RE: FIA Plans 1.6-litre V6s For F1

[LordGrover]

CO2000 said:

JSquaredJim said:

The CO2 output of the cars them selves is a mere fraction of that of the fleet of Jumbo's used to transport all the gear to the fly away events.
It's time F1 stopped pandering to this Eco nonsense and just got on with real racing.

Spot on + the trucks & all the team cars etc that no doubt waste far, far more than the F1 Cars.

I rather think you are missing the point.
It's feck all to do with the sport/spectacle itself being 'green', it's the technology they come up with, which then transfers to the real world that is important (to the tree huggers). Whether it takes twenty jumbos to get the teams to each venue is unimportant in the grand scheme of things - it's the KERS/hybrid bks that'll be in your wife's micra.

[Scuffers]

LordGrover said:

I rather think you are missing the point.
It's feck all to do with the sport/spectacle itself being 'green', it's the technology they come up with, which then transfers to the real world that is important (to the tree huggers). Whether it takes twenty jumbos to get the teams to each venue is unimportant in the grand scheme of things - it's the KERS/hybrid bks that'll be in your wife's micra.

Problem with this is that the requirements for economy on a race engine have zero relevance to a road car (unless they are going to start demanding that the F1 cars meet EU5/6).

(can you imagine the level of NOx emissions from an F1 engine?)

[LordGrover]

Not sure whether it's urban legend, but it's generally 'accepted' that tech like ABS and traction control is thanks to F1? Probably rubbish but it's what makes the profligacy of Formula 1 acceptable in some eyes.
They'll be hoping the same happens with eco-green-bks.

[MrKipling43]

Scuffers said:

Problem with this is that the requirements for economy on a race engine have zero relevance to a road car (unless they are going to start demanding that the F1 cars meet EU5/6).

(can you imagine the level of NOx emissions from an F1 engine?)

I don't think that's necessarily true. Ultimately the object of a Formula One engine, or any racing motor, is maximum efficiency. The more power you can get from a given amount of fuel, the better. That practice can be transfered to road applications. Advances in lubrication, fuel injection, etc etc as well.

I remember hearing a while ago that if you put a Cosworth F1 engine in a Prius, you could get better fuel economy from the F1 motor then the 'Hybrid Drive'.

[Driller]

Was the article title written by Borat?

[Scuffers]

MrKipling43 said:

Scuffers said:

Problem with this is that the requirements for economy on a race engine have zero relevance to a road car (unless they are going to start demanding that the F1 cars meet EU5/6).

(can you imagine the level of NOx emissions from an F1 engine?)

I don't think that's necessarily true. Ultimately the object of a Formula One engine, or any racing motor, is maximum efficiency. The more power you can get from a given amount of fuel, the better. That practice can be transfered to road applications. Advances in lubrication, fuel injection, etc etc as well.

I remember hearing a while ago that if you put a Cosworth F1 engine in a Prius, you could get better fuel economy from the F1 motor then the 'Hybrid Drive'.

it is true, hence why all the old NA high performance engines are being consigned to the bin at the moment, as to get them though EU5 (and then 6) is a bridge too far.

to get the best performance/economy your NOx count is going to suffer (as the temps rise).

ironically, the use of Catalytic converters is also unhelpful from a fuel efficiency perspective, as for them to work, you can;t run the engine as lean as would be optimum.

there becomes a point where you have to question all the emissions limit's as they are pushing lower and lower emissions by % rather than absolute, and in that chase to lower %'s, we are actually using more fuel, so potentially, the absolutes are going up not down.

[British Beef]

If I was a dwarf, nailing a supermodel and my name was Bernie, I would introduce the following engine options:

V12 engine up to 1.5 ltrs
V10 engine up to 2.0 ltrs
V8 engine up to 2.5 ltrs
V6 engine up to 3.0 ltrs
4 cylinder up to 3.5lts
2 cylinder up to 4ltrs ;-)

Turbo to NA factor of 3 : 1, for example a V6 turbo would be 1 ltr capacity.

ALSO -- NO MORE COMPULSORY PIT STOPS!! Keep all the racing on the track (if petrol and tyres can be made to last).

