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

[Seismica]

What worries me is this:

In a bid to further increase F1's green credentials, teams are also keen for there to be a fuel flow rate limit - which will ensure the engines are economical.

Williams technical director Sam Michael said: "Rather than dump as much fuel in as we can at the moment, there will be a fuel flow metre - so you won't be able to blow more than a certain amount of fuel. It is a good chunk less than we had at the moment."

If the fuel flow limit is too low it will remove the situation we have now where teams/drivers can manage their fuel flow at different points in the race. As we saw at Turkey (The two Red Bulls, and then the two Mclarens), the fuel management can create overtaking opportunities. I hope they don't implement this.

Ground effects are good in my opinion. I think they could reduce the overall downforce of the car in the process (or keep the downforce the same but improve the ability for the cars to run closer). So they need to be closely regulated to ensure that the overall downforce levels of the car remain lower than we have now.

But I agree with Ardius, engine regulations should be opened up. One of the great innovations in high level sports such as this is fuel efficiency. It is one of the highest priorities, because the more fuel efficient the car is the less fuel it has to carry. They're always developing ways to improve the fuel efficiency of the cars whilst maintaining the power output. Because of the nature of the circuits in F1 these days, a large difference in engine power is not that significant (As it was for example at the old Hockenheimring). But at the same time, opening up the regulations would open up differing paths of development that teams can choose to follow, so I think it would make the sport more enjoyable to watch, as opposed to what we have now where all cars have very similar power outputs and stringently regulated engine weight and dimensions.

Reducing the size of the engines will no doubt improve fuel efficiency, but at the expense of car performance. It will also reduce the need to make the cars as fuel efficient as possible, as the required fuel to run a race distance will have reduced significantly so the gains from improving efficiency will be smaller and less attractive for the teams to invest time and money into.

I think a 2 litre, six cyclinder turbocharged engine would be a good compromise.

 

[Matti_Dude]

It's unlikely to be measured before turbos I've not known that to be done before. No doubt the boost will be comparable to that of a Mercedes A-class diesel too. I think it will be 650BHP then with about 100BHP for kers. It's still very disappointing, wasn't the '04 Honda putting out 1080BHP at Suzuka or something ridiculous? I seem to remember the turbo cars of 1985 putting out obscene amounts of power well over 1100 BHP. They've gone completely the wrong way. Reduce downforce, increase power.

Daan, Gilles knew what he was talking about, he'd be turning in his grave if he saw the new regulations.

This. 650bhp is also too little, I'd rather not see KERS make a comeback either. Having a variable boost gauge sounds better to me, that way teams will have to find the balance between fuel consumption and speed, like how it used to be. Turning up the boost would mean that later on you would have to save fuel, but using KERS is penalty free and in my opinion is not proper racing. We want to see driver's using all of their skills and race craft to pass somebody, not simply pressing a button and driving past them.

 

[Jim Prower]

I still say go with the CART regs of 1999, updated and loosened up a little. 850HP 3.5 V8s with turbos...perhaps limit the boost a little to 750, and maybe run these KERS so Greenpeace doesn't picket every race. I still wanna see what they do with the physically larger, heavier cars. I really think teams'll do interesting things to overcome the weight.

 

[Only_in_f1]

More downforce and the drivers will black out in high speed corners.

This is why in 2015, while the drivers are too busy with hover boards, teams will build robot drivers to drive the cars to the limits of physics with ground efects, winglets, turbo boosts and rocket propelled cars.

This. 650bhp is also too little, I'd rather not see KERS make a comeback either. Having a variable boost gauge sounds better to me, that way teams will have to find the balance between fuel consumption and speed, like how it used to be. Turning up the boost would mean that later on you would have to save fuel, but using KERS is penalty free and in my opinion is not proper racing. We want to see driver's using all of their skills and race craft to pass somebody, not simply pressing a button and driving past them.

I don't like the idea of moveable wings either and I agree with KERS. I dislike an 'overtake' button too where a driver has a certain amount of boosts he can use. More testing, more power, less downforce. I'm just echoing what many have said.

 

[lbsf1]

Really I think the FIA should open up regulations for performance (engine, areo) but keep very strict safety rules. F1 should be the top of the top of motorsport, with cars that only the most skilled having a hope of controlling.

1970's/80's but with better safety systems pretty much.

 

[Matti_Dude]

Really I think the FIA should open up regulations for performance (engine, areo) but keep very strict safety rules. F1 should be the top of the top of motorsport, with cars that only the most skilled having a hope of controlling.

1970's/80's but with better safety systems pretty much.

I don't think that will happen due to all of the cost cutting that they are trying to do 👎

 

[Akmuq]

F1 is supposed to be the best cars in the world. They are not supposed to be slower, even if only in a straight line to anything. They only seem to get to 220mph while the LMPs can get to about 240mph.

