2014 Engine rule towards homologation
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 36 total)
23rd June 2011, 18:10 at 6:10 pm
We are all so happy not to have 4 cylinder engines that we have been blinded to the disaster creeping up on us. The new engine rule 1.6L V6 turbocharged engines is in my opinion just another part of the FIAs secret agenda of turning Formula 1 into a 1 design series . By specifying the Format, V6, rpm limit, 12,000, and power output, 750 hp total with Kers, and turbocharging the FIA have made the engine manufacturer irrelevant.
By adjusting the wastegate and fuel pressure the FIA can control the engines performance so no amount of ingenuity or money can gain a race winning advantage, which is their stated aim. If a manufacturer cannot gain an advantage by building a better engine what incentive is there not to buy the engine offered by the FIAs preferred supplier and put their badge on it. Max Mosely may be gone but his puppets apparently are still in place. Please consider and discuss.
24th June 2011, 20:38 at 8:38 pm
This is serious,guess I need a headline with death or sex in it to get anybody to read it.
24th June 2011, 21:24 at 9:24 pmParticipant
There is one area that you’ve missed out on – fuel efficiency. That’s the area the FIA are concerned most about and I hope they manufacturers are left free to compete over it.
Unless I have missed something in what you’re saying and that’s going to be capped to. I’m no expert.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather have spec cars and different engines than different cars and the same engine. But capped engines is something we’ve had to live with for a long while.
24th June 2011, 21:31 at 9:31 pmParticipant
The whole idea of new regulations is to get as much power from a set amount of fuel as possible. Plus, F1 engines have always been heavily restricted anyway. The idea that the FIA have a preferred supplier and that they want all the teams to buy from that supplier is nonsense.
25th June 2011, 3:19 at 3:19 am
F3 shouldn’t be the model for F1. There the chassis, engines, tires are all pretty much made by the same manufacturers. Worse yet, F1 could become like IndyCar racing. Honda engines for everyone. Indy used to be fun even though racing was on the famous Oval. I remember years when there were a couple of turbine powered cars — allowed under the broad rules. It was interesting stuff then. No more, though. I am now so little interested in IndyCar racing that I don’t read the newspaper race results or listen to the race on the radio or watch it on TV.
I can’t afford to go to F1 races and would hate going anyway — crowds, drunks, noise, pretense. I’d rather enter into discussions about F1 racing and F1 cars.
I am pretty much bored by disagreements over who are the greatest ever F1 drivers. I want to see engine and chassis designers free to design single purpose race cars that scorch the F1 circuits and provide exciting competitions. I cannot now imagine an F1 race where a dark horse could come out of the pack and win it. That’d be great, but it won’t happen if everything continues to be over-regulated. I’d like to see V-12s — Rolls Royce Merlins, perhaps.
25th June 2011, 4:26 at 4:26 amParticipant
By specifying the Format, V6, rpm limit, 12,000, and power output, 750 hp total with Kers, and turbocharging the FIA have made the engine manufacturer irrelevant.
They specified the rules for the current set of engines, and look at the variety we have. Each engine manufacturer has produced something entire;y different to the others; the Mercedes has the best straight-line speed, while the Renault has the best fuel consumption.
25th June 2011, 10:08 at 10:08 amParticipant
Every time the topic of engine regs comes up, I feel like banging my head against the wall, because I think the best solution is to open the regulations up and allow teams to find their own way towards efficiency.
All you need to do is set limits on power, fuel consumption and emissions. The first limit could be accomplished by placing a restrictor plate over the air intake to limit power…it worked in Group C back in the day. That way all teams will have roughly the same power. The limit on fuel consumption is more of a benchmark than anything. The teams will look to carry as little fuel as possibly anyway, and a more efficient engine will let them do that. As for emissions, while it doesn’t really have much of an impact on how the cars will perform, if the FIA is going to continue with the whole Make Cars Green campaign, surely setting targets for reduced emissions would make sense.
If you leave the teams to decide configuration, capacity, RPMs and all the other parameters of engine design, eventually an optimal solution will be found. Or teams will be able to run engines which are congruous with the brand of manufacturer that sponsors/owns them, that would encourage more manufacturers to enter the sport. As for costs, lower budget teams won’t have to change their engines if they don’t have to, because the regs are open enough for them to still run them. Power would be capped, so they won’t be at a disadvantage if they don’t continually update their engine. Meanwhile, larger teams can spend all the money they like developing greener technologies as a way to gain on the racetrack.
25th June 2011, 18:28 at 6:28 pm
I would like to have the same faith that some of you have in the FIA but honestly I don’t see how the teams will be able to decrease fuel consumption without a decrease in power given that their engine will be sealed by the FIA at fixed fuel pressures , fixed boost, and fixed max rpm. The only way I know to make a car more efficient requires more complete combustion of the fuel supplied, this generally requires more oxygen (= more air) into the combustion chamber, with the air intake being restricted to enforce a fixed Horsepower I don’t see how they are going to do it significantly.
Let’s see how things turnout, but my guess is that the first engines will be designed with the main aim of being light and compact, small power differences will be dialled out after the first season and development frozen again, after which Renault will lose interest followed by Mercedes, then it will only be Ferrari and Cosworth, after which the FIA will set new rules which will cause Ferrari to either partner Cosworth or buy the “FIA”engine. I hope I am wrong.
25th June 2011, 18:34 at 6:34 pm
Herman. you must be very young if you think F1 engines have always been restricted and even younger still if you do not remember the FIA trying to get all the teams to buy a spec. engine from Cosworth.
25th June 2011, 18:44 at 6:44 pm
Prisoner Monkey, how do you know these facts? The only way you could divine these facts would be if you had the engines run in identical chassis with identical setup driven by the same driver, aerodynamic drag affects all of those parameters and downforce requires drag but is not directly equitable, genii like Newey make a living by providing the most downforce for a given drag or alternately the least drag for a given downforce. I know the Renault is supposed to be the least powerful despite being able to make some catch-up modifications, but the jury is out on the Ferrari-Mercedes matchup.
27th June 2011, 10:34 at 10:34 amParticipant
Prisoner Monkey, how do you know these facts?
Because I pay attention. It has been known for some times that the Mercedes produces the best top speed, while the Renault has the best fuel consumption. How each individual chassis handles the differences in performance is not enough to overcome those difference.
I suspect you’re fishing for arguments to support your opening argument: that the incoming engines will be a disaster. And just as we can’t know the exact specifics of each engine without putting them in identical chassis (or sticking them on a test bed), we cannot judge the new engines until we actually see them.
27th June 2011, 16:38 at 4:38 pm
PM you did not pay attention to the rest of what I wrote ” It has been known for some time ” is hearsay not evidence and my point is not that the engines will be a disaster, or that they wont sound good but that they will be a backward step. These are facts we know, not speculation, the 1.5L engines of 30 years ago produced more power than the FIA target for allowed power combining both the internal combustion power and the battery/electric power of the new rule, in fact up to twice the power in qualifying trim from a 4 cylinder engine built on used roadcar engines, this cannot in any way be construed as progress. Any improvements in fuel efficiency will only come from having a lower specific output and the tight specifications designed to provide a “level playing field” will prevent radical changes like ceramic blocks and pistons for increased thermal efficiency.
My argument is not that a 1.6L turbo V6 spinning to 15000 rpm will be a bad engine for a race series, it is that any fixed design engine producing only half its potential power will be bad for F1 and make F1 just another race series not the ultimate expression of racing.
28th June 2011, 12:27 at 12:27 pm
Further to my comments about restrictions being bad for the sport, Jarno Trulli has commented on exactly this, saying that reliability has taken some of the chance out of racing and added to the boredom of races at tracks like Valencia.
28th June 2011, 12:49 at 12:49 pmParticipant
there are two problems with the increased freedom, as curious as i am about what they would come up with is that one team would luck into or stumble across the best method to do it and walk away with the championship, and thats the last thing we want. (look at now!!)
and if the cars get faster and faster they become limited by the drivers, and i dont rate being able to handle the G-FORCE better than another driver as being the priority i want to see in the next racers in F1
28th June 2011, 15:27 at 3:27 pm
JustAn, your 2 problems are not problems at all. looking at now, 4 engines all approximately equal, same acceleration, same top speed (drag adjusted) , the only real difference is the superior downforce generated by 1 designers superior grasp of Aerodynamics in F1 cars, and this creates processional races and requires gimmicks like using non optimal tyres and DRS to mix up the cars performance potential.
As to the driver limits, safety and G-Force argument, that is easy to resolve, allow the engineers to develop engines to their fullest but restrict them to naturally aspirated engines of say 2L. or if turbocharged 1L. or less and then make them supply their engine to any team that wants it the following year, giving the maker of the best engine a deserved advantage for 1 year and a chance to recoup their development costs in following years. That way smaller teams can have a competitive engine at a known price and the big teams can chase an advantage by building a better engine.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 36 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.