2014 engines: inline-fours out, turbo-charged V6 engines in

[TVC]

I don't really think they are trying to slow them down or even make them safer. I think it has more to do with making the racing better and making the teams become more creative. It makes it more challenging for the teams which makes them more innovative because they will do anything to be even a little faster and that makes the racing better (closer).

I mean any team can make a high horse power car with a V12 and stuff like that but that but I think the FIA wants F1 to be more innovative than that. I mean isn't one reason for racing to make innovations that will one day possibly be seen on a road car? If every team was using a 1000+ HP V10 or V12 with a turbo charger you wouldn't really see them doing anything new...

 

[tibiquera]

I saw this really good article regarding the issue that I would definitely recommending taking a look at:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/09/f1-moves-towards-a-completely-new-formula-for-2013/

 

[niky]

Its purely a weight thing.

I still think those extra few inches of head incur a drag penalty... ...mind you, that's just a theory.

What, you're afraid that JB has some talent?

*zing!*

As if the current McLaren didn't already show how much faster in qualifying trim Hamilton is than Button. But Button is good at getting results, no matter his qualifying pace.

-

I wonder if the rule system is flexible enough to allow for beefed up fuel rails?

Think about it... you have a maximum flow limit. So pressurize an auxiliary fuel rail on the run-down into a corner, when you won't be using all of that flow... then you've suddenly got a lot of extra fuel to work with on the exit... probably good for another 50+ hp boost on top of KERS.

Can I patent that?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Can I patent that?

Sure - but the proposed 2013 regulations would include a fuel feed restrictor.

 

[niky]

Sure - but the proposed 2013 regulations would include a fuel feed restrictor.

Before the rail, isn't it? You can't restrict between the fuel rail and injectors. What I'm proposing is over-pressurizing the fuel rail on run-downs so you have extra fuel on corner exit. Not a great amount... but enough for a short burst of power.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think the regulations will be written in a way to prevent that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

More details?

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp...85656&FS=F1

A 10,000rpm limit doesn't sound like much, but I'm willing to bet that KERS will be given a much greater emphasis pick up the slack.

 

[Reims_]

Before the rail, isn't it? You can't restrict between the fuel rail and injectors. What I'm proposing is over-pressurizing the fuel rail on run-downs so you have extra fuel on corner exit. Not a great amount... but enough for a short burst of power.

You can limit how much the injectors squirt through the ECU...

 

[Pupik]

You can limit how much the injectors squirt through the ECU...

Which is kind of why the FIA restricts the ECUs.

Also, we should take every historical horsepower figure we've ever heard and cut it by 20-25% for reality and reliability in any race setting.

 

[Ardius]

Its not horsepower that matters anyway, its torque thats more important. (and sound I guess too, which sadly is never going to be V10, V12 or even V16 stuff)

Its interesting that the WRC, Indycar and F1 series will all use (or allow) 1.6 V6 Turbo engines. Certainly opens the options up for all series doesn't it? If a manufacturer enters one series, they could feasibly supply the others. Of course, an F1 engine is going to have different requirements to a rally engine, but the layouts will be similar and I assume the jump between them wouldn't be so much (as opposed to how it is now).
At the very least Indycar and F1 would be pretty straightforward.

These regulations are clearly not about slowing the cars down and more about providing cheap, reliable and relevant options.

 

[TheCracker]

Its not horsepower that matters anyway, its torque thats more important. (and sound I guess too, which sadly is never going to be V10, V12 or even V16 stuff)

Torques not all that important in a lightweight car like an F1. Current V8 F1 engines might have somewhere in the region of 750 bhp, but they only have about 200 ft·lb - less than a Škoda Fabia 1.9 TDi.

 

[Reims_]

I'm not sure on this but I think an F1 car makes almost no (in context) torque but a heap of power. They get good power out of small capacity engines by revving the crap out of them. Remember a 2 litre engine has pistons the size of a childs fist while a 6.2 litre has pistons the size of an open palm. Also, the only way they can rev them so hard is to have a short stroke too.

a 1.3 V6 or a 2 litre v8 or whatever won't make decent hp unless it can rev > 15 000rpm.

 

[niky]

You can limit how much the injectors squirt through the ECU...

Damnit.

Its not horsepower that matters anyway, its torque thats more important. (and sound I guess too, which sadly is never going to be V10, V12 or even V16 stuff)

Actually... I think tiny turbocharged sixes might give us decent sound... depending on how they're built. I'm still a-shiver with the idea of turbos returning to F1!

Torques not all that important in a lightweight car like an F1. Current V8 F1 engines might have somewhere in the region of 750 bhp, but they only have about 200 ft·lb - less than a Škoda Fabia 1.9 TDi.

