New engine regs cast in stone.
- Thread starter sportsman
- Start date
Looks like a new proposal is on the table for a 1.6L V6 Turbo in 2014 rather than the 1.6L 4 cylinder Turbo for 2013. I have to admit I rather like the sound of that, but I don't see why we have to wait an extra year for it.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92510
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92510
Of course the logical answer is to let them use either of the configuration. V6 straight 4 whichever they prefer.Give them a fuel limit for qualifying and the race and let them get on with it.The fuel limit itself and engine longevity rules will ensure that very high revving engines would not be practical.
Hopefully the FIA will free up the KERS regulations which would provide even more advantage than at present
Hopefully the FIA will free up the KERS regulations which would provide even more advantage than at present
Why can't they just keep the engines and allocate the teams a set amount of fuel for the race?
I don't really mind either way, just wish they'd decide and get on with it!
In an ideal world of they're just give the teams a fuel allocation and let them use whatever configuration they want (variety!), but of course it's extremely unlikely to happen nowadays..
In an ideal world of they're just give the teams a fuel allocation and let them use whatever configuration they want (variety!), but of course it's extremely unlikely to happen nowadays..
Seems to me that this is just another stalling tactic. I'm sure they will all agree to the 1.6 litre V6 plan, possibly even Renault, but if I were Craig Pollock I'd be furious. I'm beginning to wonder if PURE weren't some sort of disruptive stalking horse all along...
Indeed there is Griz.I posted in the original one.Then copied and pasted the same reply into this one.
This is a 2014 engine thread. 
Is turbo the one that gives a boost to the whole rev range, or just the top. I always get it confused with supercharging. Thinking of the Renault's starts in the early 80s suggests turbo's do the whole rev range.
No matter they should have both. Attached to 4ltr V12s.
Fantasising aside the 2014 spec is probably better, but F1 desperately need to let engine firms change their engines more frequently, is the freeze 3 years long?
No matter they should have both. Attached to 4ltr V12s.
Fantasising aside the 2014 spec is probably better, but F1 desperately need to let engine firms change their engines more frequently, is the freeze 3 years long?
Generally top end, though it depends on the setup. A supercharger gives power all the way through the rev range (belt driven).
I'm no expert though.
Andyoak
Champion Elect
Oh yes please...
... problem is it would blow the budget controls out of the water; but then if you want progress and competition you have to spend money.
I'm sure many of us have long advocated a fuel limit over a power / revs / configuration limit... Galahad's arguements for this being especially well stated and thought through, as usual.
... problem is it would blow the budget controls out of the water; but then if you want progress and competition you have to spend money.
I'm sure many of us have long advocated a fuel limit over a power / revs / configuration limit... Galahad's arguements for this being especially well stated and thought through, as usual.
Cookinflatsix
Banned
The supercharger normally gives a boost straight away at lower revs and the turbo a bit later. However with clever design you can have 2 smaller turbos to try and cut lag, 2 been better than 1 bigger one.
1.6 litre turbo V6 rev at 18,000 rpm sounds perfect to me. I have gone away from the idea of KERS, not because of it's current limited power boost but because of the negative enviromental comments seen elsewhere. I read somewhere that the KERS batteries are used for one race before they are disgarded, this can't be good for the eco system.
A bit more than that "The lifetime of a recoverable energy storage system (RESS) is a key determinant in its long term viability. Chemical batteries can typically be cycled (charged and discharged) about a thousand times before they must be disposed of or recycled." - http://www.f1technical.net/features/11805
So that's effectively 1000 laps - so I'm guessing maybe 2 battery packs per season - on the upside they are a lot smaller than systems used on something like a Prius (which only last about 5 years - so don't buy a 7 year old Prius)
guitargraham
Rookie
i've seen cars powered by DFV's 1.5T's 3.5's, V8's flat 12's and many more. they were all different yet loud, and bloody fast. it always sounded and looked like F1 every single time, no matter what the era. whatever 2014 looks and sounds like you'll get used to that being F1 extremely quickly. i'm more interested in whether a 1.6l 6cyl engine with a single turbo and KERS is likely to be a Vee or straight configuration.thats what gets me thinking and as far as i can see at my level of understanding there's arguments for both. anyone better qualified have any thoughts one way or other?
guitargraham
Rookie
oh forget it. just read autosport and it quite clearly says v6....i'll get my coat!
Cookinflatsix
Banned
If a big consideration in the selection of the engine is its suitability or similarity to road car engines produced by the manufacturers then a straight 6 will probably be useful as the version for the road could be a straight 4 with two cylinders chopped off. A V6 for F1 would want a V4 road version and they are not stable or cheap to build. A Flat 6 might be good, nice and stable and reliable, however a Flat 4 road version might be too wide for manufacturers.
So I am sure manufacturers would want a straight 6 most to get benefits on their popular road cars from F1 racing
What does anyone else think?
So I am sure manufacturers would want a straight 6 most to get benefits on their popular road cars from F1 racing
What does anyone else think?
