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

[TheCracker]

I thing fundamentally it comes down to a very simple issue. Do you want F1 to be a showcase for super car manufacturers, or for hot-hatch manufacturers?

Ideally neither. F1 is pinnacle motorsport, the engineering behind it should be state-of-the-art in all respects. Unfortunately big car manufacturers want their names associated with the sport, but they want it to be relevant in some way to their bread and butter products, for which you can't really blame them - whether that's right for the sport or not.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Ideally neither. F1 is pinnacle motorsport, the engineering behind it should be state-of-the-art in all respects. Unfortunately big car manufacturers want their names associated with the sport, but they want it to be relevant in some way to their bread and butter products, for which you can't really blame them - whether that's right for the sport or not.

Regardless of the engine size in F1, the technology will be state-of-the-art.

 

[TheCracker]

Regardless of the engine size in F1, the technology will be state-of-the-art.

Of course it will be, but the size has been dictated largely by manufacturer pressure, in response to pressure given by the European Commission over emissions targets. Otherwise they'd be no other reason for a change from 2.4 V8's.

 

[SonicWagon]

The new engines will be fantastic, nothing could be more boring than the engines we have now, as it stands today they could replace all the engines with Honda Indycar lumps and the racing would be exactly the same. I don't like it when the teams can't alter their engines.
The thing about the new regs I dislike the most Is the regulation of fuel flow, give all the teams a maximum fuel load and see what they do with it.

 

[niky]

I thing fundamentally it comes down to a very simple issue. Do you want F1 to be a showcase for super car manufacturers, or for hot-hatch manufacturers?

Back in the 1.5 days, makers on both sides of the premium fence could find common ground... but then, cars are so much heavier than before.

Ferrari could sell a hybrid... 1.6 liter turbo producing 300 hp (in road trim) mated to 300 hp worth of electric motors...

 

[F1 fan]

Also, Ferrari cannot make beautiful cars. They're all hideous.

The F430 is a thing of beauty in my humble opinion.

The only good Ferrari is one that is broken down by the side of the road.

Is that the one that's on fire?

What? How can you not like Ferrari's?

It's not difficult.

I see your hatred of Ferrari is not exclusive to the F1 side of their business. I'm curious, why do you hate the manufacturer? Di Montezemolo again?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ferrari is a racing team first and a car manufacturer second. Therefore, anything the team does taints the road car division.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Also, Ferrari cannot make beautiful cars. They're all hideous.

LOL, I'll take this amazing post into account anytime you talk or discuss anything in this forum. Works as a disclaimer, like: "Posts by Interludes aren't to be taken seriously or indeed deserve any relevant thought if the word Ferrari is written in them"

 

[Ardius]

Ferrari is a racing team first and a car manufacturer second. Therefore, anything the team does taints the road car division.

I disagree, nowadays the car manufacturer has a life of its own. While it still feeds somewhat on the success of the F1 team, it doesn't necessarily need it anymore as the "legend" is already in everyone's minds. The achievements in F1 have partly made Ferrari the household name it is, but also the incredible road cars they have produced too. The 308, GTO, Testarossa and F40 are icons on their own and not because of F1.
It also suggests that Ferrari focus on F1 more than their road cars, like they are an after-thought. They focus on both equally, they are seperate companies under the same organisation.

Ah, nevermind, I just re-read that quote with respect to what it was replying to. Fair enough, though a Ferrari F40 can never be "tainted" by a team orders scandal to me.

 

[VeyronGlen]

Really not a fan of these changes. I would like to see the '07 + '08 cars with V10s. No KERS, and I think they're changing it to "ERS", no DRS or anything like that and bring refueling back.

That's just how i'd like F1 to be now, I know many others would disagree but hey I think it would be great like that!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

All refuelling does is turn the racing into a series of glorified time trials. Drivers don't have to pass one another on the circuit because they know that if they can maintain th same lap times, they can pass in the pits. Bor-ring.

 

[VeyronGlen]

IMO it creates more drama, look at Massa in Singapore 2008.

 

[F1 fan]

IMO it creates more drama, look at Massa in Singapore 2008.

The occasional fuel hose accident is no substitute for the excitement the refuelling ban has brought.

 

[VeyronGlen]

Yes ino, i just prefered F1 that way. As my friend keeps saying, if that didn't happen, Massa could have won the title as he would have got more points if that pit-stop didn't go wrong.

Like i said many people would disagree but that's how i liked it. Yeah the no refuelling rule has brought excitment like Turkey last year with Hamilton and Button, but i like it where the drivers don't necessarily have to worry about saving fuel and just go for it. Plus i would still have the Pirelli tyres so there is still lots of drama and there's a lot of stratergy involved whether to 3-stop or 4-stop etc.

I am just clearly stating how I would like F1 to be, not what's better in general just how i like it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

IMO it creates more drama, look at Massa in Singapore 2008.

No, it doesn't. Like I said, it just turns Formula 1 into a series of glorified time trials as drivers attempt to lap within a set parameter. They don't bother trying to pass anyone on the circuit because they know that if they keep their lap times consistent, they can simply pass in the pits.

 

[VeyronGlen]

So are you saying that the Singapore 2008 race didn't have drama in it because of that pit-stop, the pit-stop which probably cost Massa the Championship?

And like i said, It's my opinion, not yours or anyone elses.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Oh, the races can have drama ... occasionally. But most of the time, the races aren't exactly thrilling the way this year's Chiense Grand Prix was.

 

[Peter.]

So are you saying that the Singapore 2008 race didn't have drama in it because of that pit-stop, the pit-stop which probably cost Massa the Championship?

And like i said, It's my opinion, not yours or anyone elses.

You're forgetting the big risk that refueling causes. Pulling out fuel hoses put the drivers, and the pitcrews at great risk, plus the risk of big fires if fuel leaks out a bit too much, like what happened at Hockenheim in 1994.

 

[VeyronGlen]

No, i understand the risks and the refuelling ban was better for the sport, but things like that add alot of excitement to the sport and IMO makes it better, but once again MY OPINION only...

 

[Centura]

F1 considers move to V6 turbos

Yes, please!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It won't happen. The manufacturers will only have 18 months to work on them, when normally they'd have spent the better part of three years developing the four-cylinder variants. Any work they done on it to date will be wasted, and they'll have half the normal development cycle.

 

[Moot]

Ferrari have made it happen. It will happen.
Unless Renault beats Ferrari, with a stick or something.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

New engine regulations postponed to 2014

That gives the V6 turbo's idea some more footing!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, Ferrari have successfully screwed both Renault and Craig Pollock.

I hope they're proud of themselves.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Well, Ferrari have successfully screwed both Renault and Craig Pollock.

I hope they're proud of themselves.

Who and Who?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Renault, the car manufacturer. They said their future in the sport depends on the new engines being introduced in 2013.

Craig Pollock, former team principal for British American Racing. He recently announced the formation of a new company known as PURE (Propulsion Universelle et Recuperation d'Energie), an independent engine constructor looking to join the grid in 2013. PURE claim their engine design will be ready for a test bed by the fourth quarter of 2011, but now that the engine regulations have been revised, all of that work has been wasted.

And all because Ferrari think four cylinder engines are "not relevant" to their road cars.

 

[Moot]

Shows that you were wrong though, so you have much to learn.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Apologies on my behalf, that was a tenuous joke to say the least... Claiming that Ferrari were too big headed and self absorbed to know of anyone else around them within F1.

Kudo's on the quick and informative reply though! I hope they don't back track though, a lot of wasted research and development as you've stated. Maybe if they sent the cheque to Ferrari they may notice them then?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Shows that you were wrong though, so you have much to learn.

No, and no. The initial reports suggested the teams would push for V6 engines to be introduced in 2013. I said V6 engines in 2013 were impossible. Those reports have since been amended - I'm guessing it was a typo - to say 2014, which is possible.

 

[The Outlaw]

Well, Ferrari have successfully screwed both Renault and Craig Pollock.

I hope they're proud of themselves.

Boo hoo. At the end of the day the FIA has the final say and are the ones who officially make the rules...so you ought to blame them if anyone. Ferrari (by far the most recognizable team in motorsports) have simply gotten what they would have prefered (or is this not allowed?) with the V6 concept, or so it seems as of this moment. And AFAIK, the 4 cylinder 1.6 liter was only a proposed engine for 2013 anyway...meaning it's no one other than Renault's fault for jumping in head first, trying to get one step ahead of the game.