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

i would like to see them say right scrap the lot.. heres your control tyres you have to use 2 sets during the race..

you have up to this many litters of fuel to get you round the track you can choose if you put it all in at the start or not..

then reduce the fuel load by 50% from last seasson that means the teams have to use new technologies and methods to get the maximum power and MPG's that could actually be usefull in road cars..

aslong as the cars are safe allow them to use whatever arodynamics/engine configurations they want.. lets see some inovations not just 20 cars that look and sound the same in a line..
 
I can't wait until RBR make the X1, then Ferrari and the others follow eventually forming F-Zero :lol:
 
Why the hell does F1 have to go lower and lower with power and engine cylinders all the time? Can't they stick to some engine rules for more than 10 years anymore?


In 20 years, we'll have 1 cylinder 300hp engines revving at 4000rpm.


What exactly is the need for the engine regulation change? Aren't we fine with V8's now?
 
Peter
Why the hell does F1 have to go lower and lower with power and engine cylinders all the time?
Click to expand...
They've halved the number of cylinders, halved the engine capacity and halved the maximum rev limit ... and yet, the new engines will be producing the same power as the current ones. Don't you think that's slightly impressive? Don't tyou think Formula 1 should be about refining technology to try and find that perfect balance between power and torque rather than bolting an extra two cylinders on? These will be lightweight, high-powered, compact pieces of machinery.

Peter
What exactly is the need for the engine regulation change? Aren't we fine with V8's now?
Click to expand...
Two reasons: one, to attract more manufacturers to the sport. With just four on the grid, we're at a thirty-year low.

Secondly, to cut costs. Max Mosley might have gone about implementing his budget cap the wrong way, but he was right about one thing: Formula 1 needs to cut costs. Look at Ferrari, who spend four hundred million dollars a year. There is no way that is sustainable; indeed, they probably spent more on Alonso than Virgin did on their entire season. Spiralling costs is what drove so many teams and manufacturers - Honda, BMW, Toyota, Super Aguri, Spyker, Midland, Jordan - either to sell or to exit the sport. The objective is to get costs down to the point where they are comparable to the amount teams were spending in the early-to-mid-1990s, when you could put a team together for as little as five hundred thousand dollars. By cutting costs, but keeping the sport competitve, the door will be open for more teams to join. Formula 1 is downsizing itself in order to grow, because if you leave the teams to their own devices, they will keep spending because they know they can get more speed. Even if it costs them ten million dollars to gain a single tenth of a second per lap, we all know that Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren will gladly spend it and consider it money well spent. It's unsustainable.
 
The engine state are really impressive. Mitsubishi should enter the sport. Did you know that they're latest evo has 500BHP from a 3 liter engine? Just think what they could do in f1, engine-wise at least.
 
There's a 3 liter EVO? The current EVO is 2 liters... and word is that's not going to increase, as both Mitsu and Subaru are looking to go hybrid for future iterations of the STI and EVO.

Sounds interesting... but couldn't they make it happen sooner? Like 2012?
 
It's too difficult to make it happen sooner. Engines are harder to design and develop than new cars. It's been known for some time that the new engine rules would come into effect in 2013; the teams have needed as much time as possible to start developing new engines.
 
Dietrich noted that he may be interested in developing an engine for Red Bull at some stage, what he means is he will watch what happens in 2013 and learn from any mistakes.

I just hope I never see internet relevant companies like google defacing F1 cars with sponsorship, that will mark the lowest point in F1 history.
 
akmuq
The engine state are really impressive. Mitsubishi should enter the sport. Did you know that they're latest evo has 500BHP from a 3 liter engine? Just think what they could do in f1, engine-wise at least.
Click to expand...

It also has a turbo that sucks in dogs and children as you drive along.
 
RTSolvalou
Dietrich noted that he may be interested in developing an engine for Red Bull at some stage, what he means is he will watch what happens in 2013 and learn from any mistakes.

I just hope I never see internet relevant companies like google defacing F1 cars with sponsorship, that will mark the lowest point in F1 history.
Click to expand...

I don't know... we've already had softdrinks, cigarettes, beer, whiskey (though the Johnny Player Special livery was one of the best ever) and we have banks and computer companies now... I think internet and other software companies make a good fit for F1 sponsorship.

Google is the fastest search engine out there... :lol:
 
I'm of the opinion that all motorsports should be simplified now.

There's nothing to say that we can't combine the simplicity of yesteryear with the safety and economy requirements of today.

I think the 1960s was the sweet point for so many motorsports - Grand Prix cars were all now mid-engined with variations in the layout (from V8s to V16s) and still had enough power to be spectacular, noisy and no downforce putting an emphasis on mechanical grip.

Rallying was a simple affair - you picked front-drive like Saab and Mini or you had rear-drive like Renaults, Fiats, Fords and so-on. Rear-drivers had an advantage on some courses, front-drivers on others, despite power differences.