[stuttgartmetal]

British Beef said:

If I was a dwarf, nailing a supermodel and my name was Bernie, I would introduce the following engine options:

V12 engine up to 1.5 ltrs
V10 engine up to 2.0 ltrs
V8 engine up to 2.5 ltrs
V6 engine up to 3.0 ltrs
4 cylinder up to 3.5lts
2 cylinder up to 4ltrs ;-)

Turbo to NA factor of 3 : 1, for example a V6 turbo would be 1 ltr capacity.

ALSO -- NO MORE COMPULSORY PIT STOPS!! Keep all the racing on the track (if petrol and tyres can be made to last).

and fk the costs.
LOL

[MrKipling43]

Scuffers said:

it is true, hence why all the old NA high performance engines are being consigned to the bin at the moment, as to get them though EU5 (and then 6) is a bridge too far.

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point.

What I was saying is that engine efficiencies are transferable... if you can work out how to get a lot of power, it's (relatively) easy to transfer that to using less fuel.

Cars now are so efficient because the advancements made in the pursuit of power have been transfered to fuel efficieny.

Turbos are an excellent example. They started as a way of getting power, now they're being used as a way of getting more power for less fuel useage.

Advances in fuel, lubrication, material use, clever engine management etc, were all designed to get MORE POWER. Now they're helping to use less fuel.

[markcoznottz]

LordGrover said:

CO2000 said:

JSquaredJim said:

The CO2 output of the cars them selves is a mere fraction of that of the fleet of Jumbo's used to transport all the gear to the fly away events.
It's time F1 stopped pandering to this Eco nonsense and just got on with real racing.

Spot on + the trucks & all the team cars etc that no doubt waste far, far more than the F1 Cars.

I rather think you are missing the point.
It's feck all to do with the sport/spectacle itself being 'green', it's the technology they come up with, which then transfers to the real world that is important (to the tree huggers). Whether it takes twenty jumbos to get the teams to each venue is unimportant in the grand scheme of things - it's the KERS/hybrid bks that'll be in your wife's micra.

Wasnt that discussed a while back. I think it was concluded that the transfer of tech was tenuous at best.

[Scuffers]

MrKipling43 said:

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point.

What I was saying is that engine efficiencies are transferable... if you can work out how to get a lot of power, it's (relatively) easy to transfer that to using less fuel.

Cars now are so efficient because the advancements made in the pursuit of power have been transfered to fuel efficieny.

Turbos are an excellent example. They started as a way of getting power, now they're being used as a way of getting more power for less fuel useage.

Advances in fuel, lubrication, material use, clever engine management etc, were all designed to get MORE POWER. Now they're helping to use less fuel.

think you rose-tinted glasses have got stuck...

whilst this was the case many years ago, I think you will find that road car technology is as far advanced (if not more so) than race car, what you have to remember is that the goals are diverging these days, engine efficiency has been playing second fiddle to ever stricter emissions targets for the last few years.


Just to pick you up on Turbo's, they were always about efficiency, applied to marine diesels etc. back in the 20's.

[LordGrover]

markcoznottz said:

Wasnt that discussed a while back. I think it was concluded that the transfer of tech was tenuous at best.

Quite possibly - I'm not the most observant chap and my memory's not what it was either.
In my defence, I did follow up a post or two later suggesting similar though.

[vintageracer01]

Boring....

This wants to be the top class of motorsport ???
Give me a break.

I prefer Le Mans Racers or Touring Cars. Much better sport, much better racing, much more diversity, much better sound anyway!!!

At the 24h Nürburgring there were 6.2 litre V8s among many others. This is the sound of motorsport!

F1 sounds more like a bee-hive and it's little sport and mostly commercial show.
Well, who ever needs it...

Edited by vintageracer01 on Tuesday 28th June 21:22

[PabloTeK]

Dear FIA,

Do the sensible thing and link-up with INDYCAR to get a common engine that means you'll have:

• Honda
• Chevrolet
• Group Lotus (Seriously)
• Mercedes
• Ferrari
• Cosworth
• Renault

All those engines available to an F1 and/or IndyCar team? I smell cost-saving.

[Great Dane]

vintageracer01 said:

Boring....

