Confirmed: V6-turbo engines for 2014
- Thread starter WestCoastBoogaloo
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Yes, poor judgement, absolutely, and repeatedly ignorant of the FIA regulations, which Max and Bernie have effectively used to undermine and humiliate him. His presidency must suit Bernie as much as Max too: he's looking like the George W. Bush of motorsport, just a bungling puppet. Actually, he doesn't even have Bush's charisma, or any charisma that I've noticed
Yes, poor judgement, absolutely, and repeatedly ignorant of the FIA regulations, which Max and Bernie have effectively used to undermine and humiliate him. His presidency must suit Bernie as much as Max too: he's looking like the George W. Bush of motorsport, just a bungling puppet. Actually, he doesn't even have Bush's charisma, or any charisma that I've noticed
He's like a robot who's dog has just died. Thats why he's so miserable.
Personally I'm not too bothered by the size of the engines, what I like the idea of is seeing what innovative designs the engineers employ in this newly opened up area of development.
The best out come in my mind that could have happened today would have been the FIA allowing the 1.6 turbo engines for 2013 but also alowing the teams to continue using the current engine. The main bug bear for me in F1 is the tight limitations technically that the teams are under. It's still just about the pinnacle of motorsport, but its far from the pinnacle of technology.
The best out come in my mind that could have happened today would have been the FIA allowing the 1.6 turbo engines for 2013 but also alowing the teams to continue using the current engine. The main bug bear for me in F1 is the tight limitations technically that the teams are under. It's still just about the pinnacle of motorsport, but its far from the pinnacle of technology.
I think this is a valid point. What a shame there is a perceived need to prescribe. What a shame they could not come out with a formula which says, for instance: "This is how much fuel you will be allocated for he race; go do what you like".
Butâ¦
â¦the trouble is that such an open brief is perceived to precipitate spiralling research costs, which would quickly put the smaller teams out of business and leave us with only a handful of cars chasing each other around the tracks. Suddenly there would be no spectacle to bring the money in to keep the original 'Formula' ball rollingâ¦
And this was something I think we must give credit to Max Mosley for. - He stood alone in the face of enormous criticism for some of the decisions he took, which I believe were genuinely in the long-term interest of the thing we love. Had it been Toadt at the helm at the time, it is quite possible that F1 might by now be gasping its last dying breathsâ¦
thats a good point Cosicave, but where do we draw a line? In 10 years time will we look back and say "F1 is great, there's 20 odd teams, shame they are using technology that is almost 2 decades old and my vauxhall corsa has more advanced technology in it"
I don't see why it should put smaller teams out of business, or even be perceived to do so. The amount customer teams pay for their engines is already notional and capped, is it not? The FIA dictates the cost of engine supplies. R&D costs may indeed increase significantly for manufacturers but it shouldn't make any difference to the smaller teams. More at risk would be manufacturers like Renault, whose presence in F1 is dependent on affordability.
In the new regs we can expect a reduction in fuel weight from approx 160Kg to approx 110Kg - (stated 35% efficiency expected).
Will the overall minimum car weight drop? KERS is to double so battery weight goes up. Typical bhp is expected to remain, so will tyres need to provide lower traction? Else result is faster car!!
Will the overall minimum car weight drop? KERS is to double so battery weight goes up. Typical bhp is expected to remain, so will tyres need to provide lower traction? Else result is faster car!!
What dissapoints me is the univeral acceptance of a V6 engine.
Why not go bak to allowing either 4cyl or 6 cyl engines? This would keep Renault happy as they wanted a 4 cyl, keep Ferrari happy as they didn't, but give back a bit of choice to each manufacturer as to which way they wanted to go.
With the advancements since the last time turbo's were around, a rev limit would allow relative parity between how much pwoer each configuration would produce, its then up to the manufacturers to decide which is best. 4 cyl with less top end power, but more torqure and better fuel economy (so less weight to carry), or a V6, possibly more grunt, but less torque and a slight increase in fuel.
Its an opportunity missed to take away some of the 'spec' formula that F1 is slowly turning into.
Why not go bak to allowing either 4cyl or 6 cyl engines? This would keep Renault happy as they wanted a 4 cyl, keep Ferrari happy as they didn't, but give back a bit of choice to each manufacturer as to which way they wanted to go.
With the advancements since the last time turbo's were around, a rev limit would allow relative parity between how much pwoer each configuration would produce, its then up to the manufacturers to decide which is best. 4 cyl with less top end power, but more torqure and better fuel economy (so less weight to carry), or a V6, possibly more grunt, but less torque and a slight increase in fuel.
