New Engine Format Agreed

[Led ZeppF1]

Autosport can reveal that Formula 1's major engine manufacturers have reached agreement in principle about the future format of the sport's engine regulations.

Subject to ratification, F1 cars will run 2.4-litre V8 engines as from the 2006 season.

http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=27587&s=5

[Gt_R]

Sigh... i don't know..but to return to V8s and a drop below the 3-litre mark isn't exactly what i wanna see.

At a time when other series up the capacity...

Anyways, while the casual fans won't know the difference when watching the race, i'm not quite sure how much the fans who are also interested in the technical aspect would welcome the changes.

[Kicking-back]

It's a good way to slow the cars a bit and you won't notice the difference.

F1 through history has had smaller engines than this and it's had bigger engines than this.

If the experts think this is the best way to cut power and costs then lets do it.

It makes no difference to the viewers so why complain?

[Red]

They're idiots. But I like the "subject to ratification" thing and hold hope that they'll come to reason.

Anyway, still have to hear some confirmations, some team principal's quotes, and actually I already knew that. Max proudly announced that the teams "agreed to discuss" the V8 format. Something happened meanwhile? A new team-meeting we don't know about perhaps?

[pirenzo]

I reckon they'll be putting out about 680bhp...
Still quite a lot for 2.4l.
And maybe 19'000rom will become commonplace

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by Red


They're idiots. But I like the "subject to ratification" thing and hold hope that they'll come to reason.

Why are you so dead-set against it?

[BSchneiderFan]

2.4-litre V8s seem a bit... puny.

[Red]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Why are you so dead-set against it?

Well, several points. Firstly they changed the engine rule once, when they banned other configuration than V10. (They promissed to let other specs in 2007.) THat cost Toyota 1 year (including budget spent + fees for not showing up on the grid). Back to the drawing board for them, if I were Toyota I'm be kinda ****ed with that frequency.

Secondly. They want to decrease costs and you want to increase show right? Oh well, here's what going to happen/ For 2004 and 2005 the engine developers will run 2 separate programs. The regular V10 and the new V8. That cost money, and guess who's going to cover them? Bingo, 10 points for the winner: Minardi/Jordan and Sauber!

As for the show part. sorry, but BMW and Mercedes blow up every second start and they build engines for like 10 years. You want me to expect them to build new engines, cheap, reliable in 1 year time? Hmm.

[Kicking-back]

But this is only happening because the teams agreed to it - so that carries more weight than your concerns.

[Red]

Well, as I previously said, I need more than Autosport for that. Because as far as I know is that Thiessen and Haug and Brawn (or was it Todt) expressed their dissagreement with that, no more than 1-2 weeks ago. I don't really know where did that sudden agreement came.. Because frankly they didn't agree yet with the new qual format for example.

[Inigo Montoya]

Won't happen. Its just too illogical. Exactly for the reasons Red outlined. How the heck do you expect to reduce engine costs by introducing a brand new format. Mmmmm R&D costs....

[Knowlesy]

Oh dear. 2.4 V8's.

Why not go the whole hog and rename the series Formula 2 or something.

Formula 1 this ain't.

[pirenzo]

Why not?

1952-3 2.0l
1954-60 2.5l
1961-1965 1.5l
Eras in which Ascari, Clark, Hill, Fangio, Moss and the like drove, but not Formula 1?

[Knowlesy]

Yes, but I just can't bare the thought of the modern car with a puny little 2.4 V8.

I guess I'm over reacting though.....

What I want to see is just an opening of engine regs....run any amount of cylinders in any configuration as long as it's the same capacity as anyone else. 2.4 wouldn't seem so nasty then.

[Red]

Yes, Formula 2.

[Sodemo]

I'll just miss the scream of the V-10...

[Knowlesy]

And plus, these engines may have to last six race weekends if Max gets his way.

The direction F1 takes at times is rather worrying.

We're gonna have tiny V8 engines with virtually half their power sapped away because they have to last six weekends. Crazy!

