Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.

Post Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:05 am

Im really disappointed by the spec so far, I would much prefer there to be a fuel tank size limit only and no fuel flow restriction so we can have wacky qually engines like the 80's and decent RPM's (14,000 RPM for the bore/stroke specs is easily reliable with current engine tech).

KERS is a green elephant and im not impressed by it, if F1 wants to be green and relevant to the future it should introduce additional engine classes like an all electric drive-train class with hydrogen fuel cells or other electric storage systems as well.

All electric is prolly not a 100% competitive tech for a while but genuinely useful for the future - heck they could give the electric classes "re-fueling rights" to swap out spent fuel cells while not allowing the ICE class to refuel mid race.

Big Car Companies could pair up with the back marker teams and use them as alternative tech test beds until the tech is strong enuf to compete at the top level, this would help them stay viable and make things quite interesting imo
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
djos
 
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:52 am

hecti wrote:I just cant see why they cant put a limit on engine development budget, say 30 million pounds... and then state that you have to make the end of the race with 160kg of fuel. end of story, you go home do your maths and in 2013 we have 3 or 4 types of engines and 12 different cars.
you could even have the manufactures publicly report engine horsepower, imagine that! and never install another engine freeze, and every time a manufacturer changes a component they have to re-publicize the hp figure.
This is what formula one should be all about, technology and engineering vs technology and engineering. Simple as that. There should be limits, but not limits on creativity, design and aerodynamics, but basic ground rules like max fuel for a race and your car must fit in a box x by y by z meters big.

One reason may be that they don't want them to use 160 kg of fuel if it is technically feasible to use only 105 kg for the same performance. The other reason why the cylinder count and bore is fixed was also explained in detail. The engineers know that there is little optimizing potential in playing with those numbers. Some might try a three cylinder and find a bit of an improvement. But the collective cost of getting there would not be in a sensible relationship with the improvements in power you get in a fuel restricted formula. So those developments have been cut off in the name of cost stability. The big power gains are going to come from optimizing the turbine technologies, the fuel injection, the valves and the electronic control. The formula is setting the right incentives to materialize those gains.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:23 pm

machin wrote:Anyone got an workable way of doing it?

I was thinking about it some time ago, when the budget cap idea appeared for the first time. Of course that you cannot control directly all excessive spending on engine development.

In my opinion it may be controlled in some way by forcing all engine manufacturers to contract at least one customer team and provide it with identical engines that factory team uses at some maximal price set by rules. Nobody would then spend zillions on engine that other teams could also buy for money nowhere near the actual costs.
piast9
 
Joined: 15 Mar 2010

Post Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:46 pm

That's kind of what I was thinking as the only workable solution too:-

All components must be available to other teams at a capped price.

I think Indycar are doing something similar with their aerokits! Will be interesting to see how that works
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIRTUAL STOPWATCH -Vehicle acceleration and lap time calculator Demo online. Now works on mobile devices!

Take the Power vs Torque survey!
machin
 
Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Post Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:08 pm

piast9 wrote:
machin wrote:Anyone got an workable way of doing it?

I was thinking about it some time ago, when the budget cap idea appeared for the first time. Of course that you cannot control directly all excessive spending on engine development.

In my opinion it may be controlled in some way by forcing all engine manufacturers to contract at least one customer team and provide it with identical engines that factory team uses at some maximal price set by rules. Nobody would then spend zillions on engine that other teams could also buy for money nowhere near the actual costs.

Cost of customer supply is going to be one element. But there will be also a human resource restriction like the 315 head count for chassis development I understand. A third element of cost control will be homologation. Some technical features are supposed to be fixed for five years from 2013 to 2017. Other features will be homologated for one year. And they apparently have agreed to not do any competitive development on turbo compounding before 2014.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:37 pm

I just don't see how an employee cap would work.

If I had an F1 team and could afford to employ 600 people I'd simply have my 315 people (if that's the limit) in my F1 team, and a 295 person strong road car research project, researching injectors etc etc, which "just so happen" to fit into the f1 engine! I may even build a couple of road-going specials for the odd oil baron or two!

How can the FIA stop my research team passing on the information to my F1 team? or stop me promoting some key engineers from the research team into the F1 team? -you can't "unlearn" what you've learnt!

I may even consider closed-door meetings with my key suppliers/tech partners and sponsors -so that money goes straight from my sponsor to my tech partner -it doesn't even show up on my road-car business that way.

Homologated parts? I'd simply have my research team recearching/developing those parts in parallel to the current racing project so that when the homologation peiod comes to an end I can introduce these trick part straight away! For example my team would already be researching turbo compounding.....

Or am I just devious???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIRTUAL STOPWATCH -Vehicle acceleration and lap time calculator Demo online. Now works on mobile devices!

Take the Power vs Torque survey!
machin
 
Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Post Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:54 pm

What has a limited headcount for chassis development and production to do with engine development cost?
AFAIK there was no talk about a headcount limit for engine manufacturers yet.

As for piast9´s idea.
It may goes a way to reduce the possibility of an spending war, but there is no guarantee.
Some years back the FIA had this idea with the WRC Junior 1600 kit cars.
IIRC the sales price was fixed at ~100000 US$.
However that did not stop Peugeot/Citroen from producing a car which was more expensive to made and sell it at an loss, writing off the difference as an marketing expense, but dominating the championship.
If a manufacturer is prepared to foot the bill for having an advantge on the engine side, there is little to stop him, in this way.

Homologation of main parts will go a way to control/cap development costs for a while, but on the same tokken it will "lock in" any advantage one manufacturer may gains, by getting the basis right.
The others could be doomed for 5 years if they make a big blunder in their basic design.

The one year homologation is a bit bogus, people will just keep researching and develop until the next homologation comes along, just like in Gr.A times in the WRC or in other series with similar rules.

3-5 years homologation cycles will limit the expense and time/money/manpower spend in these area´s a bit, but the risk is that one player gains an competetive advantage for the whole time span.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver."
- Colin Chapman

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
747heavy
 
Joined: 6 Jul 2010

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:13 am

machin wrote:Or am I just devious???

No. All of that is plausible. That's why there is a company called Red Bull Technology that employs Adrian Newey. He's not employed by Red Bull Racing.
segedunum
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2007

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:39 am

747heavy wrote:It may goes a way to reduce the possibility of an spending war, but there is no guarantee.

Of course, I agree that the limit would be not the strict one. But that should prevent situations in which for example the price for the engine would be (I don't remember actual CA2010 price) for example $5M and it would cost the manufacturer the $50M. For sure the rich teams spending limit would be lower than without such rule.
piast9
 
Joined: 15 Mar 2010

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:57 am

piast9 wrote:
747heavy wrote:It may goes a way to reduce the possibility of an spending war, but there is no guarantee.

Of course, I agree that the limit would be not the strict one. But that should prevent situations in which for example the price for the engine would be (I don't remember actual CA2010 price) for example $5M and it would cost the manufacturer the $50M. For sure the rich teams spending limit would be lower than without such rule.


This is why a while back, in this topic, I proposed a bill of materials limit to $500k per engine as it stops ppl building 5million dollar engines and selling them for less than they are worth.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
djos
 
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:24 am

747heavy wrote:What has a limited headcount for chassis development and production to do with engine development cost?
AFAIK there was no talk about a headcount limit for engine manufacturers yet.

There was. The BBC article mentioned resource restrictions as checks and balances. Montezemolo talked about engine resource restrictions as early as summer 2009.

It is not a perfect way and homologation isn't either. But in combination resource restrictions, homologation, transfer pricing, long life components and agreement to sequence certain technologies for development in successive years may work.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:15 pm

With the ongoing effects of the economic recession and everyone tightening their belts everywhere, can engine manufacturers justify developing ic engines for hundreds of millions of dollars if they do not have a direct benefit to road vehicles?
The money involved is after all mainly from the public in the form of bail outs.
autogyro
 
Joined: 4 Oct 2009

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:01 pm

autogyro wrote:The money involved is after all mainly from the public in the form of bail outs.

I'm not aware that Ferrari, Mercedes, Cosworth or VW have been bailed out. Renault were but they have just pulled out of F1 as a team owner and it rests to be seen if they will remain as a supplier of drive trains beyond 2013. I see the established and potential engine suppliers in F1 as properly financed corporations which will be making decisions for spending development money based on solid business practice and expected returns.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:50 pm

Identifying where government bail out money has gone is complex.
It depends on the banks involved and the commercial tie ups.
It is made a lot more difficult when criminals using the money are still allowed to walk free and even receive huge bonuses.
IMO it is essential for engine manufacturers to justify their investments far further than just to F1 fans and shareholders.
autogyro
 
Joined: 4 Oct 2009

Post Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:20 pm

BMW GM Ford and Honda were supposedly the biggest car firms to receive bailout money, I don't have the exact source but I remember seeing it somewhere.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee
godlameroso
 
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Location: Miami FL

PreviousNext

Return to Engine, transmission and controls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], EngineNut, Tommy Cookers, wuzak and 5 guests