I haven't said i disagree with the idea of a L4 being a puny power plant for the no.1 racing series in the world. No one would dare suggest it is better or more exciting than a big v10 or turbo v6, but i am trying to neutralise just some of the negativity, that i agree with! but also attempting to balance the argument some, it is not all bad.
F1 has run L4 engines THROUGHOUT its history, Ferrari, Maserati, Gordini, Coventry, Vanwall, Porsche and Scarab etc all ran supercharged 4 cylinder engines in the late 40s, through the 50s and 60s at various times. BMW, Hart and Zakspeed all did so in the turbo era.
We've never been limited to it (L4) by regulation however, which does bother me because there will be limited innovation and no variance, but we've been in that position since the v10 took hold, and latterly the v8, by regulation, so there is little meat to that objection unless we are to change the rules and encourage variance once more. However, the FiA believe that to be a non-starter, because of the costs. Which is sadly the biggest motive for them. OK we need to spend again developing the engines from scratch, but they will be an awful lot cheaper to develop and purchase (by customer teams) than a NA V8 in the long term. I and the rest of us hate cost cutting, but the last 5-10 years has nearly crippled F1, we very nearly ended up with just a handful of teams competing, and although the new teams did not exactly amaze us, their entry into F1 would simply be an impossibility 3-4 years ago with the amount of funding required to do so. If you really do love the sport, you will support what works to secure its future, when its recent guise is simply unsustainable (not just development of the cars of course, but we'll keep that discussion aside).
To base objections on how the engine will sound and the fact that it has two or more cylinders less than you would like is a pretty short sited and weak argument when they can deliver more power, more torque, increased reliability, lower costs, better power spread and higher fuel efficiency.
Every day, but your asking the wrong person. So ok, the Citroen raspberry WRC car may not be the best example (due to the fact it has large exhausts that create that sound which an F1 car would not), but throw in the RS500, Delta S4, RS200, M3, the Zakspeed Capri and the previous generation of L4 turbo F1 cars and the prognosis is not so bad.
Of course you would, any of us would, but ask yourself if you would rather see a $1 billion Ferrari & McLaren showcase, with a Williams and a Red Bull 'going round' behind them, 'open championship', which, make no mistake, is what we were heading into 3-4 years ago. Or the possibility of 25+ drivers within a second of each other, challenging for races and points??
If anyone here can suggest argument for v6 turbo's, which i would love to see, or anything other than the suggested formula of L4s, without using reasons like sound, beauty, charisma and ethos I'd love to hear and so would the entire F1 community.
F1 has run L4 engines THROUGHOUT its history, Ferrari, Maserati, Gordini, Coventry, Vanwall, Porsche and Scarab etc all ran supercharged 4 cylinder engines in the late 40s, through the 50s and 60s at various times. BMW, Hart and Zakspeed all did so in the turbo era.
We've never been limited to it (L4) by regulation however, which does bother me because there will be limited innovation and no variance, but we've been in that position since the v10 took hold, and latterly the v8, by regulation, so there is little meat to that objection unless we are to change the rules and encourage variance once more. However, the FiA believe that to be a non-starter, because of the costs. Which is sadly the biggest motive for them. OK we need to spend again developing the engines from scratch, but they will be an awful lot cheaper to develop and purchase (by customer teams) than a NA V8 in the long term. I and the rest of us hate cost cutting, but the last 5-10 years has nearly crippled F1, we very nearly ended up with just a handful of teams competing, and although the new teams did not exactly amaze us, their entry into F1 would simply be an impossibility 3-4 years ago with the amount of funding required to do so. If you really do love the sport, you will support what works to secure its future, when its recent guise is simply unsustainable (not just development of the cars of course, but we'll keep that discussion aside).
To base objections on how the engine will sound and the fact that it has two or more cylinders less than you would like is a pretty short sited and weak argument when they can deliver more power, more torque, increased reliability, lower costs, better power spread and higher fuel efficiency.
Brogan said:
Every day, but your asking the wrong person. So ok, the Citroen raspberry WRC car may not be the best example (due to the fact it has large exhausts that create that sound which an F1 car would not), but throw in the RS500, Delta S4, RS200, M3, the Zakspeed Capri and the previous generation of L4 turbo F1 cars and the prognosis is not so bad.
Brogan said:
Of course you would, any of us would, but ask yourself if you would rather see a $1 billion Ferrari & McLaren showcase, with a Williams and a Red Bull 'going round' behind them, 'open championship', which, make no mistake, is what we were heading into 3-4 years ago. Or the possibility of 25+ drivers within a second of each other, challenging for races and points??
If anyone here can suggest argument for v6 turbo's, which i would love to see, or anything other than the suggested formula of L4s, without using reasons like sound, beauty, charisma and ethos I'd love to hear and so would the entire F1 community.
