Renault 2014 F1 Engine
Discussion
Nice article here all about it. Nice turbine housing, much like the R18s.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/renault-re...
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/renault-re...
HustleRussell said:
Unless I'm mistaken, it isn't- it's a fair bit higher. Up in line with where the cylinder heads are...
Interesting. I'm sure the article said the regs made them have it inline with the crank... so would have to be front or back of the engine. Probably back as the exhaust is there. On phone now so can't load article. But did I misinterpret that?Munter said:
Interesting. I'm sure the article said the regs made them have it inline with the crank... so would have to be front or back of the engine. Probably back as the exhaust is there. On phone now so can't load article. But did I misinterpret that?
"The rules stipulate that the axis of the turbo is parallel to the crackshaft and within 25mm of it" I guess you could mount the turbo in the vee like Audi if you really wanted to be different? TheHeretic said:
And pray what engine 'belongs' in an F1 car? You realise the history of F1 engines, don't you?
The only reason for this change is to show F1 as being "environmentally aware", never mind the fact the cars, teams and all the equipment are flown around the world between races and the amount of fuel the cars use is completely insignificant .. Give me a naturally aspirated V8 or V10 any day of the week.130R said:
he only reason for this change is to show F1 as being "environmentally aware", never mind the fact the cars, teams and all the equipment are flown around the world between races and the amount of fuel the cars use is completely insignificant .. Give me a naturally aspirated V8 or V10 any day of the week.
And why does a V10 or a V8 'belong' in an F1 car any more than a V6?
MrKipling43 said:
And why does a V10 or a V8 'belong' in an F1 car any more than a V6?
"Belongs" was maybe the wrong choice of words, the point is this is a bad direction to take F1 IMO. If I offered you a car with a choice between a 4.0 V8 engine or a 1.6 V6 turbo (that made the same power) what would you choose? I don't think many people would want the V6.130R said:
he only reason for this change is to show F1 as being "environmentally aware", never mind the fact the cars, teams and all the equipment are flown around the world between races and the amount of fuel the cars use is completely insignificant .. Give me a naturally aspirated V8 or V10 any day of the week.
I think its more costs than anything else to be honest.F1 cars used to have 16cyl engines, why should we stick with only 10 or 8 cylinders ? Its the same argument.
ETA: I'd take the turbo V6 over a 4.0 V8, probably make better torque and the smaller rev range will be more usable.
Crafty_ said:
I think its more costs than anything else to be honest.
Hard to imagine that it will be cheaper to develop all new engines as opposed to continuing with the V8s which have already had X years development and are well understood. Perhaps an easier sell to get new factory teams into the sport though...?
budgie smuggler said:
Hard to imagine that it will be cheaper to develop all new engines as opposed to continuing with the V8s which have already had X years development and are well understood.
Perhaps an easier sell to get new factory teams into the sport though...?
Agreed, but it was the reason we moved from V10s (or at least e excuse). It could be partly to encourage new suppliers. Don't forget it was going to be I4s on the request of VAG group, until they decided the weren't interested (again). I think its also to keep rev limits down - a few years ago they banned the use of exotic metals on cost grounds, but then the engine makers just spent silly money on developing engineering processes on regular metals to let them get to 20k+ RPM.Perhaps an easier sell to get new factory teams into the sport though...?
It also opens up competition, why would a company take on building a V8 to try and beat Ferrari or Mercedes that have a powerful, reliable unit ?
130R
The original formula allowed for 1.5 litre forced induction.
In the early 60s engines were 1.5 litre naturally aspirated.
During the 80s has been said above, there were small capacity turbo engines.
You can't really argue F1 is betraying it's heritage with this one.
re: the statement about 16 cylinders. 1500 cc V16 - BRM proved just because you can, it doesn't mean you should!
The original formula allowed for 1.5 litre forced induction.
In the early 60s engines were 1.5 litre naturally aspirated.
During the 80s has been said above, there were small capacity turbo engines.
You can't really argue F1 is betraying it's heritage with this one.
re: the statement about 16 cylinders. 1500 cc V16 - BRM proved just because you can, it doesn't mean you should!
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff