V6 Engines for 2014

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If you just ban pneumatic valve systems or whatever, then some engine manufacturers (Ferrari, Mercedes probably) are just going to spend a cart load of money on just getting a few more rpms out of their conventionally valve sprung engines.

An rpm limit saves a lot of wasted time, money and effort on something that gains no one anything much at all in terms of worthwhile technological breakthroughs. 18 - 20,000 rpm engines aren't much use anywhere else other than in motorsport. Neither are 12,000 rpm engines, come to that! (I have ridden road bikes with 16,000 rpm red lines, but only the word 'gutless' springs to mind about those, and the engines wear out like you wouldn't believe!).

It would also stop some engine manufacturers (Cosworth) from leaving the sport because they see no reason to keep up with the spending that other engine manufacturers do to gain a few extra bhp.

The fact that bike engines are gutless has to do with their miniscule displacement and bore/stroke ratio. They already rev to 14k rpm on a conventional valvetrain, I don't see why 15k rpm isn't a suitable (sound + performance vs "green" + cost mandate) compromise for both parties. No need hatsoever to escalate it into a showdown, because frankly the guy is right. the sound the cars make plays a HUGE part in actually going to a track to watch the racing. It's 65% of the difference in experience (tv vs live) for me.

[RTH]

At the end of '87 the Ford & Honda 1.5 were making 1000bhp @12000 at 4 bar on rocket fuel. The BMW was reputed to make 1500BHP for one lap in qualifying.
Engine blow ups were routine it was a hugely expensive period the power delivery characteristics made the cars difficult to drive.

Going back to all that ?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by RTH

At the end of '87 the Ford & Honda 1.5 were making 1000bhp @12000 at 4 bar on rocket fuel. The BMW was reputed to make 1500BHP for one lap in qualifying.
Engine blow ups were routine it was a hugely expensive period the power delivery characteristics made the cars difficult to drive.

Going back to all that ?

Err.....No.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If you just ban pneumatic valve systems or whatever, then some engine manufacturers (Ferrari, Mercedes probably) are just going to spend a cart load of money on just getting a few more rpms out of their conventionally valve sprung engines.

An rpm limit saves a lot of wasted time, money and effort on something that gains no one anything much at all in terms of worthwhile technological breakthroughs. 18 - 20,000 rpm engines aren't much use anywhere else other than in motorsport. Neither are 12,000 rpm engines, come to that! (I have ridden road bikes with 16,000 rpm red lines, but only the word 'gutless' springs to mind about those, and the engines wear out like you wouldn't believe!).

It would also stop some engine manufacturers (Cosworth) from leaving the sport because they see no reason to keep up with the spending that other engine manufacturers do to gain a few extra bhp.

Well if pneumatic valve operation is not banned I am sure it will be kept by the engine manufacturers as it brings other advantages besides elevated rpm performance.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

The fact that bike engines are gutless has to do with their miniscule displacement and bore/stroke ratio. They already rev to 14k rpm on a conventional valvetrain, I don't see why 15k rpm isn't a suitable (sound + performance vs "green" + cost mandate) compromise for both parties. No need hatsoever to escalate it into a showdown, because frankly the guy is right. the sound the cars make plays a HUGE part in actually going to a track to watch the racing. It's 65% of the difference in experience (tv vs live) for me.

I would agree that 15,000 rpm is just fine. 12,000 rpm is just fine if you have a V10 or V12, where noise is concerned. Mercedes safety car makes a wonderful noise, and it probably doesn't rev its V8 past 8,000 rpm. Some people like screaming engines and others like gruff burbling engines. It's impossible to please everyone. I used to own an Honda CBX 1000 six cylinder motorcycle with a six into one exhaust. Spine tingling doesn't cover it! My Ducati has a deep bellowing noise that you can 'feel'. Equally pleasing.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Well if pneumatic valve operation is not banned I am sure it will be kept by the engine manufacturers as it brings other advantages besides elevated rpm performance.