Same goes for touring cars and sports cars. Some touring cars were tiny and nimble, others fast yet heavy, sports cars could be quick and very thirsty or slower yet more economical.

Back to F1, and I'd love to see a modern interpretation of the cigar-shaped vehicles of the 1960s. You could have the driver safely cocooned in an enclosed cell, perhaps even with an aircraft-style cockpit. It would be very strong and also fireproof, yet with the option for the driver or marshalls to set off a detonator to break the glass should the driver need to jump out/be extricated quickly in an accident or fire.

Wheels wouldn't be enclosed (Red Bull X1 style) but remain as they are now. Downforce would be prohibited, emphasising mechanical grip. Suspension design would be completely open - bringing the best technical minds to the forefront.

Engine choice is a little more tricky to decide on. I'd personally like to see something quite simple, even to the point of limiting engines to a pushrod design - yet limiting capacity and leaving cylinder count open. If you give people something very basic to work with and leave their options open then hopefully again you'd see some innovation - maybe with exhaust or intake design, for instance.

It'll be interesting to see what the possible 2013 regs would do in F1 but unfortunately all the best ideas will remain a pipe dream, I reckon.
 
I personaly think F1 is getting worse the best times were 2001 rule wise.
I also think that F1 as the top level motorsport should have no car rules and have everyones take on the X1 racing.
 
Then the drivers would all die from the G forces, costs will be over 1 billion a year. It would be very unsafe.

Why so few cylinders? Why not at least Turbo V6's? And 10,000 rpm? Don't some road cars go past that? I think they'll sound horrible. At least go for 14,000 rpm.
 
RTSolvalou
I just hope I never see internet relevant companies like google defacing F1 cars with sponsorship, that will mark the lowest point in F1 history.
Click to expand...

You mean like this?
http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2010/Japanese/f1-2010-Japanese-xp-0358.jpg
 
Peter
Then the drivers would all die from the G forces
Click to expand...

...forgive me for asking a probably stupid question, but has any driver ever complained about losing consciousness through a high-G bend? And don't aircraft pilots go through much higher G-forces without blacking out?

Can someone clear this up for me, because I've never really been able to get my head around this.
 
It doesn't get discussed but much more G lap by lap and the drivers would blackout.
 
SaberFire
...forgive me for asking a probably stupid question, but has any driver ever complained about losing consciousness through a high-G bend? And don't aircraft pilots go through much higher G-forces without blacking out?

Can someone clear this up for me, because I've never really been able to get my head around this.
Click to expand...

No, but the guy I replied to was saying that there should be no rules, and have everyone racing X1's. The X1 generates over 8G, bordering the maximum human's can withstand. Drivers may not die, but to survive an extended period of time with those forces, I don't think so.
 
SaberFire
...forgive me for asking a probably stupid question, but has any driver ever complained about losing consciousness through a high-G bend? And don't aircraft pilots go through much higher G-forces without blacking out?

Can someone clear this up for me, because I've never really been able to get my head around this.
Click to expand...

I haven't herd of it in F1 but in the CART series back in 2001 drivers complained about it at Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_Firehawk_600

And yes Pilots will go up to 8 or even 10 G's but they will not sustain those High G's for very long, maybe 10 seconds at a time for no more then a minute or 2 at a time, not for an hour and a half race. They also where Flight suits which restrict blood from the legs during these high G maneuvers to keep blood in the head. But at the same time the angle the G's come on the body of a Pilot and the angle they come on a driver are to separate things. there the pilots taking them vertically (blood going from the head to the legs) the drivers take them horizontally (blood going from one side to the other).
 
Honda maybe interested to return to F1 with the new engine regulations as they are bringing out a new 1.6 turbo petrol engine to replace their iconic 2.0 NA engine.
Looking likely that Audi will compete too with 1.6 engines.
 
Actually ... Honda have said they have no interest in a return, and Audi comes under the banner of the Volkswagen Group, and VAG are looking at entering themselves or with Porsche. Besides, Audi have said they have no interest in Formula 1 unless it is relevant to road cars; that's why they've concentrated so hard on Le Mans and their diesel engines. They have a history of taking technology that is looked down-upon and converting it to a racing pedigree. Before the Audi Quattro, the only four wheel drive in Audi's line-up was the 75bhp Iltis, which had been developed for the German Army. Audi asked the other manufcaturers if they could create a four wheel drive car and the others said yes because they only knew about the Iltis and didn't think it would be a threat. Then Audi made the Quattro, put it into homologation so that they could rally it and prodeced to obliterate everyone else. They've done something similar with the diesel engine - diesels had a bad reputation as dirty and bloated and under-powered; more suited to trucks than cars. Audi took the diesel concept, developed it further and then stuck it in a Le Mans car to prove it was viable and once again proceeded to dominate the field. So I seriously doubt they'll get involved in Formula 1, unless technology can be adapted to road cars. Given that it took McLaren twelve years to take the second brake pedal concept used in the MP/4-12A and -12B and apply it to the McLaren MP/4-12C road car, the trickle-down effect is taking too long. And with so many manufacturers pouncing on KERS, there's little incentive for Audi to develop it themselves. The Quattro's four wheel drive system and the R15's diesel engine were adapted so that Audi could lead the way with it - but Porsche and Ferrari and probably a few others are already working on KERS.
 
