1.6l v6 turbo?

[gaz1234]

Why?
Prefer v10s

[mollytherocker]

Make F1 more relevant
Make F1 cheaper
Reduce fuel consumption
Reduce F1 impact on the environment
Showcase new technology
Reinvent F1 in terms of its image

The only one that can probably be guaranteed is number 3 and im not sure about that!

[Terminator X]

Did they ask their customers (us) if they wanted a 1.6 V6 in lieu of a V8? Will be interesting to hear if they still sound good or not.

The fuel economy point is

TX.

[Crafty_]

You need manufacturers to make the engines.

Manufacturers use F1 (and the rest of motorsport) as a big R&D exercise.

A 3.5 V10 (that they ditched some years ago) is not, in any way relevant to road cars (nor is the 2.4 V8 they currently use). Possible exception of Ferrari of course.

Look at road cars in general, displacements are going down, use of forced induction is increasing. On top of that the use of energy regeneration is on the horizon (if not already here).

So, if you want manufacturers to spend millions building engines you need to create rules relevant to what they want to do, hence the new engines.

[Euro1300]

1.6 inline 4s would have been more relevant to road cars, though.

[Crafty_]

Euro1300 said:

1.6 inline 4s would have been more relevant to road cars, though.

Yep, but the problem is that a inline 4 can't be used as a stress member, meaning that the engine would need some sort of cage around it that the suspension and engine/gearbox are all mounted to. The v6 can be stressed member. I think there is also some benefit to the V6 in terms of centre of gravity too.

They were going to go inline 4 because Audi wanted to go that way and were making it a condition if they were to come to F1. In the end they decided they would not get involved (again). Thus the regs got opened up to V6s.

There is lots of bhing and moaning about the new engines, but we haven't even seen one bolted in a car yet, in the case of the Honda unit its still over a year away. Regardless, most of the engine regs are based on what the manufacturers (and to a lesser extent the teams and FIA) want.

[airbrakes]

If this video is genuine, then the engines are going to sound immense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wGZI2mryqY

It'll be back to the Senn/prost days of lower-revving, snarling units with turbo noise, rather than the horrid synthetic hairdryer/vacuum cleaner noises the cars currently make

[lap_time]

airbrakes said:

If this video is genuine, then the engines are going to sound immense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wGZI2mryqY

It'll be back to the Senn/prost days of lower-revving, snarling units with turbo noise, rather than the horrid synthetic hairdryer/vacuum cleaner noises the cars currently make

As much as I'd like to say it was, unfortunately, it's not genuine.

That's an MP4/4. In fact, it's from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmKJ5MhDh8

[Scuffers]

Crafty_ said:

You need manufacturers to make the engines.

No you don't

None of the past and current engine builders/makers were car manufactures except for a badge

Crafty_ said:

Manufacturers use F1 (and the rest of motorsport) as a big R&D exercise.

not sure that's ever been true for engines? even if it was, those days are long gone.

Crafty_ said:

A 3.5 V10 (that they ditched some years ago) is not, in any way relevant to road cars (nor is the 2.4 V8 they currently use). Possible exception of Ferrari of course.

rubbish, if F1 is about flag waving, the top line flag waving cars on the road are all V8/V10/V12 still, can you imagine Ferrari's latest top of the range supercar with a 1.6 V6 engine?

or the new P1 Mclaren without it's twin turbo V8? (and frankly astonishing CO2 figure)?

Crafty_ said:

Look at road cars in general, displacements are going down, use of forced induction is increasing. On top of that the use of energy regeneration is on the horizon (if not already here).

So, if you want manufacturers to spend millions building engines you need to create rules relevant to what they want to do, hence the new engines.

Get real, I am pretty sure NOBODY wanted to spend the millions it's cost on yet another engine, they would have been happy just to tinker with the old ones.

outside of marketing bullst, I can't see a single bit of these new engines making it into road cars, as any of the useful stuff is already used (and has been for years), and the rest of it is so F1 targeted as to be no use.

may I remind you that Ferdinand Porsche made a hybrid car back in 1989, regenerative braking was first used back in 1979 (Dave Arthurs), electrically assisted turbo's are also not new, BMW/Audi/etc. all have patents on different implementations of this, none of this is new.

[GadgeS3C]

Scuffers said:

may I remind you that Ferdinand Porsche made a hybrid car back in 1989, regenerative braking was first used back in 1979 (Dave Arthurs), electrically assisted turbo's are also not new, BMW/Audi/etc. all have patents on different implementations of this, none of this is new.

I agree - it's not new, but you learn an awful lot about how to make it work reliably by testing it to the limit in challenging applications. It's a long way with any technology going from patent to commecialisation.

Having said that - I'd much rather hear decent capacity NA V8/10/12s than piddling little turbos.

[gaz1234]

should be electric or hybrid then..

[Crafty_]

Scuffers said:

Crafty_ said:

You need manufacturers to make the engines.

No you don't

None of the past and current engine builders/makers were car manufactures except for a badge

Apart from Merc HPE, Ferrari ?
Sure Mecachrome make the Renault units, but as I understand it the design is a joint effort between them and Renault itself.

Besides, where does the money came from where exactly ? The manufacturer.

Teams moved away from the Cosworth V8 because it wasn't good enough and cost too much for what it was.
Other than that I think you have to go back to the Judd/Hart V10s which weren't brilliant either.

