New engine regs cast in stone.

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
Bureaucratic crap isn't it.

Oh' well, better get used to it because i guess it won't stop until the day arrives in March '14....

Comments like "its not F1." What's not? Going back to what we all loved about the 80s turbo era?* :rolleyes:

As usual, this will end up as one fudged up mess, due to the idiot ego heads that dominate the sport.

*amongst my circle of friends, the only era in F1, was the turbo era, and most of us weren't even born or old enough to remember.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
(rant)

The turbo is one of the very last true innovations to come into engine design in the 20th century. twin cams, variable valves, direct injection, it was all being experimented with way way back.

Turbo's are a genius piece of kit and they were banned from our sport just as they had managed to make huge inroads into their technology. I've waited 20 years for the day the most logical way to make a powerful and efficient engine could return to the rule book. Turbo technology stalled/went stale when F1 stopped using them and it has taken 15-20 years for the car manufacturers to begin developing themselves. (The rally teams developed various anti lag systems etc, but essentially have continued with the same technology). Every car manufacturer now utilises them to make their engines greener, smaller, more powerful and more user friendly and that lesson could have been learned in the 90s, for free from F1, yet the 'pinnacle' still tries to reject them for 'sounding different'
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
Don't Ferrari fit turbo's to their road cars? I don't hear anyone complaining about the noise they make. This really is a nonsense, if they can get a 1.5 or 1.6 litre engine to generate the same power as a 2.4 litre and be more efficient then get on with it.

How about letting the teams choose between a 2.4 litre naturally aspirated motor and 1.6 turbo? I seem to recall a similar "equivalency" formula in the past, anyone remember which engine type turned out to be the winner? :irony emote:

Oh, according to the Guardian this is the Irony Emoticon ;)
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
They generally use NA engines, particularly of late, which was their original gripe over the turbo's because it doesn't marry with their road cars. Particularly the L4 bit. However, their road cars are not most road cars are they! ...In the 80s, during the original turbo era, they built two of perhaps their most famous and celebrated cars. The F40 and the 288 GTO, using a V8 turbo and, they were no doubt born out of their experience of their own F1 V6 turbo.... irony anybody?

But i digress, because they have, along with Renault at the opposite end of the debate, agreed in unison to the latest V6 plans however.
 

TN23

Rookie
I'm rather saddened at the delay of the turbo return. I missed the original turbo era (because I wasn't born), but the racing was extraordinary from what I've seen.

The engines, along with the tyres and the gimmicks (DRS) are the things that naff me off about F1, and the resistance to sensible ideas from the top.
 

Andyoak

Race Winner
That link to Joe's blog is the worst thing to read if you get depressed by conspiracy theories...

If it is true then we might as well pack up and go home but I suspect the best laid plans of mice and men will come into play so just as Todt's appointment didn't work out neither will this.

Tempting as it is to get into the politics, at that level none of us have a hope in hell of following it yet alone making sense of it. Better to just stay interested in the racing, drivers and teams... you'll go mad else :twisted:
 

Andyoak

Race Winner
It seems that the 4 cylinder engine was driven by Audi... the link below is an MSN report on Adrian Newey's comments on the debacle:
http://crashnet.cars.msn.co.uk/news_view.asp?cid=11&id=170745

It seems VAG's 'will they / won't they' games was enough to force the pace on the Turbo 4 but the V6 makes more engineering sense to the teams. With more time I'd like to dig further into this but if any of you with engineering knowledge can comment I'd love to hear your thoughts...
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
I presume a V6 can rev higher than a straight 4 which might give a "preffered" engine note?
 

RevMaxPower

Banned
That link to Joe's blog is the worst thing to read if you get depressed by conspiracy theories...

If it is true then we might as well pack up and go home but I suspect the best laid plans of mice and men will come into play so just as Todt's appointment didn't work out neither will this.

Tempting as it is to get into the politics, at that level none of us have a hope in hell of following it yet alone making sense of it. Better to just stay interested in the racing, drivers and teams... you'll go mad else :twisted:

I am mad, I watch F1...:dizzy:
 

jez101

Bookies drive nice cars because of people like me
Contributor
I think there are also structural problems with the 4 cylinder that Newey tried to describe in the interveiw he did with Jake on Sunday. I won't pretend to understand it, but if he says it, it must be true!!

"Certainly from an engineering point of view a four-cylinder turbo is not a nice engine to install, you've basically got to put a spaceframe around it, you can't make it a properly structural. A racing V6 is a much nicer engine to package. That will now be the 2014 engine."
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I presume a V6 can rev higher than a straight 4 which might give a "preffered" engine note?

Its a matter of opinion, but a V6 engine note should be nicer than a L4. Rev potential is down to design... but it is generally easier to balance a longitudinal engine, so it is easier to extract the potential revs from a L4 rather than a V6.

Time for me to see about writing a turbo charging fundamentals article i think...
 

ExtremeNinja

Karting amateur
Contributor
What he is basically saying is that a big V6 can essentially form part of the chassis. You can hang structural elements off it. With the smaller four cylinder, you build the car and then plonk the engine in it.

That's my interpretation. (and I don't even have a driving license let alone have I ever tinkered with a car)
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I think there are also structural problems with the 4 cylinder that Newey tried to describe in the interveiw he did with Jake on Sunday. I won't pretend to understand it, but if he says it, it must be true!!

The engine currently forms a structural part of the chassis. A long, narrow engine block does not lend itself well to this, so to gain back the stiffness in the chassis in the engine area, a spaceframe would be needed to carry those stresses/loads around the engine rather than through it.
 

Josephiah

Podium Finisher
I think there's more to it than that: remembering (vaguely) back to some of my dynamics lectures, there are big differences in the forces that different engine configurations undergo, simply as a result of the geometry. If you think of there being 4 (or 6, or 8, or whatever) masses (pistons) oscillating back and forth, these result in various forces and torques being applied to different parts of the engine at different parts of the engine's rotation cycle. The dynamic stability of a particular engine is profoundly influenced by its configuration - layout, number and size of cylinders, cylinder angles, crank angles, and other things I've probably forgotten all contribute.

I can't remember much of the detail, other than that the maths was hideously complicated, but one factoid that stuck in my mind was that a well-set-up V6 could be particularly good.

EDIT: if I have this right then it ought to fit with Newey's comments - if a 4-cyl engine was inherently less well balanced (and therefore more vibrations and turning moments to deal with), then one can see why you wouldn't want to make it an integral part of your chassis.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
Wasn't the BMW straight 4 part of the Brabham chassis back in the 80's? Don't remember much of a space frame around it - maybe Gordon Murray should drop Newey a note on how to install a 4 cylinder engine into an F1 car. He could also include some notes on how NOT to install an inclined straight 4 :snigger:

 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
There's certainly more to it, i only have time for quick one liners at the minute. You're on the right lines Josephiah with what you say, but Newey was talking not about making an engine, rather how to use it best.

A four cylinder is more than capable of handling structural forces, and certainly the direction, frequency and magnitude of the internal forces vary massively between configurations and design, but these are balanced out in the design stage. Newey is concerned with his chassis, and a V configuration will always be inherently stiffer in the directions he is concerned with and allow itself to be incorporated into the chassis design to greater effect, quicker, easier etc etc

To see what a longitudinal engine can do when the forces are in line with the strengths of the engine, take a look at bike design. Some manufacturers have gone so far as to use no chassis at all between the headstock and swing arm, with the engine/gearbox combined taking over the role. Never the less, all modern superbikes use the engine as a stressed member and F1 has been here before with 4 cylinders as well. All be it with far less success than the V6s......
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
Wasn't the BMW straight 4 part of the Brabham chassis back in the 80's? Don't remember much of a space frame around it - maybe Gordon Murray should drop Newey a note on how to install a 4 cylinder engine into an F1 car. He could also include some notes on how NOT to install an inclined straight 4 :snigger:

FB i don't think the teams were stressing the engines with the chassis in quite the same manner back then, but you'd know more about that than me! I would guess that began after to turbo cars were gone. Indeed, Brabham used the BMW turbo and the Cosworth DFV in the BT49 / 50 didn't they? To utilise a V8 and L4 in the same car and exploit it as a stressed member would be quite a challenge...
 
Top Bottom