 

[Seismica]

F1 is supposed to be the best cars in the world. They are not supposed to be slower, even if only in a straight line to anything. They only seem to get to 220mph while the LMPs can get to about 240mph.

That is because they are open wheelers. LMP cars are much heavier and slower around a circuit as a result.

But I agree with you that they should be the fastest (Just not in a straight line). The regulations have to limit them to an extent for various reasons (Cost, Safety etc.), but the FIA should always ensure that Formula One is the pinnacle of motorsport in that the cars are the fastest around a circuit. Actively reducing the cars performance like implementing the proposed engine regulations is a step backwards.

I mean, we're still not over the fact that F1 cars no longer have V10s. The performance gained over the past 3-5 years of development means they are now just about on par with the V10s of old despite the lack of power. Going to a 4 cyclinder is reducing the power even further.

I'm beginning to suspect many of the lap records set in 2004-5 are never going to be beaten.

 

[Ardius]

How come 650bhp is not enough (before KERS too) yet current F1 cars only produce approximately 750bhp (I think the lowest is Renault at 730?) anyway?
Can we really see any bigger horsepower limits if they are trying to keep costs down and therefore engine usage? Not to mention the fuel limit too.

I rather hope this means engine development is open to allow the possiblity of more horsepower if the engine manufacturers think they can manage it with reliability. Unlikely with the afforementioned cost cutting though.

Ah, the impossibility of being a technological forefront and being cheap. At some point you have to decide which you want. I support making F1 cheaper but at the same time I don't want to see technology no longer be an important key. Or at least, I don't want to see teams running spec cars.

Also, its amusing to see that a suggestion made at the FOTA fan forum of annual fuel limits has actually been taken onboard by FOTA. Whoever suggested that has the best bragging rights ever if it happens.

 

[Akmuq]

I'm beginning to suspect the lap records set between 2000 and 2006 are never going to be beaten.

Not officialy because of the no refuelling, but in qualifying they are really close. I think that in 2012 they will all be beaten in qualifying apart from Monza.

 

[Peter]

No, because any hint that the cars are getting faster, and the FIA comes along and puts on even more limitations. Why did the FIA decide to slow the cars down in so many ways since 2004?

 

[Akmuq]

Yeah but there is only so much the fia can do. If they slow them down to much we could see a breakaway series.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

F1 is supposed to be the best cars in the world. They are not supposed to be slower, even if only in a straight line to anything. They only seem to get to 220mph while the LMPs can get to about 240mph.

The 1960s saw perfectly good racing - indeed, some would argue that it produced the best racing - with engines that produced just 400bhp.

If they slow them down to much we could see a breakaway series.

I seriously doubt it. The teams couldn't even establish their own breakaway series over the rules debate last year.

 

[Antti-san]

So, any ideas what these 2013 cars could look like?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So, any ideas what these 2013 cars could look like?

Not in the slightest. The regulations are only just being proposed, and mostly relate to the engines. The only bodywork aspects we know of as being thrown around are ground effects and there's talk of moving the sidepods further forward. Other than that, nothing. We probably won't know the final 2013 regulations until some time in 2012.

 

[Matti_Dude]

The 1960s saw perfectly good racing - indeed, some would argue that it produced the best racing - with engines that produced just 400bhp.

Yeah but back then they were still the quickest race cars around by far, except for the monster le mans cars which would blow them away on the straight.

 

[Dan360]

By 2012 F1 cars will cut emissions by 10%. How will this affect the turbo thing? Also, i agree that the cars should have more bhp. Ayrton Senna's McMerc had 1200 bhp, along with really low downforce. Bring back wheel to wheel action!

 

[Antti-san]

By 2012 F1 cars will cut emissions by 10%. How will this affect the turbo thing? Also, i agree that the cars should have more bhp. Ayrton Senna's McMerc had 1200 bhp, along with really low downforce. Bring back wheel to wheel action!

Back then McLaren used Honda engines, though.

 

[Matti_Dude]

By 2012 F1 cars will cut emissions by 10%. How will this affect the turbo thing? Also, i agree that the cars should have more bhp. Ayrton Senna's McMerc had 1200 bhp, along with really low downforce. Bring back wheel to wheel action!

Senna's McLaren never had 1200bhp, no matter what year it was. His lotus probably did, but not his McLarens. You only saw power figures that high when turbos were allowed and had now boost restrictions.

 

[Ardius]

Not to mention they had qualifying special engines which produced that power for just one lap. In the race, they never went that high.

 

[Stevisiov]

Take me back to 70's style of F1 please.

Also the days when men died.