Almost certainly it will be kept, now that 15,000 rpm seems to be the limit. But most car manufacturers are moving on to electro - hydraulic valves (no camshaft) these days. Not currently allowed in F1 at the moment.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Almost certainly it will be kept, now that 15,000 rpm seems to be the limit. But most car manufacturers are moving on to electro - hydraulic valves (no camshaft) these days. Not currently allowed in F1 at the moment.

It would have been kept had the rev limit been 12000.

Yes, why is it that F1 is not allowed to use engine technology being developed for road car engines - where F1 could provide some useful research & development? That seems backwards to me. Oh, but they did ban ABS too...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by phoenix

It would have been kept had the rev limit been 12000.

Possibly. Just wondered why they chose 12,000 rpm, which seemed to be about the limit at which Renault chose to use pneumatic valves on its previous V6 turbo. Back to the future!

Originally Posted by phoenix

Yes, why is it that F1 is not allowed to use engine technology being developed for road car engines - where F1 could provide some useful research & development? That seems backwards to me. Oh, but they did ban ABS too...

The trouble with F1 is that by the time it's sorted out some new regulations the rest of the automotive world has already moved on. We are going to have V6 petrol turbo engines in 2014 for Petes sake!

F1 cars with ABS again! Just how short do you want those braking distances to be? And just how much control do you think the driver ought to have over the retardation of his car? No more locking up tyres? That would certainly be a backward step with regard to the actual racing. And that's what most want to see is racing. I could always venture down to my local PC World if I wanted a techno-fix.

[Adam43]

I suspect the braking distances would be about the same. However, as you say, they would be more consistent.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

F1 cars with ABS again! Just how short do you want those braking distances to be?

Well, they don't have to use carbon-carbon brakes - that could be dealt with by new regulations. This would result in longer braking distances which also means a fuel saving - as they will be on full throttle for shorter periods during a race.

Considering all the other aids the driver has to help him, ABS is just one small extra. And besides, it is also 'greener' - no wasted rubber on the track through locking a wheel (and all the wasted resources and energy that have gone into making the tyre....)

[Matt]

ABS doesn't belong in any racing series, the same with Traction control and stability control.

[TF110]

Some people would beg to differ. I'm for innovation, abs tc stability etc. let em have at it. They can be green in other ways besides dumbing things down.

[Adam43]

The argument against ABS is anything to do with 'green'. It is about driving.

[Sodemo]

I really don't think the FIA or any of its working groups really knows what its doing or what is good for the sport. Grooved tyres have come and gone, they have lowered the rear wings, raised them again, raised the front wings, then again, then lowered them back, made them wider, now they are making them narrower. Pot luck? How about a shot in the dark? Pin the tail on the donkey? Spin the wheel?

[duke_toaster]

To be fair that was over a ten year plus period. Some things work, some things don't. i 2014 should be the year of wholesale rule changes if any are desired, IMO. 2013s chassis changes have been put back to 2014.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by TF110

Some people would beg to differ. I'm for innovation, abs tc stability etc. let em have at it. They can be green in other ways besides dumbing things down.

Technology just for the sake of technology. An interesting philosophy that would appear to dumb down on the racing. It's already 90% car and 10% driver. Edging the car closer to 100% isn't going to make things a lot better. Lets have it 50 - 50 and give some of the work back to the supposedly 'world class' drivers.

Would Vettel have lost control of his car in Canada on the last lap had he been given a car with TC, ESP and ABS? Would anyone have lost control of their car anywhere? Still, I suppose it would stop us moaning about run-off areas.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The argument against ABS is anything to do with 'green'. It is about driving.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying ABS wasn't a 'green' tech. I'm saying they can have all this stuff, be green and whatever at the same time. The driving issue I wasn't arguing. I just don't think having ABS and TC in F1 is going to make it any less of a 'drivers' sport. And I agree with you Marbot. But making the cars handling more up to the drivers probably won't fly so well. Even with driver aids, you'll still see incidents, mistakes etc.

