F1 Turbos could be V6s....
Discussion
According to a hot of the press report in Autosnort, it's been proposed that the droning 4-pot turbo issue is turning into a banshee wailing V6.
Cue: All manufacturers now nodding heads.
Let's hope the F1 Commission follows suit.
No chance of having proper engines in F1 anymore sadly. The days of the V8/12/16 are gone.
Cue: All manufacturers now nodding heads.
Let's hope the F1 Commission follows suit.
No chance of having proper engines in F1 anymore sadly. The days of the V8/12/16 are gone.
Confirmed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/138783...
6 cylinders rather than 4 and not until 2014 now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/138783...
6 cylinders rather than 4 and not until 2014 now
furtive said:
Confirmed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/138783...
6 cylinders rather than 4 and not until 2014 now
The BBC claims that the 6-cylinder concession is a "sop to Ferrari". WTF? How about it being a concession to a majority of fans?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/138783...
6 cylinders rather than 4 and not until 2014 now
Bloody leftist lentil-munchers.
JonRB said:
The BBC claims that the 6-cylinder concession is a "sop to Ferrari". WTF? How about it being a concession to a majority of fans??
Bloody leftist lentil-munchers.
The BBC is REALLY going down the toilet on the quality of the journalism. It's factual but they lace it with bullsBloody leftist lentil-munchers.
t.In fairness to the BBC, Ferrari were probably one of the main opponents to the 4 cylinder engine as it does not relate to their road car programme at all.
What I can't understand, however, is why there has to be a prescribed number of cylinders. If it has to be 1.6 turbo fair enough (although an equivalence offering both turbo and n/a would seem good to me) but why can't the manufacturers decide for themselves how they do it. If it made commercial sense for someone to do a 1.6 in-line triple whilst someone else favoured a W12 does it matter? There is bound to be an optimum number of cylinders (it used to be said it was about 330cc per cylinder but I don't know if that still applies) but if a manufacturer chose something else why is it a problem? It never used to be, and that includes when F1 used 1.5 turbo engines.
What I can't understand, however, is why there has to be a prescribed number of cylinders. If it has to be 1.6 turbo fair enough (although an equivalence offering both turbo and n/a would seem good to me) but why can't the manufacturers decide for themselves how they do it. If it made commercial sense for someone to do a 1.6 in-line triple whilst someone else favoured a W12 does it matter? There is bound to be an optimum number of cylinders (it used to be said it was about 330cc per cylinder but I don't know if that still applies) but if a manufacturer chose something else why is it a problem? It never used to be, and that includes when F1 used 1.5 turbo engines.
andyps said:
In fairness to the BBC, Ferrari were probably one of the main opponents to the 4 cylinder engine as it does not relate to their road car programme at all.
What I can't understand, however, is why there has to be a prescribed number of cylinders. If it has to be 1.6 turbo fair enough (although an equivalence offering both turbo and n/a would seem good to me) but why can't the manufacturers decide for themselves how they do it. If it made commercial sense for someone to do a 1.6 in-line triple whilst someone else favoured a W12 does it matter? There is bound to be an optimum number of cylinders (it used to be said it was about 330cc per cylinder but I don't know if that still applies) but if a manufacturer chose something else why is it a problem? It never used to be, and that includes when F1 used 1.5 turbo engines.
Equivalence formulae never seem to work...What I can't understand, however, is why there has to be a prescribed number of cylinders. If it has to be 1.6 turbo fair enough (although an equivalence offering both turbo and n/a would seem good to me) but why can't the manufacturers decide for themselves how they do it. If it made commercial sense for someone to do a 1.6 in-line triple whilst someone else favoured a W12 does it matter? There is bound to be an optimum number of cylinders (it used to be said it was about 330cc per cylinder but I don't know if that still applies) but if a manufacturer chose something else why is it a problem? It never used to be, and that includes when F1 used 1.5 turbo engines.
"That is a sop to Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders.
The sport's longest-serving and most powerful team had objected because the restriction had no relevance to any of their road cars."
Eh? So Ferrari have 1.6 V6 turbo roadcar engines? (or am I interpreting this engine spec wrong?)
The sport's longest-serving and most powerful team had objected because the restriction had no relevance to any of their road cars."
Eh? So Ferrari have 1.6 V6 turbo roadcar engines? (or am I interpreting this engine spec wrong?)
mattikake said:
"That is a sop to Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders.
The sport's longest-serving and most powerful team had objected because the restriction had no relevance to any of their road cars."
Eh? So Ferrari have 1.6 V6 turbo roadcar engines? (or am I interpreting this engine spec wrong?)
I can only assume that Ferrari will be downsizing/meeting emission targets in the future with smaller capacity turbo V6 engines, probably not 1.6 but not a 4.5 V8.The sport's longest-serving and most powerful team had objected because the restriction had no relevance to any of their road cars."
Eh? So Ferrari have 1.6 V6 turbo roadcar engines? (or am I interpreting this engine spec wrong?)
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff