1.6L 4 Pot Turbos for F1 from 2013?
Discussion
How long has 2.4 litres been a "large capacity engine"?!?!
14.8 litre and 2700bhp, now that's my idea of a large capacity V8:
I hope the powers that be know what they're doing, irrespective of how "environmentaly friendly" they are (does anyone actually give a damn about any motorsport's green credentials?)or how efficient they are, 1600cc 4 cylinder engines just don't scream "pinnacle of motorsport". I agree that yes the technology is more "relevant" to road cars, but then again are the efforts that go in to extracting 600+ bhp from 1600cc going to be any more relevant or achievable for road cars than the 750 they're currenly extracting from the V8s?? I don't see how. This environmental stuff's getting ridiculous, sure shrink the engine capacities and fuel consumption down and then transport them via jumbo jets and articulated trucks all around the world all year long....very "green". Not racing at all would be even more kind to the environment, how long before they consider that?!
I dunno, I'm all for progress and developing technology but surely formula one is supposed to be a complete sensuary experience, and removing the spine tingling sensation of a V8 singing at 18000rpm can only hinder that surely? I guess we'll see, I hope I get proven wrong.
14.8 litre and 2700bhp, now that's my idea of a large capacity V8:
I hope the powers that be know what they're doing, irrespective of how "environmentaly friendly" they are (does anyone actually give a damn about any motorsport's green credentials?)or how efficient they are, 1600cc 4 cylinder engines just don't scream "pinnacle of motorsport". I agree that yes the technology is more "relevant" to road cars, but then again are the efforts that go in to extracting 600+ bhp from 1600cc going to be any more relevant or achievable for road cars than the 750 they're currenly extracting from the V8s?? I don't see how. This environmental stuff's getting ridiculous, sure shrink the engine capacities and fuel consumption down and then transport them via jumbo jets and articulated trucks all around the world all year long....very "green". Not racing at all would be even more kind to the environment, how long before they consider that?!
I dunno, I'm all for progress and developing technology but surely formula one is supposed to be a complete sensuary experience, and removing the spine tingling sensation of a V8 singing at 18000rpm can only hinder that surely? I guess we'll see, I hope I get proven wrong.
"The new engines will not do more than 10,000 revs per minute "
So Formula 1 cars will sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZjtic2rVZI
WTF.
So Formula 1 cars will sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZjtic2rVZI
WTF.
Well, this V6 1.5L turbo from Honda sounds pretty good. Only 14,000RPM, but 710BHP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-KtVqcuyN4
600+ BHP should be easily achievable with today's technology. I dare say F1 engine makers could produce 4-pot 1.6L turbos that can push out 750BHP (current 2.4L V8's nominal power rating) in race-trim while being reliable enough to be limited to 8 units per season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-KtVqcuyN4
600+ BHP should be easily achievable with today's technology. I dare say F1 engine makers could produce 4-pot 1.6L turbos that can push out 750BHP (current 2.4L V8's nominal power rating) in race-trim while being reliable enough to be limited to 8 units per season.
Let's not write it off just yet eh?
I can't say I give a monkey's personally. The power output will remain the same if not a smidgen higher, and on the face of it, it looks like a step in the right direction when it comes to innovation too. I don't think F1 should be pedalling an green ethos, but if they can demonstrate amazing technology and at the same time advance the game on for the rest of the auto industry, well what's not to like?
It's not like the V8's sound especially great anyway, frankly my motorbike sounds nicer, certainly more meaty. The V10's are dead and buried (sadly, IMO) and not likely to come back, and a compact engine with some fairly compact ancillary systems surely also means they can control CoG and centralise mass better?
I'll remain open minded about it, I don't see the cars getting any slower and I think something to mix it up a bit and force the drivers to adapt and evolve can only be a good thing when it comes to separating the men from the boys. It's a shame they won't take their traction control away from them and see the heavy footers who rely on it spinning up the back wheels mid-corner when they unexpectedly hit full boost
(let me dream OK?! 
)
I can't say I give a monkey's personally. The power output will remain the same if not a smidgen higher, and on the face of it, it looks like a step in the right direction when it comes to innovation too. I don't think F1 should be pedalling an green ethos, but if they can demonstrate amazing technology and at the same time advance the game on for the rest of the auto industry, well what's not to like?
It's not like the V8's sound especially great anyway, frankly my motorbike sounds nicer, certainly more meaty. The V10's are dead and buried (sadly, IMO) and not likely to come back, and a compact engine with some fairly compact ancillary systems surely also means they can control CoG and centralise mass better?
I'll remain open minded about it, I don't see the cars getting any slower and I think something to mix it up a bit and force the drivers to adapt and evolve can only be a good thing when it comes to separating the men from the boys. It's a shame they won't take their traction control away from them and see the heavy footers who rely on it spinning up the back wheels mid-corner when they unexpectedly hit full boost
(let me dream OK?! )
in principle i think the regulations are fine, but two elements i really don't like:
1. arbitrary rev limit
2. limit to max power of KERS.
delete those two rules and it would be a very innovative engine formula. Use the max fuel and fuel flow rate to control power.
the engine formula will not help develop more efficient engines if there are limitations on the max power produced. Remove the limits on power and keep them on fuel usage and it will help develop efficient engines.
this is all a bit of a nonsense anyway because the current V8 engines are way more efficient than any road car engine.
1. arbitrary rev limit
2. limit to max power of KERS.
delete those two rules and it would be a very innovative engine formula. Use the max fuel and fuel flow rate to control power.
the engine formula will not help develop more efficient engines if there are limitations on the max power produced. Remove the limits on power and keep them on fuel usage and it will help develop efficient engines.
this is all a bit of a nonsense anyway because the current V8 engines are way more efficient than any road car engine.
think this is all crap really....
pandering the the greens will only end in tears, it's just pointless....
Way I see it, it's stifling creativity and engine developments...
if they want efficient powertrains, they should just do what Group C did, ie. specify an amount of fuel per race, you can use whatever engine you like, with no limit's to Kers/etc. other than what you can design/make/get to work.
and before anybody goes on about budget's, honestly, you telling me that this would cost more than the marketing + hostilities budget of most teams?
we need innovation, on several levels, what we don't need is another F3000/F3/GP2 (or god forbid, F2).
pandering the the greens will only end in tears, it's just pointless....
Way I see it, it's stifling creativity and engine developments...
if they want efficient powertrains, they should just do what Group C did, ie. specify an amount of fuel per race, you can use whatever engine you like, with no limit's to Kers/etc. other than what you can design/make/get to work.
and before anybody goes on about budget's, honestly, you telling me that this would cost more than the marketing + hostilities budget of most teams?
we need innovation, on several levels, what we don't need is another F3000/F3/GP2 (or god forbid, F2).
SamHH said:
Scuffers said:
Way I see it, it's stifling creativity and engine developments...
Why? Engine development is not allow at all currently, so how will a new engine formula that all competitors will have to develop from scratch stifle creativity?Scuffers said:
Way I see it, it's stifling creativity and engine developments...
if they want efficient powertrains, they should just do what Group C did, ie. specify an amount of fuel per race, you can use whatever engine you like, with no limit's to Kers/etc. other than what you can design/make/get to work.
That is exactly what I want to see. It'd be much easier to regulate too.if they want efficient powertrains, they should just do what Group C did, ie. specify an amount of fuel per race, you can use whatever engine you like, with no limit's to Kers/etc. other than what you can design/make/get to work.
Rat_Fink_67 said:
I hope the powers that be know what they're doing, irrespective of how "environmentaly friendly" they are (does anyone actually give a damn about any motorsport's green credentials?)or how efficient they are, 1600cc 4 cylinder engines just don't scream "pinnacle of motorsport". I agree that yes the technology is more "relevant" to road cars, but then again are the efforts that go in to extracting 600+ bhp from 1600cc going to be any more relevant or achievable for road cars than the 750 they're currenly extracting from the V8s?? I don't see how. This environmental stuff's getting ridiculous, sure shrink the engine capacities and fuel consumption down and then transport them via jumbo jets and articulated trucks all around the world all year long....very "green". Not racing at all would be even more kind to the environment, how long before they consider that?!
I dunno, I'm all for progress and developing technology but surely formula one is supposed to be a complete sensuary experience, and removing the spine tingling sensation of a V8 singing at 18000rpm can only hinder that surely? I guess we'll see, I hope I get proven wrong.
It's not about emissions (An F1 engine already produces less CO2 per BHP than a Toyota Prius) but about efficiency - getting more from less. I dunno, I'm all for progress and developing technology but surely formula one is supposed to be a complete sensuary experience, and removing the spine tingling sensation of a V8 singing at 18000rpm can only hinder that surely? I guess we'll see, I hope I get proven wrong.
I can't see why they are going for 1.6l fours, surely a 1.8l V6 would be better, that way they could keep the core 300cc / cylinder structure they have today and have had since the 3.0 V10. Yes, the combustion chamber design would have to change to suit turbo charging, but thats not a massive expensive nest to design a whole new engine structure...
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff