2014-2020 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.
User avatar
Holm86
244
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:38 am
NL_Fer wrote:
Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:56 pm
Why not settle for a nice high revving noisy spec ICE and let them develop the electric part?
I don't think they will go backwards in technology.
They should, F1 need to take a look at itself, and what it want's to be.
F1 shouldn't be about a green future, Formula E has taken that role.

F1 should be a spectacle for the fans, and a sport that attracts several manufactures.
To do so, we need more noise for the fans, and simpler engines for the manufactures.

Keep the turbo/fuelflow/mgu-k and ditch the mgu-h.
And free up the engine configuration

mzso
mzso
42
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

hurril wrote:
Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:46 pm
1. Each driver sits in: a) a team car or: b) not a team car.
2. There is a constructors championship: a) true; b) false.
3. There are: a) team orders; b) not - because:
4. Brands care about: a) the outcome; b) not.
Yet, the driver drives alone. And team orders are a much reviled part of F1.

Constructors championship are for the teams who construct the car if you can believe it. The driver is the one who races it, on his own. They don't claim skiing is a team sport, even though it was a manufacturer with many people which made the skis.

User avatar
Mattchu
52
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:33 pm
hurril wrote:
Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:46 pm
1. Each driver sits in: a) a team car or: b) not a team car.
2. There is a constructors championship: a) true; b) false.
3. There are: a) team orders; b) not - because:
4. Brands care about: a) the outcome; b) not.
Yet, the driver drives alone. And team orders are a much reviled part of F1.

Constructors championship are for the teams who construct the car if you can believe it. The driver is the one who races it, on his own. They don't claim skiing is a team sport, even though it was a manufacturer with many people which made the skis.
Not really a very good analogy that. A skiers skis or kit make up a tiny fraction of the performance difference between the top players. Plus you can be damn sure that the best skiers all wan`t the best equipment.

Maybe 4 man bobsleigh is more alike :wink:

Personally I think motorsports [no matter what engine/pu is used] just isn`t what it used to be, for a multitide of reasons!

hurril
hurril
66
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:33 pm
hurril wrote:
Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:46 pm
1. Each driver sits in: a) a team car or: b) not a team car.
2. There is a constructors championship: a) true; b) false.
3. There are: a) team orders; b) not - because:
4. Brands care about: a) the outcome; b) not.
Yet, the driver drives alone. And team orders are a much reviled part of F1.

Constructors championship are for the teams who construct the car if you can believe it. The driver is the one who races it, on his own. They don't claim skiing is a team sport, even though it was a manufacturer with many people which made the skis.
The driver does not drive alone. He does not change his tyres, plan the strategy, freely choose engine modes nor does he get to do whatever he wants in relation to his team mate.

User avatar
Zynerji
137
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

I vote for a 1.5L, L5 with VVT w/15lb Centrifugal Supercharger, engine rev capped at 18k RPM, and TJI lean burn tech.

Sounds like a V10, can put out about 900HP. Less parts, no batteries/GU/inverters.

Cars can go back to 600kg.

User avatar
Big Tea
167
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:34 pm
I vote for a 1.5L, L5 with VVT w/15lb Centrifugal Supercharger, engine rev capped at 18k RPM, and TJI lean burn tech.

Sounds like a V10, can put out about 900HP. Less parts, no batteries/GU/inverters.

Cars can go back to 600kg.
I go the other way, don't mandate anything except perhaps max fuel load.
Rule out some materials and technologies if necessary, and make sure the car meets standards of safety and emissions.
Otherwise do what you wish.

Under the cost cap you can have ultra tec or blunt force, you chose
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it-
Voltaire, or several other claimants.

mzso
mzso
42
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Mattchu wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:06 pm
Personally I think motorsports [no matter what engine/pu is used] just isn`t what it used to be, for a multitide of reasons!
Which would be those reasons?
hurril wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:56 pm
The driver does not drive alone.
Ultimately he does, he decides how to turn the wheel and press the pedals.
hurril wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:56 pm
plan the strategy, freely choose engine modes nor does he get to do whatever he wants in relation to his team mate.
And these are politics, rather than sharing the driving.
These are in particular that noxious things that would be eliminated by banning radio communication as I suggested.

The FIA banned team orders once as well as radio communications (with their trademark ineffectuality).

What if they did it again, but this time with good effect. What would you argue with then?
hurril wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:56 pm
He does not change his tyres,
That's replacing a used up part. Not racing.

mzso
mzso
42
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:00 pm
I go the other way, don't mandate anything except perhaps max fuel load.
Rule out some materials and technologies if necessary, and make sure the car meets standards of safety and emissions.
Otherwise do what you wish.

Under the cost cap you can have ultra tec or blunt force, you chose
If we assume the cost cap is effective, it would result in an extremely fragmented field. Plus impossible to predict dangerous power boosts. And all the money thrown at PU development.

mzso
mzso
42
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Something different:
What's the point of Honda jumping ship now? It seems like a freeze is coming in 2023 anyway. So they'll only save one year's worth of development budget, but they'll remove their brand presence in F1, and maybe make Red Bull successful mainly on Honda's hard earned progress, if they let them continue with the design.

By they way, at this point I expect Red Bull to reluctantly throw a bit of development funding (which I guess could be hundreds of millions) on improving the PU during 2022.

Unless they convince Honda to reverse on the exit. I'm a tad surprised that they couldn't sweeten the deal enough for Honda. Honda was paying them as well, weren't they? They could have nixed that, offered more prominent Honda branding. If not enough, some partial funding of engine developments. Probably still would be cheaper than the direction they're heading towards.

User avatar
Big Tea
167
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:19 pm
Big Tea wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:00 pm
I go the other way, don't mandate anything except perhaps max fuel load.
Rule out some materials and technologies if necessary, and make sure the car meets standards of safety and emissions.
Otherwise do what you wish.

Under the cost cap you can have ultra tec or blunt force, you chose
If we assume the cost cap is effective, it would result in an extremely fragmented field. Plus impossible to predict dangerous power boosts. And all the money thrown at PU development.
Would it matter? Makers would not (deliberately) go down dead ends, and they would know the expected performance of the competition. You may have one dominant on straights while another woulds win out on corners. Getting around and stopping and accelerating too.

Manufacturers know what road they want to walk (or should say drive) so would use that as their goal.

If it was a very light weight car with a 500cc engine and the rest coming from electric machine, that would be the reason they were in it. Same for a 3 ltr v8. If that is what the builder wants, they would then have to make it better than the other car, or 'copy' them.

I would be to a large extent self regulating as they are not going to try something they know will not be competitive, but as I should not say in a PC and animal caring world, there is more than one way to skin a cat .
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it-
Voltaire, or several other claimants.

hurril
hurril
66
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:13 pm
Mattchu wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:06 pm
Personally I think motorsports [no matter what engine/pu is used] just isn`t what it used to be, for a multitide of reasons!
Which would be those reasons?
hurril wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:56 pm
The driver does not drive alone.
Ultimately he does, he decides how to turn the wheel and press the pedals.
hurril wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:56 pm
plan the strategy, freely choose engine modes nor does he get to do whatever he wants in relation to his team mate.
And these are politics, rather than sharing the driving.
These are in particular that noxious things that would be eliminated by banning radio communication as I suggested.

The FIA banned team orders once as well as radio communications (with their trademark ineffectuality).

What if they did it again, but this time with good effect. What would you argue with then?
hurril wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:56 pm
He does not change his tyres,
That's replacing a used up part. Not racing.
Ultimately Maradona kicked the ball himself as well. Right? Is _everything else_ around him also simply matters of politics, noxious things that ought to be eliminated and ... team orders?

Tell me: what is a team order in a context that does not include teams? And no: the tyre change is very much part of racing and so are the other aspects of winning. The tactics, tyre choices, ERS, engine modes, when to come in to the pits, etc.

All you're doing is re-defining things and that's certainly your prerogative to do so. But right now you're sat there with a set of definitions that I certainly don't share, and I don't think that anyone else does either.

F1 is a team sport and an individual sport. Both.

User avatar
Mattchu
52
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:13 pm
Mattchu wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:06 pm
Personally I think motorsports [no matter what engine/pu is used] just isn`t what it used to be, for a multitide of reasons!
Which would be those reasons?
Well for a start motor racing mostly uses fossil based fuels, so there`s the climate change angle.

Cars themselves aren`t as tinkerable [if that`s a word] anymore so less young people are getting into engines, cars, etc, so they don`t really care about motor racing.

The sponsors for motor racing used to be the coolest brands on the planet, the same can`t be said now!

There used to be that real element of danger with motorsport which attrcated people! Nowadays everything seems to be so clinical and safety orientated [I`m not saying that`s a bad thing] that some of the edge seems to have gone.

With globalization, fast internet, gaming, many of the young kids of today have so many other choices, motor sports is way down the list.

Going super fast just isn`t seen as being "cool" anymore, plus the "characters" seem to have dried up, everyone has to be so PC in the new world of social media! Imagine James Hunt in this day and age, no team would touch him with a barge pole...

gruntguru
gruntguru
496
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Mattchu wrote:
Wed Nov 11, 2020 4:37 pm
Well for a start motor racing mostly uses fossil based fuels, so there`s the climate change angle.
Yep, and the "greening" of F1 is all about optics - reducing opportunities for criticism.
Cars themselves aren`t as tinkerable [if that`s a word] anymore so less young people are getting into engines, cars, etc, so they don`t really care about motor racing.
Good point.
The sponsors for motor racing used to be the coolest brands on the planet, the same can`t be said now!
I thought Red Bull was cool? Want to go back to Marlboro or John Player?
There used to be that real element of danger with motorsport which attracted people! Nowadays everything seems to be so clinical and safety orientated [I`m not saying that`s a bad thing] that some of the edge seems to have gone.
Yep - sanitise F1 and all those fans move to UFC.
With globalization, fast internet, gaming, many of the young kids of today have so many other choices, motor sports is way down the list.
. . and gaming is accessible to everyone as a participant as well as a fan.
Going super fast just isn`t seen as being "cool" anymore, plus the "characters" seem to have dried up, everyone has to be so PC in the new world of social media! Imagine James Hunt in this day and age, no team would touch him with a barge pole...
Those were the days - James Hunt, Barry Sheene . . .
je suis charlie

User avatar
Mattchu
52
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

gruntguru wrote:
Thu Nov 12, 2020 10:27 pm
The sponsors for motor racing used to be the coolest brands on the planet, the same can`t be said now!
I thought Red Bull was cool? Want to go back to Marlboro or John Player?
Going super fast just isn`t seen as being "cool" anymore, plus the "characters" seem to have dried up, everyone has to be so PC in the new world of social media! Imagine James Hunt in this day and age, no team would touch him with a barge pole...
Those were the days - James Hunt, Barry Sheene . . .
I wouldn`t want tabacco sponsorship back in F1 although some of their liveries were brilliant, Martini were for me the last decent main sponsor/livery but Red Bull do have a case with themselves and Alpha Tauri, though I`d never heard of the later!

While I`m not a huge Max Verstappen fan I do like the fact he wears his heart on his sleeve, as seen today when he went for a moment of reflection sat by a bin after pole was snatched away from him. Danny Ric seems to be a good personality plus Kimi for just being Kimi :)

With regards to the engine, I don`t think it matters what they put in, they`ll get grief from somewhere no matter what they do.
I would like to see something where they have a set engine but can use as much electrical power as they can muster controlled by the driver...sort of like a charge bar [that has a graphic] that can be released as and when they want. Not set to full after each lap like the old KERS days, just a use as you go system!

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
99
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:38 am
NL_Fer wrote:
Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:56 pm
Why not settle for a nice high revving noisy spec ICE and let them develop the electric part?
I don't think they will go backwards in technology.
Why not? Combustion technology is on a dead end. No manufacturer is interested.

A noisy revving ICE could be comparable to the sparking plates, under the cars. It is just there to emulate the legacy how F1 used to be. It has no further purpose than, to showcase something people liked about F1.

Manufacturers only want to develop electric drivelines, so let them develop that part of the drive line and keep the ICE for the legacy of F1.