This just in (Am I allowed to link to source?):

Despite the reluctance of Bernie Ecclestone and key manufacturers including Ferrari, F1 is pushing ahead with a radical new engine formula for 2013.

The shift from the current normally-aspirated V8s to efficient energy recovery-boosted 1.6 litre four-cylinder turbos with fuel restrictions is expected to be rubber-stamped shortly by the F1 Commission and the FIA's World Motor Sport Council within days, the BBC reports.

Earlier, it emerged that key engine makers were pushing against the move, ostensibly on cost grounds.

But BBC Sport said the FIA is set to announce the new regulations next Friday, and a spokesman for Ferrari confirmed that he would be "surprised" if it did not now take place.

"An agreement is there, and when there is an agreement you work accordingly," said the spokesman.

F1 chief executive Ecclestone admits he still has misgivings.

"We have a very good engine formula. Why should we change it to something that is going to cost millions of pounds and that nobody wants and that could end up with one manufacturer getting a big advantage?" he said.

But the report said "checks and balances", primarily through resource restriction, have been written into the new regulations to counteract those fears.
Click to expand...
 
AlexGTV
Speaking of new entrants, how does one enter F1? What are the criteria and who leaves?
Click to expand...

Bring lots of money, sign lots of papers, smile for the cameras. And then prepare for a media onslaught saying that you have no right to join, unless you're a large automobile manufacturer with some racing history.

Something like that.
 
homeforsummer
I'm of the opinion that all motorsports should be simplified now.

There's nothing to say that we can't combine the simplicity of yesteryear with the safety and economy requirements of today.

I think the 1960s was the sweet point for so many motorsports - Grand Prix cars were all now mid-engined with variations in the layout (from V8s to V16s) and still had enough power to be spectacular, noisy and no downforce putting an emphasis on mechanical grip.

Rallying was a simple affair - you picked front-drive like Saab and Mini or you had rear-drive like Renaults, Fiats, Fords and so-on. Rear-drivers had an advantage on some courses, front-drivers on others, despite power differences.

Same goes for touring cars and sports cars. Some touring cars were tiny and nimble, others fast yet heavy, sports cars could be quick and very thirsty or slower yet more economical.

Back to F1, and I'd love to see a modern interpretation of the cigar-shaped vehicles of the 1960s. You could have the driver safely cocooned in an enclosed cell, perhaps even with an aircraft-style cockpit. It would be very strong and also fireproof, yet with the option for the driver or marshalls to set off a detonator to break the glass should the driver need to jump out/be extricated quickly in an accident or fire.

Wheels wouldn't be enclosed (Red Bull X1 style) but remain as they are now. Downforce would be prohibited, emphasising mechanical grip. Suspension design would be completely open - bringing the best technical minds to the forefront.

Engine choice is a little more tricky to decide on. I'd personally like to see something quite simple, even to the point of limiting engines to a pushrod design - yet limiting capacity and leaving cylinder count open. If you give people something very basic to work with and leave their options open then hopefully again you'd see some innovation - maybe with exhaust or intake design, for instance.

It'll be interesting to see what the possible 2013 regs would do in F1 but unfortunately all the best ideas will remain a pipe dream, I reckon.
Click to expand...

Is that really what you want to F1 to become? a shadow of its former self.

Times have moved on, and I for one am glad F1 has moved with it. If you remove downforce from f1, then it will no longer be the fastest motorsport around, if that's your view of how F1 should be then that's fair enough, but I can't see it staying the most popular form of motor sport if that is the case. It was fine having cars that focused on mechanical grip in the 60's, F1 was still the fastest motorsport series around. You can sit around in your rose tinted spectacles and stifle evolution, but ultimately that is going to leave you left behind.

Change can be good, and to be honest, I don't see what is so wrong with the current format. Of course, changes keep needing to be made to ensure sustainability, and to ensure development is still occurring.
 

Similar threads

Liquid
Vijay Mallya Arrested In London
Replies
7
Views
807
LMSCorvetteGT2
LMSCorvetteGT2
Furinkazen
FIA Tell MSA, DMSB and more to drop the "Formula 3" name from F3 championships?
Replies
6
Views
1K
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
The Seventh Concorde Agreement (2013-2020)
Replies
5
Views
8K
jcm
jcm
LMSCorvetteGT2
2018 F1 Constructor development/tech
10 11 12
Replies
331
Views
24K
Lewis_Hamilton_
Lewis_Hamilton_
Legro
Audi engine in F1 in 2016 isn't happening
5 6 7
Replies
187
Views
9K
Tired Tyres
Tired Tyres

Latest Posts

Back