Soldato
Oh for crying out loud.
F1 2014 regs
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
The 2014 rules regulate that the turbo must be mounted on the centre line of the car, so that means that the exhaust exit from it will be in the middle of the car, and at the back of the engine above the gearbox. There will also be only 1 exhaust. It would take a lot of work to split that in 2 and the feed it back around to the diffuser. Simplest solution would just be to mandate the exhaust exit to be a single round pipe on the centre line too.
Edit: Ok, I'm obviously missing something.... The 2012 Regulations:
And then the 2014 Regulations:
Thats it. Thats all it says. One line
. They appear to be able to have 2 round exhaust exits wherever they want pointing wherever they want. Thats even worse than what we have now 
Edit: Ok, I'm obviously missing something.... The 2012 Regulations:
And then the 2014 Regulations:
Thats it. Thats all it says. One line
. They appear to be able to have 2 round exhaust exits wherever they want pointing wherever they want. Thats even worse than what we have now
Last edited:
Soldato
Single turbo then?
The 80s V6 engines were all twin turbos mounted on the outside.
The 80s V6 engines were all twin turbos mounted on the outside.
No, no, no. Can't spend money on engines. I was told that most emphatically earlier in this thread. Never mind that they could then actually be a test bed for road car technology. It can't be done, just 'because'.
But small capacity turbo charged engines are a test bed for road car technology? Along with KERS/Hybrid systems small turbocharged engines really are the future for most manufacturers?
Soldato
So the consensus is that pretty much every single fan is against the new regs and the only fallible reason for them going ahead must be due to lobbying from the top teams?
Great
Great
Last edited:
Which road car manufacturer produces a 1.6 litre V6 turbo engine?
Soldato
But they aren't, are they? Because....
And not just a 1.6 V6 turbo. But one that's locked down in terms of bore:stroke ratio, locked down to a set V angle, locked down in terms of materials used....so how are road car manufacturers meant to get anything useful out of that? Porsche can't test out stuff for their next flat-six because they can't build one, got to be a V6. Ferrari can't test out something for their next V8 because they can't build one, got to be a V6. Honda can't test out something for their next inline-4 because they can't build one, got to be a V6.
But, I am told that it's impossible to allow any money to be spent on engines. Only diffusers, apparently
The 4 cylinder was a marketing by association gold mine. It allowed any car manufacturer who makes a 1.6 4 cylinder turbo (which is pretty much all of them) to say "look, our new shopping car sport model uses the same engine as our race winning Formula 1 cars!". It didn't matter that the engine was locked down or that there was no link between the 700bhp F1 engine and the 120bhp shopping car, the marketing practically wrote itself. The whole reason all the manufacturers jumped into F1 in the 00's was for the merkeing by association of success on a race track. With the 4 cylinder plan that had that, plus they had a directly transferable product specification. Mercedes have already got products they developed for the now defunct 4 cylinder engines going into their smaller road cars. Cross branding, marketing by association, plus ancillery technology (all the electronic bits) that could be transfered to road cars, the 4 cylinder idea was a mass market car makers dream, even with the very restricted rules. The only problem? Its no good if you are a car maker who doesn't make anything smaller than a V8...
Unfortunately what we have ended up with is a middle ground that is irrelevant to all manufacturers involved. Its an engine specification with all the bad bits of the 4 cylinder plan, but none of the good bits to balance it out. Obviously with my petrol head brain on I want V10s and V12s, but with my sensible brain in the V6 idea is pretty much the worst possible choice they could go with in terms of the long term success of F1.
Unfortunately what we have ended up with is a middle ground that is irrelevant to all manufacturers involved. Its an engine specification with all the bad bits of the 4 cylinder plan, but none of the good bits to balance it out. Obviously with my petrol head brain on I want V10s and V12s, but with my sensible brain in the V6 idea is pretty much the worst possible choice they could go with in terms of the long term success of F1.
Last edited:
Soldato
Have to have a chat with my uncle at Christmas and see what he'll be up to with these new engines over the next year or 2, should keep him busy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 6,056
Yeah, I can see that being the reason they go with too. I assume that means that the 2014 cars will just all be identical to the 2013 cars as they would ONLY spend money on aero if its a change in the regulations. If the regs stay the same its just copy and paste and spend the money on hookers and blackjack?
The new engines won't be exactly the same shape. This will allow for aero improvements So no, the chassis won't be identical.
Soldato
since the manufacturers have already spent millions on developing their 2014 engine, the FIA really should have opened up the regs for a few years, just specify that it has to be x capacity and must be turbo, and must be able to get through a set distance with x amount of fuel.
Let that run for a few years, then tighten up the rules if necessary.
Let that run for a few years, then tighten up the rules if necessary.
The rules aren't for an engine freeze so while the regulations are very strict, they are still open for development within them. Its nowhere near an open fight, but its an effort to control costs and does mean that the manufacturers can keep developing their engines, unlike now where they have basically been building the exact same spec engines for 5 years.
So what happens then if the Renault engine is 40 HP down on Mercedes and all the Renault powered teams are struggling to even get in the points and Red Bull turn round and want Mercedes engines? Renault then start asking for Mercedes to be reigned in or the rules for them to be relaxed. Tough you say? Renault then announce they're leaving F1 in 2015 then you have a very real problem. Sounds great but a potential minefield it is.
This is pretty much it. The open regulations sound amazing but in reality its such a tiny target to hit in a mass of possible issues. The potential for spiraling costs or massive performance disparities is enormous.
Soldato
I understand exactly what you're saying. But that down-on-peak-power Renault might have better torque and pick-up out of low speed corners, giving Renault powered cars an advantage on tighter, slower tracks. And would probably have better fuel economy, so would need to carry less fuel (or the same amount of fuel and run harder for longer).
It's swings and roundabouts. That's certainly how it used to work - dry days on flowing tracks the Renault V10 was the engine to have, on all-out power tracks (the old Hockenheim, Monza, Spa to a certain extent, Adelaide even showed the advantage from time to time) the Ferrari V12 or Honda engine was the one to have, wet day on a twisty track the Ford V8 powered cars were right up there. And then there's the days when the form book gets torn up and something that's actually surprising happens.
If F1 spending is going to remain as high as it is now, I'd much rather see the money spent on an engine arms race than on utterly irrelevant aerodynamic trickery like sneaky diffusers and flexible wing elements and holes in floors. At least then the manufacturers would actually get something for their coin, and the fans would get a rather more interesting spectacle.
But back in those days you could be on pole by 2 seconds and win the race after lapping the whole field. If people got pee'd off watching the RBRs being consistently a few tenths faster than everyone else, how will they feel watching someone rock off into the distance all the time because their engine is better?
Your idea that things would all balance out and the strengths and weaknesses would mean a close battle is in reality very very unlikely. What is far more likely to happen is that 1 design is much better than the others, meaning either a 2 teir formula, or everyone just using the same engines.
And thats before you get to costs. The manufacturers are complaining about the cost of building an almost spec engine. How would you convince them to join a formula with an unlimited expectation on engine budgets? Remember that all the manufacturers left a few years back because costs got out of control and they weren't seeing benifits, and that was with spec engines.
Your idea that things would all balance out and the strengths and weaknesses would mean a close battle is in reality very very unlikely. What is far more likely to happen is that 1 design is much better than the others, meaning either a 2 teir formula, or everyone just using the same engines.
And thats before you get to costs. The manufacturers are complaining about the cost of building an almost spec engine. How would you convince them to join a formula with an unlimited expectation on engine budgets? Remember that all the manufacturers left a few years back because costs got out of control and they weren't seeing benifits, and that was with spec engines.