1.6l v6 turbo?

[Catatafish]

dr_gn said:

If there's a freeze on engine development, how can an F1 engine be used to benefit road car engines? Surely, under these restrictive regulations the majority of innovation and development would be done before the design is frozen, so why not simply use the money to develop a road car system that is more relevant to...road cars?

All the relevant manufacturers and R&D sub-contractors are already working on ERS and eco tech anyhow, as these "new" schemes are driven by the market, which is driven by the rising cost of fuel. I doubt F1 plays any significant role in innovation in terms of new technology and materials, just innovation in finding ways around the regulations

[dr_gn]

Catatafish said:

dr_gn said:

If there's a freeze on engine development, how can an F1 engine be used to benefit road car engines? Surely, under these restrictive regulations the majority of innovation and development would be done before the design is frozen, so why not simply use the money to develop a road car system that is more relevant to...road cars?

All the relevant manufacturers and R&D sub-contractors are already working on ERS and eco tech anyhow, as these "new" schemes are driven by the market, which is driven by the rising cost of fuel. I doubt F1 plays any significant role in innovation in terms of new technology and materials, just innovation in finding ways around the regulations

3.5 litre V8, 10 or 12 for me please.

If the manufacturers don't think it's relevant to road cars, then maybe they should consider how relevant open, single seater cars with wings are in general?

I think an average VSCC race meeting will offer me more enjoyment than attending a GP in future.

[Dr Z]

dr_gn said:

3.5 litre V8, 10 or 12 for me please.

If the manufacturers don't think it's relevant to road cars, then maybe they should consider how relevant open, single seater cars with wings are in general?

I think an average VSCC race meeting will offer me more enjoyment than attending a GP in future.

Why 3.5L? Such an arbitrary number...just like 1.6. Why not a 1.6L V8/V10/V12?!

[AJS-]

I'd like to see more variety. I find this business of highly prescriptive rule making tends to lead to absurdly marginal and invisible differences that mean miniscule advantages decide the whole season. How about a choice of 1.6 turbo, 2.5 freestyle or chunky big customer 3.5 V8s, rev limited and designed to last a few races. Equalise the power to weight ratio and let the variations in fuel usage, power delivery etc be part of the racing.

[dr_gn]

AJS- said:

I'd like to see more variety. I find this business of highly prescriptive rule making tends to lead to absurdly marginal and invisible differences that mean miniscule advantages decide the whole season. How about a choice of 1.6 turbo, 2.5 freestyle or chunky big customer 3.5 V8s, rev limited and designed to last a few races. Equalise the power to weight ratio and let the variations in fuel usage, power delivery etc be part of the racing.

Trouble with that approach is that one engine type dominates, and then everyone has to follow. Trying to make an equivalence formula of turbo vs n/a is very difficult.

[AJS-]

dr_gn said:

Trouble with that approach is that one engine type dominates, and then everyone has to follow. Trying to make an equivalence formula of turbo vs n/a is very difficult.

Yeah that was the experience of the last turbo era but as I understand it the rules were very slow in changing and the deciding factor for most teams was engine supplier and/or budget (as usual!)

Something like the weight ballast used in sports and touring cars would be one answer. Alternatively a race by race reduction or increase in boost pressure or rev limits depending on performance.

No easy answers though.

[Scuffers]

if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.

[dr_gn]

Scuffers said:

if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.

Wouldn't that be stupidly expensive if one solution proved to be the answer, then all other concepts from rival teams would have to be scrapped and re-designed to follow the best solution, until eventually you'd have a pretty much standard unit anyway?

With the normally aspirated V8's, 10's and 12's, there were compromises with each which meant that over the course of a season, each type could be in contention.

[Scuffers]

So what?

You think 4 companies developing these V6 engines is cheap?

[AJS-]

dr_gn said:

Wouldn't that be stupidly expensive if one solution proved to be the answer, then all other concepts from rival teams would have to be scrapped and re-designed to follow the best solution, until eventually you'd have a pretty much standard unit anyway?

With the normally aspirated V8's, 10's and 12's, there were compromises with each which meant that over the course of a season, each type could be in contention.

As per your earlier point though they did all settle on fairly similar V10s in the end.

[Scuffers]

AJS- said:

As per your earlier point though they did all settle on fairly similar V10s in the end.

They were V10 by regs, not choice.

[dr_gn]

Scuffers said:

So what?

You think 4 companies developing these V6 engines is cheap?

Yes, very cheap, compared with them developing one engine type and then having to develop an entirely new one to be able to compete.

[Scuffers]

So, better to spend several hundred thousands on designing engines that will have no use for anything else?

If cost is your priority, why jot just keep the current V8s?

Much cheaper all round.

[Crafty_]

dr_gn said:

Wouldn't that be stupidly expensive if one solution proved to be the answer, then all other concepts from rival teams would have to be scrapped and re-designed to follow the best solution, until eventually you'd have a pretty much standard unit anyway?

Yep. As I understand it much of the engine regs come from the manufacturers themselves, plus a few bits and bobs from the FIA & teams. Whilst an open format will increase innovation the costs are squared. Whilst manufacturers are prepared to spend huge amounts of money they don't want to be feeding a bottomless pit.

Scuffers said:

They were V10 by regs, not choice.

Ferrari used a V12 and Ford a V8 until 1996, when (as far as I can find out) they switched by choice to V10s.
Article from late 1995 says Ferrari evaluated V8, V10 and V12 engines from 1996 and at that time hadn't made a choice (they went V10)
http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00197.html

[Mikey G]

Scuffers said:

if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.

A point you make I very well agree with
I like the current engines, I just wish they opened the regs up a little and allowed some development with them.
What I don't like is those putting down the new engines before they have turned the wheels on track disregarding them as mere leaf blowers... On paper to me they are an exciting change, and i'll reserve my full opinion on them until said track action takes place.

[mollytherocker]

Scuffers said:

if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.

Can you imagine what 'cars' would turn up? First practice wouldnt even be allowed to start. There would be immense safety issues.

[Scuffers]

mollytherocker said:

Scuffers said:

if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.

Can you imagine what 'cars' would turn up? First practice wouldnt even be allowed to start. There would be immense safety issues.

Don't be melodramatic

[Mikey G]

mollytherocker said:

Scuffers said:

if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.

Can you imagine what 'cars' would turn up? First practice wouldnt even be allowed to start. There would be immense safety issues.

It wouldn't be a free for all would it... I mean such rules would have to be in place such as "any piston engine can be used that must be mechanically driving the wheels through a gearbox" so gas turbines or jets wouldn't make it onto the grid

[Scuffers]

Mikey G said:

mollytherocker said:

Scuffers said:

if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.

Can you imagine what 'cars' would turn up? First practice wouldnt even be allowed to start. There would be immense safety issues.

It wouldn't be a free for all would it... I mean such rules would have to be in place such as "any piston engine can be used that must be mechanically driving the wheels through a gearbox" so gas turbines or jets wouldn't make it onto the grid

And exactly what would be so wrong with that?

You never know, somebody might make a box that converts petrol to electricity without any moving parts...

[Mikey G]

Scuffers said:

And exactly what would be so wrong with that?

Erm nothing? That was my point

Scuffers said:

You never know, somebody might make a box that converts petrol to electricity without any moving parts...

Now that would be un interesting...