V8 and turbo engines allowed for 2013?

[neiltb]

surely the problem with equivalency is that someone is always going to have an advantage and no matter how you change the regs that will always be the case and the other side will moan.

you can do all kinds of funky things but small turbo 4 vs bigger 8 will give the turbo better grunt low down, be likely lighter, has less frictional losses. to bring close, you'd have to start limiting boost and fuel flow at different engine speeds which wold be difficult to control adequately and could cause motor failures.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Ferrari of course are never going to agree to this because they do not use 4 cylinder engines in any of their road cars.

Watch politicians do... Porsche will have four-cylinders in little time.

[wnut]

When is F1 going to go front wheel drive?

F1 cars have no road relevance whatsoever, if you want road relevance WRC would seem to be the best place to go.

Just for interest sake, can anyone think of any road relevant piece of F1 that is not better developed in road cars or better suited to development in other formulae?

F1 should be about the ultimate racing series and nothing else!

[Marbot]

The ever so popular 1.6 litre turbo engines were approved by the WMSC.

FIA web site.

"2013 Regulations

The Technical Regulations for 2013 were approved:

- Power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm, with extensive energy management and energy recovery systems (now known as ERS), reflecting the decision taken by the WMSC in December 2010
- The aerodynamic regulations have been based on 2011 rules, with modifications in order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency: together with the power train rules, this will enable a 35% reduction in fuel consumption
- The height of the tip of the nose will be limited to ensure better compatibility in a T-bone style accident
- A limitation on transmissions (gear ratios, number of gearboxes) in order to decrease costs
- The overall weight of the car must be no less than 660kg

In consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine the implementation date of these technical regulations."

But still time to get a change. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91958

[browney]

While I think that formula 1 cars have very little in common with road cars and that the amount of fuel they use is insignificant compared to transporting people around by plane, the image they portray is important. The sport gets all of it's money from sponsorship, which is all about image.

The world is moving to smaller, more fuel efficient engines because of concerns over fuel, it does make sense for formula 1 to make some changes that reflect this. As long as the cars still stay very powerful and extremely quick, I don't see moving to turbo 4s as a problem (they had turbo engines during the 80s and people don't complain about the 80s being a worse era in F1 than now).


I also think it is ironic that with all the talk of F1 not being road relevant, the manufacturer that is complaining the most is the one that sells expensive, high reving, v8 sports cars.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by browney

I also think it is ironic that with all the talk of F1 not being road relevant, the manufacturer that is complaining the most is the one that sells expensive, high reving, v8 sports cars.

But they weren't complaining until the new turbo engines were proposed.

Ironically, only Renault have any real reason to go with 1.6 turbo engines for commercial needs.

The problem with the new rules appears to be that the majority of the teams couldn't care less how road relevant their engine supply is. The last thing they want to be doing is paying extra for something that doesn't do anything differently, in terms of performance, to what it did before, and Cosworth have already stated that the R&D work on their new turbo engine isn't going to pay for itself!

[gttouring]

I dont see why you couldn't just bring back an open formula. 2.5 liter max naturally aspirated vs. 1.5 life turbo 4. Ir what ever. Cost? Please with 200-400million dollar budgets is this really going to change any of that?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by gttouring

I dont see why you couldn't just bring back an open formula. 2.5 liter max naturally aspirated vs. 1.5 life turbo 4. Ir what ever. Cost? Please with 200-400million dollar budgets is this really going to change any of that?

These days you can 'test' different configurations of engines on lap top screens. No need to go to the trouble of building one first. Just enter all of the parameters (fuel limit, weight limit, materials to be built from, etc, etc) hit enter, and there's your choice made for you. And I wouldn't be too surprised if the answer came up 'Turbo Engine'.

You would also have to constantly equalize them in order for it not to be a no-brainer to go for one configuration over the other. And not all of the teams have 200-400 million dollars to squander on swapping from one power plant to another.

Given free reign to do whatever you liked to either suggested engine configuration, the turbo engine would always come out tops, as was indeed the case back in the eighties.

[wnut]

Is there a certain irony that Renault is looking for road relevant engine technology in F1 whilie they run 3.5 litre engines in Formula Renault 3.5?

They seem to lack commitment to F1 and will ruin F1 with there demands only to pull out when their "silly" engine rule comes into effect.

[Lennon]

Some complain about the sound or performance of a 1,5 L turbo engine. Remeber that we had these engines before, at early eighties, and the sound was amazing and the cars as well. Nelson Piquet won the first champ in a Turbo engine at 1983. That Brabham - BMW had a 1,5L Turbo "heart".
The turbo was bigger than the engine itself...
The point is... will it really decrease costs? Re-start everything? Make all those monsters work properly?
I miss the sparks cars used to launch skyhigh thos days... more than anything.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Is there a certain irony that Renault is looking for road relevant engine technology in F1 whilie they run 3.5 litre engines in Formula Renault 3.5?

That engine is cheap to produce and requires no development. It's a spec unit used in a series that doesn't really get much in the way of TV audience.

Originally Posted by wnut

They seem to lack commitment to F1 and will ruin F1 with there demands only to pull out when their "silly" engine rule comes into effect.

They are already finished as a team and will probably leave F1 as an engine manufacturer if the turbo engines aren't introduced in 2013.

I for one would like to see the turbo engines come in because the 2.4 litre naturally aspirated V8s are proving to be somewhat 'gutless' in comparison to the 3 and 3.5 litre V engines that came before them. Going back to larger capacity naturally aspirated V engines would also automatically require some sort of 'limiting' device.