[Homer Simpson]

Stupid idea in terms of cost reduction...excellent proposal for increasing relevance to engine manufacturers' road car programs. Sure, 2.4L seems puny in terms of a race engine, but, then again, today's 3.0L V10s are no bigger in displacement than the V6 engine my girlfriend's Honda Accord. I'd bet that given some development time, 2.4L V8s would become quite exotic in terms of design. I'm probably alone in saying this, but I actually like the proposal...the 3.0L V10s have very likely reached the end of their development curve, and it seems the only way to increase performance today is to increase revs. The new engine will bring new challenges to engine designers...not a bad thing, if you ask me.
BTW, I actually like the idea that F1 is embracing a more rational approach towards engine development. That F1 cars need to have the biggest displacement engines makes no sense to me, as I've always admired their efficiency in getting the most out of a relatively small engine.

[1 Lotus]

I know that an F1 with a 2.4 liter V-8 will out perform it, but my Z-28 has 5.7 liters.
Math says it is a 1/5 reduction in displacement. If horsepower is reduced proportionally, it will mean about 650 bhp.

Frankly, I don't see it doing much in the way of reducing speed or costs. A smaller engine with less cylinders will weigh less (again by about 1/5). Development of the new engine will cost the same as a V-10. The cost of manufacturing it will NOT likely be reduced by that same 1/5 and the savings on 2 spark plugs and 2 wires will is a laughable matter.

Speeds will be reduced somewhat because the V-8 can't rev as quickly as the V-10 so acceleration will be lowered.

[Adam43]

I'm not sure the pinciple aim of the enigne size change is cost reduction, that is something that the six-race rule is trying to address.

I'd like more variety and allowing of any engine configeration. Also to me 2.4l seems small. Yes F1 was 1.5l at one point, but most agreed that this was too small for F1.

The cars need a serious reduction in grip IMHO to go with this. 650bhp (if that is what it turns out to be, I suspect a tad more) is weak. I like bigger numbers.

Overall I'm not keen.

[Jordi]

Not keen either. You thought F1 should be the pinnacle... Why not have overpowered cars that handle like pigs? Give 'em all a Minardi and times will be 5 seconds slower, and it'd be cost effective. (Except in PS's wallet, he'd get some money there)

[JAG]

As has been said, the new engine configuration is primarily to reduce performance, not cut costs. The costs will be saved in others areas and by making engines last longer.

Personally I don't get the 'small' engine argument. The fascination for me in motorsport is how huge power can be squeazed out of relatively small engines.

To compare a 5.7l US V8 with a 2.4 V8 F1 engine is ludicrous.

The current formula has reached its limit in terms of performance and costs. To get more power out of the current engines will cost fortunes. 900BHP+ is also getting out of hand, when combined with the current chassis.

When the new engines come out, the best will be producing 700BHP, the same as an early 90's 3.5 V10/V12 so were's the problem.

Combine these engines with new 'low' downforce chassis and much harder tires and Formula 1 may actually be worth watching again.

[gttouring]

why the reduction in size? and not a reduction in Revs?
they want to use a spec tyre, so why not have FIA engine revlimiters installed on all cars, limit revs to 15-16k and HP should drop or drop revs more- champcars are at 12.5K revs and they run 750-800HP.
2.4 litre V8's? with development and less wieight as also requested by Moron Mosley and Buffoon Ecclesnob the cars won't see a drop in lap times and revs will jump into the 20k range still and power will return in the usual suspects and within the season. Provide more torque with the engine make it 3.5L and drop revs the Hp should stay around 700 and torque will make them more wiggly in the corners, and the spec tyre will make it more fun.
I still stand by the thought that the tyres should last the whole weekend, with only wets available in a change, the engines will follow suit, not being too powerful or the tyres won't grip or melt away.
FOA F-obnoxious-Asses

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by gttouring
Moron Mosley and Buffoon Ecclesnob

Obviously a mature level of debate from you, then.

[gttouring]

You're darn tootin'
Well aside from my loss of composure concerning the proposed new set up, I still feel my points are valid..
you didn't think it was at all funny huh? ouch
My kingdom for laughter of others...