F1technical.net

WhiteBlue wrote:

djos wrote:I saw an article recently were Ferrari where (sensibly I thought) suggesting they lop 2 cylinders off the current V8 providing a 1.6ltr V6 and then turbo-charging it (every other item would stay the same as the V8).

The lopping off of two cylinders was last proposed and executed in 2005 and it turned out to be a totally different engine according to the experts at that time. And those were both port injected NA engines that were on very similar rev levels and internal pressures. This time there would probably not be a single part to carry over. Not even the spark plugs.

This is so, so true. The, "it's very similar" argument is a BS one to try and get what they want. To the less knowledgable, this does indeed seem logical.

However from design experience, we make two products that look virtually identical. Yet almost none of the internals are the same. We have a totally unrelated product that uses many of the same concepts.

A complete engine redesign, is a complete engine redesign. The design and development time will be almost the whether you have 4 or 6 cylinders. Infact a stright 4 probably carries more over than the V6 does as the I4 and V8 have essentially the same crank layout.

SpeedTV.com wrote:Cost estimates for a complete GRE – one that is ready to produce the kind of power the ICONIC panel is looking for – have varied. Some manufacturers have looked at subsidizing their GREs, offering them for around $40,000 in their most basic form. Baretzky expects an IndyCar-level GRE, one that isn’t subsidized, to sell for something in the region of $250,000, complete. With almost 30 hours of running between rebuilds, annual costs for an IndyCar GRE could run upwards of $350,000 to $400,000 dollars. For the sake of comparison, teams currently pay $1.4M for their annual IndyCar engine lease and rebuild package. I've heard Honda's financial aim for the 2012 engine is meant to be about a third of their 2010 lease rate, so the move towards cost conscious IndyCar engines isn't exclusive to the GRE.

Motorsport.com wrote:Ferrari's engine boss Luca Marmorini reportedly insists there is not enough time to design a completely new engine for 2013 "with the necessary reliability to have only four units (per driver), as they would like", he said.

If they go to the GRE, with its supposed cost savings, do they really need a reliability rule for the season? You could blow one up every weekend and it'd cost you ~$5M per year per driver, not including R&D obviously. That's, what, 1-2% of Ferrari's budget? 4 engines for the whole season is ridiculous and I can tell you now that Monza and Canada would suck.

jon-mullen wrote:If they go to the GRE, with its supposed cost savings, do they really need a reliability rule for the season? You could blow one up every weekend and it'd cost you ~$5M per year per driver, not including R&D obviously. That's, what, 1-2% of Ferrari's budget? 4 engines for the whole season is ridiculous and I can tell you now that Monza and Canada would suck.

GRE implementations for rally, sports, Indy and F1 cars would be very different. You can have different power, cost and complexity levels with one basic design that shares cylinder lay out, bores and strokes.

So for F1 you still need to set longevity limits to get affordable engines similar to the Indy proposals.

Marmorini's claims with regard to engine development time have been opposed by McLaren. So I would not think that Marmorini speaks the full truth. His comments appear to be driven by an internal Ferrari agenda.

xxChrisxx wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:

djos wrote:I saw an article recently were Ferrari where (sensibly I thought) suggesting they lop 2 cylinders off the current V8 providing a 1.6ltr V6 and then turbo-charging it (every other item would stay the same as the V8).

The lopping off of two cylinders was last proposed and executed in 2005 and it turned out to be a totally different engine according to the experts at that time. And those were both port injected NA engines that were on very similar rev levels and internal pressures. This time there would probably not be a single part to carry over. Not even the spark plugs.

This is so, so true. The, "it's very similar" argument is a BS one to try and get what they want. To the less knowledgable, this does indeed seem logical.

However from design experience, we make two products that look virtually identical. Yet almost none of the internals are the same. We have a totally unrelated product that uses many of the same concepts.

A complete engine redesign, is a complete engine redesign. The design and development time will be almost the whether you have 4 or 6 cylinders. Infact a stright 4 probably carries more over than the V6 does as the I4 and V8 have essentially the same crank layout.

Im not an engine guy so thanks for the explanation.

I think every engine-manufacturer, bar Cosworth perhaps, would jump on the opportunity of any rule change
in Formula One to start from a clean sheet-of paper without compromise, in particular Ferrari themselves.

But I am sure there are enough support for differentiating F1 with a V6, rather that any of MrM's "world engines".

xpensive wrote: But I am sure there are enough support for differentiating F1 with a V6, rather that any of MrM's "world engines".

I'd luv to see a return to the V6 twin turbo days with over 900hp, anything less would be boring imo! [-o<

I do not think we will see anything other than an i4 turbo.
Road car manufacturers are being forced towards this economical format and anything else in F1 will be seen as an indulgence and waste of fuel.

xpensive wrote:But I am sure there are enough support for differentiating F1 with a V6, rather that any of MrM's "world engines".

So how do you reconcile your believe with the reports that the team majority including McLaren favors the 1.6L L4? Today only Ferrari publicly support a 1.8L V6. AFAIK the teams make the decisions what the rules are going to be.

Ground effect, turbos set for F1 return
Ferrari not happy with 2013 engine formula
McLaren backs 4-cylinder engines for 2013
More details emerge about F1's new shape for 2013

Pardon my ignorance, but I am yet to see a quote from a McLaren official giving support for an I-4 in so many words.

Besides, I think the final call will be made by the engine manufacturers, McLaren is not one of those. Not yet anyway.

Which of course posses the crucial question of 'who' should make the decision?

autogyro wrote:Which of course posses the crucial question of 'who' should make the decision?

I think the crucial question is rather "Who makes the decision?" The answer is clearly "The teams make the decision" Even the job of clarifying the team order ban has been thrown back to the teams now. The FiA increasingly restrains itself to rubber stamp the team decisions unless they are seen as damaging to the sport. This IMO hasn't happened since the last Concord Agreement was signed on 01.08.2009.

So the reasonable assumption is that the team majority will decide for a 1.6l L4. I do not find a fault in the reported statement of Tim Goss that McLaren supports the majority plan and rejects Ferrari's claims. Why should that be less official than a statement by Luca Marmorini for Ferrari. Both men are supposed to officially speak for their teams. They would not make statements in the name of their teams if they were not entitled to do so.

WhiteBlue wrote: ...
So the reasonable assumption is that the team majority will decide for a 1.6l L4. I do not find a fault in the reported statement of Tim Goss that McLaren supports the majority plan and rejects Ferrari's claims.
...

WB, I realize that it was a bit of a blow to be proven wrong on the fuel-flow limitation, but tooting your horn on
the I-4 is only going to lead to more heartache on your part I'm afraid. However;

- Precicely why would your "assumption" that a majority of the teams will decide on an 1.6 I4 be "reasonable"?

- When did a representative for any team, xcept for Marmorini, xpress a solid preference for any engine layout?

Tim Goss certainly didn't.

At today's press confrence Joe Saward asked the technical directors for the 2013 engine formula. Sam Michaels had a clear answer.

http://www.planet-f1.com/news/3213/6369 ... conference?

Sam Michael wrote:I think that the four cylinder turbo that they're talking about... we fully support that direction. I don't think we see it as the same change really to the sport that some people are talking about. Remember we were running four cylinder and V6 turbos in the mid-eighties and no one said 'well that's not really racing' or 'that's too green.' So I don't think it's really going to be the same impact as what some people are potentially saying. Adrian's right as well in that it's hard to see in 10, 15, 20 years time that V8s are going to be the stock engine, because manufacturers are all moving away from them, so Formula One has to be careful that it doesn't get left behind. So we fully support it.

Paddy Lowe of McLaren also supported the L4 decision of the engine working groupd although he did not know much about the specifics.

Paddy Lowe wrote:Do you mean the engine configuration specifically? I'm not a great expert on this; the engine was defined by the engine working group, working with the FIA with a lot of consultation. I think a lot of philosophy within those proposals has been driven by discussions with manufacturers and trying to promote technologies which will genuinely be transferred into the ultimate market. So the particular configuration they've come up with is felt to be the way forward and I think Formula One should not only embrace change but actually lead it. If that's what they believe is the right direction then I fully support it.

I still havent heard any good reason why the engine HAS to be a L4 engine instead of a V6.
IMO teams should be able to choose whether they will run a L4 or a V6.

And i dont buy the argument that "all roadcars use L4 engines so F1 has to as well" ....

I dont think any innovation that is made on a V6 engine isnt able to transfer directly to a roadcar L4 engine.

Since when F1 has to be relevant to road cars and not, let's say, super sport cars?
I could accept GT cars as reference to every day cars, but F1 !?!?!

All this ... move is ONLY to attract those manufactures who ONLY wants to use F1 as the best sponsor to sell 4-cyl road cars. Don't lie saying thats because you care about "green" and wich engines are going to be mainstream in 10 or 15 years.

Not EVERY engine in the world will have 4-cyl. So just limit the max capacity and let everyone make the engine they want.