No turbos. But torque is important... or, at least... the torque curve is... which is why the Renault engine still works against the Ferrari engine in F1... despite being down on top-end power, the way the Renault develops power at lower rpms gives it good corner-exit speed... important in defending positions. Can't recall right now, but it seems Renault's engines have been that way in comparison to Ferrari's for years now.

a 1.3 V6 or a 2 litre v8 or whatever won't make decent hp unless it can rev > 15 000rpm.

True for naturally aspirated engines... for turbos... well.. it'll depend on the turbo... they'll definitely have to rev them to 10,000 rpm plus, but how much higher depends on whether they'll allow variable geometry turbos or not...

Actually... I wonder why they don't just allow higher displacement plus turbos then cap fuel supply? That way, you can make a lower-revving turbocharged 3 liter or something similar that will last much, much longer than a highly strung 650+ hp 1.6.

 

[PeterJB]

Instead of trying to slow the cars down, since the teams seem top find loopholes in all the regulations intended for that, they should just give in and let the teams go nuts! V12's, Ground Effect, Turbo's, KERS, No power limitations, the whole shebang!

 

[Radracing]

They should cater the rules to what manufacturers want to develope for mass production cars. So small / light displacement engines that are fuel efficient and can make use of other technologies with regard to tubos, kers or what ever else they can come up with even an electric motor charged with a generator if they can make them run over 200mph.

 

[TheBook]

Instead of trying to slow the cars down, since the teams seem top find loopholes in all the regulations intended for that, they should just give in and let the teams go nuts! V12's, Ground Effect, Turbo's, KERS, No power limitations, the whole shebang!

No driver aids though. Traction control? Launch control? Stability control? ABS? They're the best drivers in the world; they don't need that crap.

 

[Matti_Dude]

No driver aids though. Traction control? Launch control? Stability control? ABS? They're the best drivers in the world; they don't need that crap.

Take out KERS and that would be the perfect series, but we all know that will never happen. The whole idea that restricting the fuel to force the teams to reduce the drag on their cars does sound like a very good idea. I just don't agree with the lack of power and all of the emphasis on KERS.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Instead of trying to slow the cars down, since the teams seem top find loopholes in all the regulations intended for that, they should just give in and let the teams go nuts! V12's, Ground Effect, Turbo's, KERS, No power limitations, the whole shebang!

We had that in 2004. It sucked - Ferrari were the only ones who won anything. All it's going to do is create another manufacturer arms race where the winner is the person who spends the most money. The teams know that if they throw a hundred million dollars at their car, it might gain them a tenth of a second per lap, and in Formula 1, that's generally worth it. They won't hestitate, but they'l likely drive Lotus, Virgin, Williams, Hispania, Force India, Sauber and Toro Rosso out of the sport because they simply cannot keep up with the spending. The manufacturers were the worst thing to happen to Formula 1 because they're more interested in selling road cars than in actual racing the way the private teams - which exist to race and only to race - do.

 

[Ardius]

The manufacturers are better being engine suppliers and perhaps title sponsors only, most of them have run pretty terrible teams.
The main problem is that they try to impose their ideals to the team and their drivers, etc. Very few of the manufacturers actually sat down and listened to experienced F1 team leaders, for example, Mike Gascoyne with Toyota, the several management changes at Jaguar, the disagreements between Williams and BMW.

They also expect results and are there more for the publicity rather than just to race, as interludes said. They are less likely to stay in the sport long and more than likely shut their teams down (as opposed to simply being sponsors or engine suppliers, where they don't mean the instant closure of the team).

Most of the manufacturers appeared quite souless in their image too, which is odd because you would think they would try harder than anyone to boost their fanbase. Although I guess this says it all, they weren't here for the F1 fanbase, just the advertising space and glory.

 

[PAPPACLART]

Jeez 1600cc is small!!!

A 1300cc suzuki Hayabusa motorcycle has made 700bhp + all turbo'd up!! May be a cheap option to buy a Hayabusa engine, bore it out to 1600cc add a big turbo and stick it in a new F1 car for 2013! hahaha

Here is a stage 5 660bhp Hayabusa engine http://www.holeshot-racing.co.uk/index.php?page=hayabusa-stage-5-turbo

Here is how you make it 1585cc!!
1585cc (84mm big bore, high compression), Gasflowed head, Cams, etc. 220hp rear wheel
71.5mm stroker crank and arrow conrods (1585cc with 84mm bore) £2,100.00
High Compression Piston Kit £380.00
Cylinder block, boring, replating to suit new oversize pistons £450.00
Gas Flowed Head including 3 angle cut seats etc. £350.00
Reprofiled High Lift Camshafts including adjustable sprockets £300.00
Valve shims £60.00
Gaskets £60.00
Engine work labour to strip & rebuild, dial in cams, set valve clearances, etc. £800.00
Total = £4,500.00

If allowed it would be a cheap way to kit up an F1 car with an engine!! not sure how reliable it would be though! hahaha

 

[niky]

That's the problem. Sure, you could make an insane amount of power from it, but will it hold up at maximum revs at that power level for two hours straight several weekends in a row?