This wants to be the top class of motorsport ???
Give me a break.

I prefer Le Mans Racers or Touring Cars. Much better sport, much better racing, much more diversity, much better sound anyway!!!

At the 24h Nürburgring there were 6.2 litre V8s among many others. This is the sound of motorsport!

F1 sounds more like a bee-hive and it's little sport and mostly commercial show.
Well, who ever needs it...

Edited by vintageracer01 on Tuesday 28th June 21:22

HEAR HEAR If you want racing go to LM or N24 or Spa24

[LordGrover]

Great Dane said:

vintageracer01 said:

Boring....

This wants to be the top class of motorsport ???
Give me a break.

I prefer Le Mans Racers or Touring Cars. Much better sport, much better racing, much more diversity, much better sound anyway!!!

At the 24h Nürburgring there were 6.2 litre V8s among many others. This is the sound of motorsport!

F1 sounds more like a bee-hive and it's little sport and mostly commercial show.
Well, who ever needs it...

Edited by vintageracer01 on Tuesday 28th June 21:22

HEAR HEAR If you want racing go to LM or N24 or Spa24

Thank you for your input on this F1 engine spec topic.

[Otispunkmeyer]

Mr Gear said:

Even better idea if you want to improve efficiency is to issue a control fuel in a controlled quantity.

For example, each racer starts the race with 10 gallons, and no re-fuelling is allowed. This forces them to be doing at least 20mpg over 200 miles. This will create an interesting arms race to see who can get the most power from the least fuel and this will be useful development for road vehicles too.

Each year, the amount of fuel issued is dropped a little creating continuous development.

Well you can only go so far.

The ic engine is over 100 years old, you think there's really that much left to do with just the standard combustion process that they'll be able to keep reducing fuel consumption year on year? I don't. This is why we have electric motor assist and hybrid cars today... The ic engine can really only go so far before it needs auxiliary devices to improve it.

And if anything, there is already a st ton to work going on to increase economy... I know, I'm part of some of it. I don't think adding a few F1 teams to the research roster is really going to help do things faster.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 29th June 08:32

[Gadgeroonie]

i would like to see

4 cylinder engines
maximum 600 CC !

no restrictions on turbo boost or turbo size


they will easily tune them to massive power and we would all benefit from the technology a few years down the road

when the power gets out of control limit the boost pressure

but for gods sake - let the engine designers do thier job and get the best out of an engine

[Mr Gear]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Well you can only go so far.

The ic engine is over 100 years old, you think there's really that much left to do with just the standard combustion process that they'll be able to keep reducing fuel consumption year on year? I don't. This is why we have electric motor assist and hybrid cars today... The ic engine can really only go so far before it needs auxiliary devices to improve it.

And if anything, there is already a st ton to work going on to increase economy... I know, I'm part of some of it. I don't think adding a few F1 teams to the research roster is really going to help do things faster.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 29th June 08:32

You can only go so far with IC economy? Correct. But the limits are somewhat more ambitious than F1's current fuel consumption, and there are lots of work-around with hybrid etc anyway.

But I'm not actually talking about F1 becoming an economy challenge. That would be insane. What I am talking about is using startline energy (that is to say, the amount of liquid or electric energy in joules) that a car has on the startline as the limiting factor. That could work out to 5mpg or 55mpg. It doesn't really matter. The teams that get the most speed from their energy quota (without running out of fuel) will win.

It amounts to the same thing as having a rev-limit and engine capacity limit anyway, it's just a neater way of expressing it.

[MikeST150]

IMO it depends what you want out of F1. If you want to see true driver talent and what I'd define as 'real racing' then It doesn't really matter what engines they go for as everyone will be in the same boat and you'll end up with good, close racing. Sod the fact its 'Only 600bhp' - You're watching power figures, not racing. It should be the other way around.

There was an element of hilarity to F1 of old with insane engines, radical aerodynamics etc, but it just became a budget exercise. If that happened again you may as well just have a 'Ferrari VS McLaren' series.

I reckon if you want insane engines and utterly obscene power - Go to a drag strip. If you want racing - It's really not going to matter what engines they end up with, so stop worrying so much