on the Austin track.

Sorry F1 but you will lose me with 10,000 rpm 4 cylinder "race cars".

It wasn't a "laughing stock" the last time low revving 4 cylinder turbo engines were in F1. Quite the reverse actually!

The engines are still going to be putting out around the same bhp as the current engines. I have no doubt that the cars will still be faster than other series open wheel cars.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

o Entertainment.
Well then the 20K screamers we have now are just fine. They sound the business, go like stink and are incredibly reliable.

The technlogy used is as old as the hills, and still they can be made to go faster. But what would be the point?

Originally Posted by davyboy

o Manufacturer road car relevant.
Stipulate a production car based 1600cc I4 motor from each manufacturer and allow them to tune the nuts off it.

I can see some of these so-called "production car based" engines starting to bump up the price of your average road car.

Originally Posted by davyboy

o Cost cutting.
Stipulate a single supplier spec. motor and compel all teams to use that exclusively.

A sort of Cosworth DFV for the masses. Not sure Ferrari would go along with that!

Originally Posted by davyboy

o Socially relevant R+D for the future.
Allow teams to use anything other than an internal combustion engine and compel them to channel their skills into developing fresh technologies for vehicle propulsion.

Chances are that after a short while (if not from the off) they will all go down the same route and it will be completely the wrong one with regard to road car use (sound familiar?). What's good for F1 cars isn't necessarily what's good for road cars. An F1 engineer will not concern himself with anything other than how to make his F1 car go faster.

[davyboy]

Yep Martyn... agree with pretty much all you've said above. Still it would appear that F1 wants to be all of the above but struggles to be any of them.

[ASCII Man]

An estimated 650 BHP from a turbocharged 1.6l 4cyl inline engine doesn't really look good, to be honest...
That's along the lines of GP2... (with 612 BHP)

Unless they beef up the boost for F1, but then it'd still sound the same.
Lawnmowers, whoopee.