F1technical.net

The teams held a meeting this morning (chaired by Ross Brawn) regarding teh new engine format. They are to request the FIA that the engines can be increased to 15,000 rpm.

The organisers of the Australian GP are leading a group of race organisers who also want the revs to be increased as they feel that engines with 12,000 rpm will sound rubbish.

EDIT: More info here.

Please, heed the warning at the top of the page.

Debate engine configs in another thread if you so choose. This thread is about the new F1 engine, the:

V6

dig?

I'll be deleting the engine config debate in this thread now. If you must, move it to a new one.

WhiteBlue wrote:

rjsa wrote:Well WB, a few weeks ago it was set in stone, would certainly run for 2013 and the engine supplies where already deep into the development process. Tow out of these three are not true. It's only the third in need to fail now.

To me they are fading out the concept. And thet will try to make us forget it...

That's rubbish if you allow me this personal opinion. I have never said that the engines are not going to be delayed, although I still think they will not be. This fax vote is just sugar coating to demonstrate that the FiA is listening to all sides.

Ooooh the pleasure of self quoting...

http://www.pitpass.com/44034-Exclusive- ... n-tomorrow

They regret the move: Audi et al didn't come (they should have called Kevin Costner to build a baseball diamond instead) and now the guilt will be shared and all is to be forgotten.

Ha!

I wonder if manufacturers like Ferrari and Renault will have any advantage from their V6 turbo xperience from the 80s,
or is that completely irrelevant for today's technology?

Fascinating quotes from Adrian Newey in Valencia,

The initial decision from the engine working group was for a four-cylinder turbo to be introduced for 2013. The big driver behind that was Audi. They said they would come into the sport if there was a four cylinder turbo, and that's what everyone agreed in order to get Audi in.
They subsequently decided that no, they won't bother after all thank you very much, and we were lumbered with a four cylinder turbo.

A racing V6 is a much nicer engine to package. That will now be the 2014 engine.
The revs are still being debated, but it looks as if it will probably be around 14,000 or 16,000.

Source

I'm fascinated that it was Audi, not VW or Porsche, that was actively involved.


Personally, I don't really buy into the whole circuits' lobby group.
Although, a part of me would love to see them walk; then we'd see Bernie in fine form trying to fill a sudden 17 empty slots on the calendar!

If V6 turbos are allowed to rev to 16 000, I guess they need to further reduce the boost, to possibly 0.7 Bar, in order to keep power at today's levels, 750 Hp?

About the packaging mentioned på Newey, I would think he's considering the lateral stiffness of an I4? Come to think of it, the legendary Offenhauser I4 turbo was supported by a subframe, just like the BMW F1 engine of the 80s, no?

the more interesting question is perhaps:
How would you "force" them to run at 16000pm?, as with free boost limits and only a fuelflow limit, I´can´t see that someone ever would want to run this high rpm´s, as you can make the power lower down.
I was allready hard pressed to see, why engine designers would want to run 12000 rpm in the first place, given the sketchy frameworks which where mentioned. (fuelflow limit, total fuelcap, single turbo 12k or now maybe 16k pm).

I think, if they really want them to rev this high, some serious boost limit´s or an rpm dependent fuel flow limit is needed, to go there. IMHO

16,000rpm would be awesome, maybe if they also allow 2 bar boost we would have some really exciting and powerful engines for once!! [-o<

@Fil - that's interesting. I just found the same link before I looked on here and was away to post it.

So it wasn't Ferrari that caused the rethink on the engine format and timing? Oh dear.

djos wrote:16,000rpm would be awesome, maybe if they also allow 2 bar boost we would have some really exciting and powerful engines for once!! [-o<

Theoretiacally, 2 Bar boost (3 Bar absolute) at 16 kRpm would give 1300 Hp, hell yeah, I'd like to see that!

I think with that sort of power Gerhard Berger would apply for a superlicence..

And Nelson Sr would talk MrE and BMW into restart the Brabham team...

andrew wrote: So it wasn't Ferrari that caused the rethink on the engine format and timing? Oh dear.

My head just asploded.

747heavy wrote:the more interesting question is perhaps:
How would you "force" them to run at 16000pm?, as with free boost limits and only a fuelflow limit, I´can´t see that someone ever would want to run this high rpm´s, as you can make the power lower down.
I was allready hard pressed to see, why engine designers would want to run 12000 rpm in the first place, given the sketchy frameworks which where mentioned. (fuelflow limit, total fuelcap, single turbo 12k or now maybe 16k pm).

I think, if they really want them to rev this high, some serious boost limit´s or an rpm dependent fuel flow limit is needed, to go there. IMHO

The potential liberation to 16,000 rpm has initially no technical meaning if they keep to the fuel flow limit, which I fully expect the FiA to insist on. It was already confirmed that the fuel limit will not be increased due to the V6 decision. It will be kept as low as set for the I4 in order to cut fuel expenditure to 65% of the 2011 use (of 180L). Long term the rpm liberation would trigger an arms race for faster direct injection systems which run higher rpms at the same efficiency. This isn't a problem for the FIA and the ecological side, but it may constitute a problem for Cosworth who will not profit from the technology as Merc and Ferrari will do. They can only use it in a hand full of racing engines. The manufacturers can use it with millions of cars and secretly use funds of their road car divisions to push the technology. I think this is the reason why the FiA and the working group has put a stop to it.

andrew wrote:So it wasn't Ferrari that caused the rethink on the engine format and timing? Oh dear.

That is wishful thinking IMO. Neywey has a vested interest that the formula stays aerodynamically close to what he knows best and excels at the moment. Ulrich Baretzky has said it clearly that an I4 can be easily made as rigid as you like it without using a full subframe. You can go semi stressed like the FBMW cars with just a pair of reinforcing rods or you can add the necessary ribbing and webbing in a CAD design.

But if the whole aero and packaging game changes by employing either the slimmer and higher I4 or by ground effect and tunnel use Newey is out again in the open with the other teams to find new solutions. Traditionally the leading teams have always opposed fundamental change. It is no different with Red Bull. They would shoot themselves in the foot if they would not lobby to keep the advantage they have now. So its no surprise that Red Bull prefer a known configuration.

xpensive wrote:I wonder if manufacturers like Ferrari and Renault will have any advantage from their V6 turbo xperience from the 80s,
or is that completely irrelevant for today's technology?

If they do it wil be short lived. It seems pretty brick ----house technology so I think any engineer worth their salt in F1 would be able to cobble together something decent. The proverbial wotsit in the wood pile or the challenge if you prefer to be polite is going to be the fuel usage, and achieving the required mpg whilst not making the car too heavy with fuel at the start of the race and remaining competitive, I think.