New F1 engine rules

[fid]

The proposal to introduce 2.4 litre V8s in 2006 to replace the 3.0 litre V10s currently used is aimed at reducing costs to F1 teams...but how??
I can't see how it'd be cheaper to develop an engine with the same performance even though it has 2 less cylinders and a smaller capacity, whilst also increasing reliability and longevity.

[turbobloke]

fid said:

I can't see how it'd be cheaper to develop an engine with the same performance ...

Isn't that partly the point of this, that in addition to reducing costs they will reduce speeds and increase safety, i.e. performance will be less not the same? Now, given a couple of years of development, the lap times may well be back up again...

[Phil S]

New engine = more development costs! They have to start all over again now..

[crankedup]

Starting over but use new ideas to beat the other teams.

[fid]

turbobloke said:

fid said: I can't see how it'd be cheaper to develop an engine with the same performance ... Isn't that partly the point of this, that in addition to reducing costs they will reduce speeds and increase safety, i.e. performance will be less not the same? Now, given a couple of years of development, the lap times may well be back up again...

Yup, that's what I was thinking...they'll be going so slowly that they won't be needing anything more than a Halfords rear wing

Let's face it though, they're not going to slow down much, which means they're going to have got around the problem of getting 900bhp out of a 2.4 V8, even if it takes a few years...but they'll spend alot of money doing it...which is why I don't understand the need to change.

[treehack]

i reckon that manufacturer's should be allowed to race anything they think will beat the opposition.no rules whatsoever,surley F1 is the pinnicle of motor sport so why should they be constrained by a rule book.
grond effects,big bad assed turbo engines,6 wheelers etc,etc.car designer's are always tring to beat the rule book so take it away and let's see what they can come up with.would make for some interesting racing i think

[Frik]

fid said:

Let's face it though, they're not going to slow down much, which means they're going to have got around the problem of getting 900bhp out of a 2.4 V8, even if it takes a few years...but they'll spend alot of money doing it...which is why I don't understand the need to change.

Because it'll take them a few years. It's a recurring thing, every few years the speeds get too high so they have to slow down the cars again.

treehack said:

...car designer's are always tring to beat the rule book so take it away and let's see what they can come up with.

Bombs with wheels.

[fid]

Frik said:

fid said: Let's face it though, they're not going to slow down much, which means they're going to have got around the problem of getting 900bhp out of a 2.4 V8, even if it takes a few years...but they'll spend alot of money doing it...which is why I don't understand the need to change. Because it'll take them a few years. It's a recurring thing, every few years the speeds get too high so they have to slow down the cars again.

I don't think the speeds are too high. But if they are, other parts of the cars should be developed further to match the speed potential.
There's no problem right now...the brakes, tyres, and aerodynamics are all suitable for the speeds. There's no need to limit power until the speeds exceed the car's capability...which isn't much of a problem anyway because the rest of the car is improved in line with engine. But I digress.

[GreenV8S]

fid said:

I don't think the speeds are too high. But if they are, other parts of the cars should be developed further to match the speed potential. There's no problem right now...the brakes, tyres, and aerodynamics are all suitable for the speeds.

But are the tracks? As the speeds go up it must be harder and harder to make accidents survivable.

[HarryW]

I don't understand the logic behind this, F1 cars are currently producing less power than they did at the peak of the turbo era. They are slower in a straight line, but quicker around the twisties and hence overall. The performance gains have come from aerodynamics, chassis, suspension and tyre developments IMHO.
Shirley if they further reduce the aeordynamics/wing areas the cars will have to slow for the twisties. Or go over to control tyres, perhaps even road legal ones, this would help the sport and keep the costs down. ...............but none of this will help Bernies pocket lining though as it affects some of the main sponsors, that'll be the tyre manufacturers. Whereas to piss off the engine suppliers is no personal (finacial) consequence to him IMHO .

