F1technical.net

Enzo would say, so that I can build the fastest and best cars in the world.
Control formula do not allow this.
A 1.5 liter turbo charged and heavily controlled global engine will dilute the appeal of F1 to the point where it will fail.
IC technology must be allowed to develop to its ultimate level within a fuel controlled formula. It is the only way for F1 to achieve the inevitable move into alternate motive power.

autogyro wrote:Enzo would say, so that I can build the fastest and best cars in the world. Control formula do not allow this.

autogyro,

Richard Noble might disagree. His car was several hundred miles-an-hour faster than Enzo's best. Notice the supersonic shockwave in the photo.

I have this feeling that the current engine-formula will remain after 2112, for cost reasons if nothing else, starting from scratch with something radically different might prompt some engine-suppliers to leave.

There might be some tweaks however, a standardised KERS and limited fuel perhaps?

I believe the best direction forward for this thread should be engine based, as the title suggests. My thanks go to Xpensive for taking the initiative to re-direct this thread.

And as you have said X, the V8 will probably stay as replacing it after such a short life span is probably not worth the effort and xpense. What other engine formula has lasted for only seven years??

You are quite welcome esteemed moderator. The turbos didn't last for very long either, effectively less than ten years, but that was an acute issue over cost, power and equality.

I also think that the 2.4 V8 is a most reasonable compromise, wonder if you could fuel them with methanol or ethanol and what would happen to the output in such a case?

If the V8 stays it will mean stagnation for F1 and Jean Todt will have failed with his green agenda. There are clear targets how fuel consumption is supposed to develop and I very much doubt that the sport would get anywhere near those targets with the existing engines. The real expense is caused by indecision. If the development time is too short costs will explode because all engine suppliers have cut back their respective departments and would have to suddenly increase their resources to run their programs.

There are reports that all parties are close to agreeing on a turbo charged four cylinder inline engine and the best course IMO would be to formalize that plan ASAP. For the 2011 and 2012 seasons it would be helpful to set progressively more restrictive max fuel load limits to approach the level of downforce that would be desirable. KERS restrictions should be progressively dropped as we get nearer to the new formula that should have unlimited KERS.

I think I need some clarification regarding the proposed time line for the next engine formula. Is it written in stone that the change has to happen for 2013? Who proposed this? FIA/MM? FOTA?

In my opinion an I4 is more detrimental to F1 than not steering away from a V8 (the latter point is not from my behalf). I don't see any value nor I have any interest in such a minuscule engine, especially when it would be the only option on the table. Being a mechanically/automotive inclined person my views and opinions have some weight, should it be ok for me to say so.

Is it time to quote someone as special as Riff_raff? I certainly think so...

riff_raff wrote:I agree with jddh1. Big displacement, normally aspirated V12's. Screw the feel good, self-righteous, hypocritical, nanny-state socialists. This F1 racing! It's all about cars that have outrageous amounts of power, that can stop on a dime, make lots of lovely ear-splitting noise, and which driver has the biggest b@lls.

It's a sad state of affairs when F1 racing is mostly concerned about being environmentally "sensitive". Pussies! This cr@p would never happen in NASCAR or NHRA.

Sat Mar 28, 2009

I still think alternative fuels have some bearing, why I would love to see what a methanol-burning 2.4 V8 would do.

Fuel-economy would be terrible, with multiple pit-stops for re-fueling be introduced. I-4s would be a disappointmet however.

It is irrational to argue that F1 can only get the power from big NA engines. The most powerful F1 engines ever were 1.5 L in line 4 cyl turbos.

It is true that the Offenhauser 2.65 I-4 dominated Indy car for many years and that the BMW 1.5 I-4 was arguably the most powerful F1 turbo, but I think we are talking image here.

Besides, could a tiny 1.5 I-4 be used as a fully stressed member, without a sub-fram to support it laterally?

WB, Max power isn't the only point being argued.

xpensive wrote:could a tiny 1.5 I-4 be used as a fully stressed member, without a sub-fram to support it laterally?

Why should that be an issue. It never was an issue in 1985, wasn't it? Plus you design the engine for the job. If it is supposed to be fully stressed that's part of the spec and engineers will find a solution.

You should be allowed to voice any opinion you wish MX.
I am grounded in the same engineering background and have been lucky enough to work on most of the engine types that we obviously both love.
If it were simply a case of F1 for those closely associated, there would be no problems and the big noisy and fuel hungry engines would be great.
Unfortunately the forces demanding change are not going to be denied.
I believe this is the most difficult moment ever in F1s history and the many 'motor heads' involved should take their heads out of the sand before the fat woman sings.

Nice pic WB, but I'm pretty sure that the stock-block, cast iron, BMW-four used a sub-frame for support?
So did the early Ferrari flat-12s btw.

mx_tifosi wrote:WB, Max power isn't the only point being argued.

So what exactly are the points?

If it is noise I thought that the plan to stick with petrol will satisfy the noise lovers as sound suppressing catalytic soot filters will be avoided.