Its an opportunity missed to take away some of the 'spec' formula that F1 is slowly turning into.
Back in the day (sounding old now) the old 1.5l turbo formula had no resitrictions on engine configuration.
The irony was the most powerful turbo engine was BMW's 4 cyl turbo unit. The V6 was accepted at the time as being the best compromise, Honda, Renault, Ford, Ferrari and Porsche all used this configuration with greart success, Motori-Moderni less so!. BMW (latterly Megatron after BWM pulled out in 87) and Zakspeed had 4cyl units that were powerful but unreliable. Alfa Romeo were the odd-bods and tried to make a 1.5l V8 turbo work. It didn't!
feeling a bit sorry for Todt here tbh, damned if he did, damned if he didn't. A bit like Cameron, gets it in the neck for being man enough to consider he may have made a mistake. Don't like either of them but it makes a refreshing change for a politician not to arrogantly stick to his guns.
a maximum capacity would be preferable, maybe then we'd see some real engine advancements, maybe someone with the nads to make an F1 Rotary engine like Mazda did to win the 91 le mans.
a maximum capacity would be preferable, maybe then we'd see some real engine advancements, maybe someone with the nads to make an F1 Rotary engine like Mazda did to win the 91 le mans.
a maximum capacity would be preferable, maybe then we'd see some real engine advancements, maybe someone with the nads to make an F1 Rotary engine like Mazda did to win the 91 le mans.
The trouble with Todt is twofold:
First, he loiters around to see which gun turret appears to be being favoured according to other's preferences; he then moves in at what he sees as his safest opportunity, when others have been doing battle for him. Then, conscious that he should be perceived as a leader instead of having himself been led by consensus, he adopts the behaviour he thinks others will see as typical of a leader! It is only then that he likes to appear to stick to his guns, since he has committed himself to that mode of behaviour and has left himself no option but to hope that fate intervenes in his favour until it is patently clear that the battle is lost. After such capitulation, his decisions are as forced as those of a soldier who's just been taken prisoner; and similarly, he must admit defeat.
I am being polite in saying he is not a good leader. It would be just as easy to say he is a fool, since his original assessment of the lie of the land tends not to allow for what lurks behind every hill, leaving himself open to ambush at every turn. The troops he hopes to lead are seeing the evidence of their own eyes: "Hey, this guy makes huge errors of judgement. One of us needs to shoot him in the back so that we may survive…"
Yes, I understand your point Genji, but Westy's latest link (above) provides a more thorough explanation than I have attempted.
Cost-cutting for the bigger teams is something different. Controlling spending at that end of the grid ensures that no team spends its way to a massively superior solution, not that it protects them from going out of business. The problem with all of these halfway house rulesets is that they're not real. Either you allow competition or you don't and if, on the grounds of controlling spending, you don't then you might as well have a single engine from a single supplier - much cheaper. Of course, these are two ideals - minimum spend and maximum competition - and neither is suitable for F1.
I think it's another aspect of "what is F1?" though, and what it isn't is a power race. The teams' engines have less significance to the competition because they're so similar.
Any line is ostensibly arbitrary and is drawn by authority which must take account of the lie of the land and should take account of any and all reasonable arguments before a decision is taken. This is precisely where Todt keeps going wrong.
Let us take the case in point
We currently have 2.4 litre V8s (2 banks of 4 cylinders, each with a capacity of 300cc). If the argument is that costs motivate the need for a prescriptive layout, whilst at the same time giving a nod to the greens by demonstrating the technological advancement of efficiency, then it is clear that a reasonable compromise must be struck between the amount of investment 'allowed' in order to find the increased efficiency.
So, if the downsizing of engines is perceived as the logical way forward, why not begin by simply knocking off two cylinders and making a V6, thus allowing existing knowledge to play a role without unnecessary extra expenditure - as would be created with a silly straight 4 layout? Logical eh? Well, it's my logic at least.
But guess what? - This gives a V6 of 1.8 litresâ¦
If Todt had had any sense, he'd have looked at the big picture in the first place; dispensed with the ridiculous proposal (led by VW Audi) of a 1.6 straight 4 and said, "Look guys, this is going to cost too much and will not meet with approval from the fan-base. In the interests of costs, let's keep it simple and make a 1.8 V6 and allow turbocharging (or supercharging) to compensate for the loss of capacity, thereby keeping output at present day levels but using less fuel.
The trouble is, he didn't do his sums right did he? Why on earth did he plump for a 1.6 litre V6? - It should have been a 1.8 !! But he'd already nodded to someone who'd spoken of a 1.6; called Volkswagen.
He just doesn't see the big picture because he allows others to lead him down dark pathwaysâ¦