[duke_toaster]

ABS would stop drivers locking up and flatspotting tyres or overshooting corners though, I think it would reduce the quality of the racing. I have nothing wrong with affordable funky technologies provided they don't affect the racing. Electrohydraulic valves (for example) wouldn't harm the racing, bearing in mind they should be affordable there's no real reason they can't be brought in to F1, the same with VVT for example. We can have technology and good racing, just have to choose what technology.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

We can have technology and good racing, just have to choose what technology.

Agreed.

F1 engineers will only do what needs to be done in order to make their car go faster, and if, for example, they thought that turbo charging a 1.6 litre two cylinder engine to 650 bhp (easily possible!) would make their car go faster because it is easier to package and would have huge benefits for aerodynamics, KERS etc, then they would do that. And it would probably sound awful! So a balance has to be struck between what the engineers want and what everyone else would like, and that includes the people who are trying to sell tickets for their race.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying ABS wasn't a 'green' tech.

I did misunderstand you, although for the opposite reason!

[TF110]

Yeah I got mixed up with my own words, posted a double negative. My point is, I want F1 to stay the Pinnacle of motorsports. Hopefully new tech is introduced and it has relevance to road tech, but stays at the highest level.

[Gingers4Justice]

Fuel consumption formula...road relevance....beginning to sound like Group C, this.

I don't know what Jean Todt is playing at here.

Rallying is for manufacturers to show off how versatile and strong their cars are.
Touring cars is for manufacturers showing how quick and sporty and ordinary car can be.
Sportscars is where manufacturers test new technologies on the racetrack and to see how long they last for.
Formula One is about making a single seater go round the world's best racing tracks as fast as possible. Manufacturers welcome to join the party if they so wish.

That's the way it should be and that's when motor sport was at its best. But now Jean Todt has this vision of every single category being what sportscars used to be. This one-size-fits-all approach is a very dangerous game to play for me. I don't see where the USP is in any of these categories.

I sincerely hope the manufacurers stick to their ground, otherwise we might get seriously close to that awful "world engine" idea.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Fuel consumption formula...road relevance....beginning to sound like Group C, this.

I don't know what Jean Todt is playing at here.

Rallying is for manufacturers to show off how versatile and strong their cars are.
Touring cars is for manufacturers showing how quick and sporty and ordinary car can be.
Sportscars is where manufacturers test new technologies on the racetrack and to see how long they last for.
Formula One is about making a single seater go round the world's best racing tracks as fast as possible. Manufacturers welcome to join the party if they so wish.

That's the way it should be and that's when motor sport was at its best. But now Jean Todt has this vision of every single category being what sportscars used to be. This one-size-fits-all approach is a very dangerous game to play for me. I don't see where the USP is in any of these categories.

I sincerely hope the manufacurers stick to their ground, otherwise we might get seriously close to that awful "world engine" idea.

The elections for President of the FIA are comig up in 18 months time and I think he's trying to be the mature, responsible, current President, so he can win another term.

[Marbot]

V6 1.6 litre turbo engines with energy recovery systems have been rubber stamped by the FIA for introduction in 2014.

http://www.pitpass.com/44071-Officia...engine-formula

F1 ENGINE RULES FROM 2014

1.6-litre, six-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s
Fuel efficiency to increase by 35%
Maximum revs of 15,000rpm
Power of energy-recovery systems to double
Overall power to remain at approx 750bhp
Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable
Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years

"The decision to increase the rev limit was made on Thursday after the FIA received a letter from some of the F1 tracks expressing their concerns."

"The decision to limit the engine configuration to a V6 rather than stipulate a six-cylinder maximum and leave it up to individual manufacturers to decide the number of cylinders and layout, was made in a bid to keep costs under control and as a way to ensure engine performance remains as equal as possible."

"The new engines will remain single-turbo units, with much more extensive use of energy recovery than exists with the 'Kers' units this year."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/13878359.stm

[höller]

Thanx Marbot for the splendid information!

It´s a pity they shall be just a single-turbo unit, isn´t it? A biturbo configuration would be more appropriate, not only for aero reasons.
Also I´d liked to see just a limit of V6, but no restriction below, just in the case our BMW should think about their future plans...