To be honest, they tighten up the regs to slow the cars down, yet the cars are as fast as they used to be in a year or two.

 

[niky]

Mark Webber will no doubt use the back of Heikki Kovalainen's car.

Vettel will use anyones car.

Didn't take long for the RBR bashing to start!

What worries me is this:

If the fuel flow limit is too low it will remove the situation we have now where teams/drivers can manage their fuel flow at different points in the race. As we saw at Turkey (The two Red Bulls, and then the two Mclarens), the fuel management can create overtaking opportunities. I hope they don't implement this.

Ditto.

They should simply set a maximum tank size. No fuel flow limit. No engine restrictions. Simply... it's up to the teams to figure out the fastest way to get around a track with a set amount of fuel.

But, in favor of the 650 hp engine regs:

How come 650bhp is not enough (before KERS too) yet current F1 cars only produce approximately 750bhp (I think the lowest is Renault at 730?) anyway?

Ground effects cars that are lighter than LMPs with 650 hp plus hydraulic/electric/whatever boost? These things will be quick. Quicker than LMPs, and quicker than lower formula cars. A 650 hp 1.6 will still be a more sophisticated, meaner engine than anything in any other Formula. In fact, if F1 moves towards ground effects away from wings, they could be much faster than they are now.

I suppose one good thing to come out of the fuel flow limit is it'll force teams to have an alternative energy storage method to enable overtaking... (unlimited KERS duration and power? Hmmmm...) but I'd rather see them allow teams to figure this out on their own rather than forcing a set solution.

 

[Akmuq]

KERS is only good if some of the cars have it, therefore we can have more unpredictable starts. I don't agree with the FIA increasing the weight of the car for next year.

 

[Ardius]

I don't agree with the FIA increasing the weight of the car for next year.

Why? Would you prefer only short drivers have an advantage? This is why they do it - so that KERS isn't disadvantaging the taller drivers.

 

[Seismica]

It's also to give an incentive for all teams to use Kers. Those who don't will have more freedom with ballast, but using Kers will be far more beneficial.

I really doubt that the weight difference between the short and tall drivers is 50kg (Which I think is the increase in the minimum for next year?). But nevertheless, shorter, lighter drivers already have an advantage. I would imagine it's easier to get the weight distribution right when the driver doesn't weigh so much, so it is a factor.

The driver weight factor makes you think why certain teams have tall and short drivers. Button/Hamilton, Webber/Vettel etc. Surely it would be more beneficial to have two drivers approximately the same weight and height?

 

[niky]

It's also to give an incentive for all teams to use Kers. Those who don't will have more freedom with ballast, but using Kers will be far more beneficial.

I really doubt that the weight difference between the short and tall drivers is 50kg (Which I think is the increase in the minimum for next year?). But nevertheless, shorter, lighter drivers already have an advantage. I would imagine it's easier to get the weight distribution right when the driver doesn't weigh so much, so it is a factor.

The driver weight factor makes you think why certain teams have tall and short drivers. Button/Hamilton, Webber/Vettel etc. Surely it would be more beneficial to have two drivers approximately the same weight and height?

It is, but mind you... I'd rather have to put up with Robert Kubica's extra height than have to put up with a five-foot-nothing nobody who can't drive...

It's not so much the weight as it is the space the drive occupies in the car. Kubica is so big that packaging KERS in a chassis that has to accomodate the length of his legs became a problem last year. And the extra height means that he has more mass up top than a shorter driver. Though the overall weight is the same, the high minimum weights in F1 meant that shorter drivers had ballast that the teams could position low in the chassis... so he had a double-handicap.

 

[Ardius]

Kubica's main problem in 2009 was trying to work out decent setups for the car, as he had less ballast (ballast that you can place at the front or rear of the car to alter the weight distribution) to use thanks to the KERS. Its not so much the space, as I believe all the cockpits have FIA-set dimensions for safety. Its purely a weight thing.
The effect isn't as dramatic as Kubica's problems, as it was also a terrible KERS system anyway it seems and the car without KERS didn't appear to work well either. But it did give him a disadvantage.

 

[lalaurentide]

This is wierd, the FIA is doing it the wrong way around, they should reduce downforce and increase power, dimishing power and increasing downforce will make those formulas easier to drive and less prone to grip loss, errors and overtakes, they need a car that shows how much better Hamilton is compared to Button.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

they need a car that shows how much better Hamilton is compared to Button.

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

 

[Radracing]

Toyota had a 2 liter inline 4 that dominated the IMSA racing series. It had about 750hp, so I don't see how it won't work for F1. The Offenhauser engine, familiarly known as the "Offy", was another example that won the Indy 500 back in the old days.

http://www.supercars.net/cars/3829.html