F1technical.net

Why is this causing such an issue?

If the engine is situated between the two axles, it's mid-engined.

Simples.

Just got my share of aducation here.

I'd assume the engine ahead of the driver would me considered a front engine disregarding it's position relative to front the axle.

The fuss started while disccusing if an engine mounter after the driver but ahead the rear axle was a rear mounted engine like a Porsche setup.

rjsa wrote:I'd assume the engine ahead of the driver would me considered a front engine disregarding it's position relative to front the axle.

But for example the old Citroen DS is called mid-engined too but it has the engine between the driver and the front axle.

Why are we discussing this?

How about the bore and stroke of the 1.6lt engine, what can we expect?
return of flywheels?

piast9 wrote:

rjsa wrote:I'd assume the engine ahead of the driver would me considered a front engine disregarding it's position relative to front the axle.

But for example the old Citroen DS is called mid-engined too but it has the engine between the driver and the front axle.

Like I said above, I just got educated on the matter.

ringo wrote:Why are we discussing this?

How about the bore and stroke of the 1.6lt engine, what can we expect?
return of flywheels?

We got into the discussion because rjsa insisted that Ferrai's front engined F1 cars were succeeded by mid engined cars in 1960 and not rear engined as I have said.

Regarding bore to stroke ratio I predict that we will see smaller ratios with engine rpm going down in the turbo engines. Pistons and connecting rods will be exposed to lower inertial forces so that strokes can become a bit longer.

98 / 38.9 = 2.52 Ferrari F1 2010 running at 18,000 rpm
80.1 / 49.4 = 1.62 Renault F1 1985 running at 11,000 rpm
89.2 / 60 = 1.49 BMW F1 1981 running at 11,000 rpm

Perhaps the ratio will not go down quite so low as in 1981 but I would expect it at 1.9

For a 1.6L 4 cylinder that would translate to:

99 / 52

It will be interesting to see how close I can hit to the real values. Anyone else who wants to take shot?

are we are going to see, hyper regulated rules by the FIA in this respect, or will they be content with setting a common layout e.g. I4 and the max volume?
are we expecting regulated CoG height and min. weight for these engines as well?

It's interesting to think how the teams or FIA will go about it.

keep the 98mm bore from the V8 with a 53mm stroke ? that's 1.5991 litre for a 4 cylinder.

ratio 1.85

WhiteBlue wrote: It will be interesting to see how close I can hit to the real values. Anyone else who wants to take shot?

82.4/50 V6 at 12000 rpm, with 50 cc/sec fuel-flow restriction.

You're sticking with the V6 layout.
I would give it the edge, but the global engine layout thing looks like it will actually happen with the L4.

Seeing as though the turbo V6 engines back then were stick shift, i am assuming they had a flywheel, unlike the high revving engines with paddle shift of today.
oh, here's a pic:

I am wondering if the slower, fewer cylinder engines, will require a flywheel even though they will use the sequential paddle shift.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39wcmDj2Rg&feature=sub[/youtube]

Just follow the FIA logic

3.0 V10
2.4 V8
1.8 V6
1.2 V4
0.6 V2
0.0 V0

I really think the FIA need to realise how important the noise of the cars is. I know a great-many people who go to the races purely to hear the cars. Hell, I know people who go to World Series races just to hear the F1 car scream around during the lunch-break. It's like a drug and once it's under your skin, it isn't easy to get rid of.

Take that away? Watch crowds drop.

That's why I really want they go V6-turbo in 2013. If inline-4 engines will sound as in the 80's, a lot of people -including me- will be very angry and dissapointed.

Thank you Holm96 for the Cosworth video. They made some excellent points IMO.

• F1 needs to continue avoiding a spending race and remain financially viable
• use a small number of regulatory fixed points to incourage innovation
• limit amount of fuel and fuel flow
• total freedom to capture waste energy
• team and driver doing the best job with a fixed amount of resources to win
• go from today's high drag to a low drag configuration and bring back overtaking
• waste energy recovery will make cars go faster and create developments which will be relevant to areas outside motor racing
• if F1 does not do this in 2013 the attractiveness for new entrants to F1 will diminish to the detriment of the sport

There are a lot of general points in Cosworth's philosophy which are impacting on the sporting regulations and I must say that they are all very good. It is interesting that they promote only two points for the engine regulations. Limited fuel load and fuel flow and unlimited waste energy recovery. They do not seem to care what kind of engine competitors will build. That is actually quite remarkable.

I just hope that their plans do not get too much watered down. My main concern is that the fuel cap and the fuel flow limit is set too high so that the high drag chassis can continue. And naturally my other concern is that the strict resource restriction which will apply in 2012 will be watered down for 2013 again.