Harry

[treehack]

don't really get the survivalbe accident thing.
making a car go fast does not just mean in a straight line.it has to be able to go thru the twisty bits at a greater speed aswell or be able to scrub speed off quicker then they can now.
if this happens then drivers will evolve who can deal with the added strains on the body(maybe even enough to break Shumachers strangle hold)
sure some circuits are dangerous,driver's even admit this.but they now there jobs and the car's capabillity and drive accordingly.i suppose i'll get a "what if something breaks" reply but IMO thats a crock of shit as if a modern F1 car has a mechanical faliure then it's pot luck for the driver if he lives or ends up hovis

[Frik]

treehack said:

...i suppose i'll get a "what if something breaks" reply but IMO thats a crock of shit as if a modern F1 car has a mechanical faliure then it's pot luck for the driver if he lives or ends up hovis

Except that the last time someone died in a "modern" F1 car was over 10 years ago.

You have raised the important point though. It doesn't matter how good the car is as going/stopping, once the driver has lost control the engine, aerodynamics and all the technology on the car bar the safety cell count for nothing. That's why keeping the speeds down is so important.

Also, people keep mentioning (including this thread) that the failure of the governing bodies to significantly reduce downforce is a big nod to the advertisers. Whilst there may be a case to answer here, I think you will find that it comes back to the above argument and the aerodynamicist's nightmare of downforce versus drag. Whilst their job is to increase the former whilst keeping the latter as low as possible, reducing wing area generally reduces both. Hence if the Mr Mosley wants to keep speeds down, reducing drag ain't going to help...

[williamp]

This might muddy the water, but aren't they going to reduce the downforce anyway? I seem to remember at Monza a lot of people saying that this setting (ie few wingfs, very thin chord, low drag) would be the default for all circuits next year???

[carsarecool]

treehack said:

don't really get the survivalbe accident thing. making a car go fast does not just mean in a straight line.it has to be able to go thru the twisty bits at a greater speed aswell or be able to scrub speed off quicker then they can now. if this happens then drivers will evolve who can deal with the added strains on the body(maybe even enough to break Shumachers strangle hold) sure some circuits are dangerous,driver's even admit this.but they now there jobs and the car's capabillity and drive accordingly.i suppose i'll get a "what if something breaks" reply but IMO thats a crock of shit as if a modern F1 car has a mechanical faliure then it's pot luck for the driver if he lives or ends up hovis

From a man who drives a three wheeler.......






(It's ok, he's family, I'm allowed to take the pi$$)

[treehack]

no your not

[pib]

I just don't get it! Here they are dreaming up these radical regulations but they won't increase mechanical grip very much if at all from what I understand. Return to slicks and make the wings so small advertisers can just fit their initials on them.

[v8thunder]

treehack said:

i reckon that manufacturer's should be allowed to race anything they think will beat the opposition.no rules whatsoever,surley F1 is the pinnicle of motor sport so why should they be constrained by a rule book. grond effects,big bad assed turbo engines,6 wheelers etc,etc.car designer's are always tring to beat the rule book so take it away and let's see what they can come up with.would make for some interesting racing i think

That's the awkward balance in motorsport - is it about the cars or the drivers?

IMO F1 is (or should be) the highest level of driver's championship, as it is the fastest single-seater realm of racing. For close racing, they should be in same-spec cars. People would watch it then, plus F1 cars are already hampered technically by their open-wheel layout.

IMO the WSCC should be brought back - ie LeMans-style cars in a year-round endurance series with loads of classes and LeMans as one of the stages. The rules? There aren't any. You can enter a wingless fighter jet if you want, or a hatchback with a turbo the size of Jupiter.

Also, I reckon now they'd know how to regulate it, an experimental rallying category needs to be introduced, like a sort of neo-Group B. Again, anything goes, just introduce loose 'classes' and off you go.

Motorsport in the '70s and '80s was so much more exciting because it was either all about the drivers or all about the cars. Nowadays it seems to be all about the rules, the advertising or the money

[rlk500]

I think the engine building plan is to try and reduce costs by limiting the use of exotic materials for engine components. Therefore it has to be good old cast iron, ali and steel and no more "compound-x9vtl7".........