Ilmor was purchased by Mercedes not to just build engines for motorsport but also to help them with road going projects. As far as I see it is not at all uncommon for special divisions or even separate companies with specific expertise to help manufacturers with R&D, Mecachrome's website certainly appears to indicate they do lots of work similar to this.

Scuffers said:

Crafty_ said:

Manufacturers use F1 (and the rest of motorsport) as a big R&D exercise.

not sure that's ever been true for engines? even if it was, those days are long gone.

Crafty_ said:

A 3.5 V10 (that they ditched some years ago) is not, in any way relevant to road cars (nor is the 2.4 V8 they currently use). Possible exception of Ferrari of course.

rubbish, if F1 is about flag waving, the top line flag waving cars on the road are all V8/V10/V12 still, can you imagine Ferrari's latest top of the range supercar with a 1.6 V6 engine?

or the new P1 Mclaren without it's twin turbo V8? (and frankly astonishing CO2 figure)?

How many P1s do you think McLaren will sell ? what profit is in those cars?
How many cilos & meganes do you think Renault will sell ? what profit is in those cars?

If they can make the average road car better by getting a jump on the opposition they sell more, which means more profits.

Besides its not about willy waving in a "mines bigger than yours" style, its also about packaging and integration, especially with ERS which is becoming more prevalent in road cars. Manufacturers can learn about how to design, build, integrate ERS systems which increases relevance. Just one example, there are lots of other things they can learn from the exercise.

Scuffers said:

Crafty_ said:

Look at road cars in general, displacements are going down, use of forced induction is increasing. On top of that the use of energy regeneration is on the horizon (if not already here).

So, if you want manufacturers to spend millions building engines you need to create rules relevant to what they want to do, hence the new engines.

Get real, I am pretty sure NOBODY wanted to spend the millions it's cost on yet another engine, they would have been happy just to tinker with the old ones.

outside of marketing bullst, I can't see a single bit of these new engines making it into road cars, as any of the useful stuff is already used (and has been for years), and the rest of it is so F1 targeted as to be no use.

As far as spending the money goes the R&D in the V8s had a bit of an upturn in the last few years with KERS systems, but other than that would manufacturers want to be sinking money in to a "frozen" engine in 5 years time? probably not.. nothing in it for them.

Do you really expect a part from an F1 car to be unbolted and then bolted on to a road car ?
Productionising a component (or even a whole appliance) is not what R&D is about. Its about methods, concepts and proving theories that you can then use on a different application.
So they might learn how to design more efficient, lighter ERS systems in F1 (or WEC). Will they use those units in a road car ? no. Will they take the principles and concepts from those designs ? you can bet on it.

You seem to suggest that manufacturers are in it purely for the marketing ? Thats a hell of marketing bill!!
Audi didn't come to the sport in the end, but were insisting on doing a 4 cylinder inline engine ? why ? because its where they could learn the most to apply to their road cars, not because they could print marketing bullst in a glossy brochure to impress the sheep. Why do they continue with their diesel WEC cars ? because they're learning stuff that can be applied to road cars, which helps them sell more, which makes them more profit.

Scuffers said:

may I remind you that Ferdinand Porsche made a hybrid car back in 1989, regenerative braking was first used back in 1979 (Dave Arthurs), electrically assisted turbo's are also not new, BMW/Audi/etc. all have patents on different implementations of this, none of this is new.

And Woods beat him to it by about 70 years, so what ?

[dr_gn]

Never figured out what engine manufacturers like Renault get out of F1. Championship winning car for the last few seasons, and most people would never know it was powered by Renault: Tt's just a "Red Bull". Even if the Renault angle was pushed more, would success in F1 really make anyone in their right mind want to buy a Renault road car?

[350Matt]

road car manufacturers in F1 have always come and gone many times in F1's history


they usually arrive in big fanfare,spend a huge wodge of cash, then leave 5 years later having inflated the cost of competing in the sport (again)

Mercedes have stuck it out for some time now, but there are rumours that keep popping up (whenever there's some spat) about them pulling the plug

Renault too looked like leaving a few years ago



and now next year we've lost the only independent F1 engine manufacturer (Cosworth) which is a great shame

So long term you have to wonder who'll be making engines for these things in 10 years time?

[Scuffers]

Gaz. said:

Scuffers said:

Stuff

Chill out Scuffers. It's no good making fair points if people feel they are getting into a slanging match and feel like not bothering next time around.

Your right, no point in arguing with a brick wall.

[Crafty_]

Scuffers said:

Your right, no point in arguing with a brick wall.

Oh the irony.

[AJS-]

Not sure about the relevance to road cars of an engine that develops ~700bhp and needs to be rebuilt after a few hundred miles, whatever the configuration or induction method!

[ArrowSC]

Scuffers said:

Your right, no point in arguing with a brick wall.

Why not try having a discussion instead?

[dr_gn]

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?

[rdjohn]

Terminator X said:

Did they ask their customers (us) if they wanted a 1.6 V6 in lieu of a V8? Will be interesting to hear if they still sound good or not.

The fuel economy point is

TX.

I am sure if they had asked environmentalists, they would have said, don't do two extra fly aways and transfer 2 fly aways to European races. That will reduce F1s carbon footprint massively.

The fuel used for the race in very small beer, in the scheme of things.