But the idea does have appeal... Suzuki F1, anyone? With Kamui Kobayashi in the first car...

 

[VNAF Ace]

Sweet! IndyCars will once again be the most powerful open wheel cars in the world!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Sweet! IndyCars will once again be the most powerful open wheel cars in the world!

In terms of sheer horsepower ... yes. But horsepower isn't the only way to make the car go faster. Formula 1 will be armed with KERS, turbos, proper ground effects and slick tyres. KERS gave an extra 80bhp last year, which automatically makes the revised horsepower total 730bhp. Doubtless it will be more powerful in 2013; there was talk of increasing KERS to 160bhp for 2011, which would make the 2013 total 810bhp. Meanwhile, Indycar will be using the ICONIC project, which I doubt will make the cars go much faster. Hell, I expect them to be slower.

 

[red7]

I saw this really good article regarding the issue that I would definitely recommending taking a look at:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/09/f1-moves-towards-a-completely-new-formula-for-2013/

Yup, definitely clarifies the reasons behind the rules. KERS seems to have gotten a bad rap from it's somewhat unprepared debut. It's sort of shocking and ignorant. More people need to look into what is going on in the real world even with high performance hybrids and see this is the future of sports and racing cars. Formula one needs to be industry relevant while using less energy more efficiently to go even faster!

 

[VNAF Ace]

To interludes: IndyCars have used ground effect since the 1980s. IndyCars will also have turbocharged V6 engines, slick tires, and possibly 100 HP of Push 2 Pass (increased turbo boost for passing) which could push 2012 IndyCars up to 800 HP.

 

[PAPPACLART]

That's the problem. Sure, you could make an insane amount of power from it, but will it hold up at maximum revs at that power level for two hours straight several weekends in a row?

But the idea does have appeal... Suzuki F1, anyone? With Kamui Kobayashi in the first car...

With off the shelf parts no, it would not hold up. Would be lucky if it made a race!!

A hayabusa engine redlines at about 11,000rpm, and has 197bhp at the crank. To Add 450bhp would require very high turbo boost levels.

I am not sure if these 1600cc F1 turbo engines will have restrictions in place on how high they are allowed to rev but if they don't I am guessing they will push them to no more than 15000rpm, with 13000rpm being more realistic - 400cc pistons are a little big to be spinning any faster than that but still is possible to go higher.

So without turbos they will make around 300-350bhp if reving to 13000-15000rpm, then to make the magic 650bhp would need less boost than an off the shelf Hayabusa motor.


It will be interesting to see what route the F1 engineers go, lower reving motors with higher boost, or higher reving motors with lower boost?


Also as for sound, they will sound like a typical inline 4 motorbike, providing they use a traditional cylinder fire order.

 

[niky]

Yup, definitely clarifies the reasons behind the rules. KERS seems to have gotten a bad rap from it's somewhat unprepared debut. It's sort of shocking and ignorant. More people need to look into what is going on in the real world even with high performance hybrids and see this is the future of sports and racing cars. Formula one needs to be industry relevant while using less energy more efficiently to go even faster!

KERS and hybrid systems in performance cars are there because marketing demands it. In the real world, a straight, single powerplant vehicle is still a superior track weapon to a hybrid system, simply because there's less weight and less complexity, and you can make more power per dollar that way.

Even in F1, when the KERS-equipped cars finally reached parity at the end of the season with the non-KERS equipped cars, it wasn't really a sign of anything. Despite the added ballast needed to make non-KERS cars weigh as much as the KERS cars, a non-KERS car could apportion that ballast to good use... mounting it lower in the vehicle than you can mount a KERS system.

KERS was a disaster because it wasn't compulsory and it was arbitrarily limited.

It's the future... but it's a future decided by climate change politics and nothing more. A vehicle with a single source of motivation, whether it be electric, gasoline or diesel will still be a superior track tool unless politics forces handicapping that makes hybrids worth it. (As they already do in Le Mans, where they purposely tailor the rules to allow the diesel teams to run away with the race at the front).

Which is why I think it's a grand idea to simply limit the fuel allowance and let the teams decide how they want to tackle it, be it through electric assist, hydraulic assist, flywheel assist or through overboost and fuel management (remove the flow limiter). It would make for more exciting racing and open up avenues of development for more creative solutions to the problem.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

To interludes: IndyCars have used ground effect since the 1980s.

They don't use full ground effects.

 

[Owen.C93]

From BBC.

F1 ENGINE RULES FROM 2013
- 1.6-litre, four-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s
- Fuel efficiency to increase by a target of 50%
- Overall power to remain same at approx 750bhp
- Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable
- Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years
- Power of Kers energy recovery systems to increase from 60kw in 2011 to 120kw in 2013

600BHP 1.6L Turbo, with 150BHP coming from the KERS system. 10,000RPM and Fuel limit. :L

 

[PeterJB]

10,000RPM is way too low. They'll hardly sound like F1 cars anymore.