No I4 in 2013; V6 in 2014 instead!

The whole situation is crazy. This just opens up more questions than there were to begin with.

Mark Gallagher says: “By having tightly controlled rules governing capacity, fuel allowance, number of cylinders etc you generate a framework for financial control and ensure that engines are not a source of competitive advantage i.e. what we have now works.”

With regards to one engine gaining a massive advantage – if it worked in the early 90s and previously, why wouldn’t it work now? To me, it doesn’t matter if one engine is down on performance – it’s all part of the game. You could say the same for other areas of innovaton (i.e. aerodynamics), but they still allow the said innovation, even though some teams still gain massive advantages from them. Plus, I’m sure that fans would love the variety of sounds that the engines would produce.

With regards to the costs – does it cost more to develop an engine in relation to other parts of the car? I’m sure that many fans would prefer it if engines were developed instead of other areas. It just feels more satisfying somehow, knowing that the beating heart of the car is continually being advanced. This is another reason that the budget cap would have been good – it would have wiped problems such as these clean away.

Of course, it’s great having a sport where every car has very similar performance, and having great racing because of that. But one thing that most of us don’t want is the sport to become a single-make formula – unfortunately it looks like it may be heading that way, only with different badges on the cars.
 
How are the V6 2014 regulations any more restrictive than the current V8 regulations? F1 has had a single engine type regulation since 1989, and whilst the fixed cylinder/layout came in 2005, everyone has been using the same style engines since the mid 90's.

Put it this way, if Renault, Toyota, Honda and BMW could not afford to compete in F1 with restricted regulations, what makes you think anyone will be able to afford to compete in an open F1?

Having an open formula will mean massive field spread, worse racing, and half the cars on the grid as nobody can afford it. It would be the death of F1. Its not me being stupid, its common sense. Your ideal fully open F1 simply wouldn't work.

Oh, and just one point to pick up on, where did you get the idea that open engine formula's worked in the 90's an earlier? In the 80's certain engines walked all over everybody (look at the McLaren dominance in the late 80's), and in the 90's, all the engine manufacturers ended up converging on the same engine design anyway. The teams invented the 3.0l V10 specification themselves by discovering it was the best setup for the situation. Do you honestly think that if the FIA said "ok, fit what you want" that some teams would build a V12 and others an I4 to do the same job?
 
Last edited:
CaptainRAVE said:
The whole situation is crazy. This just opens up more questions than there were to begin with.

Mark Gallagher says: “By having tightly controlled rules governing capacity, fuel allowance, number of cylinders etc you generate a framework for financial control and ensure that engines are not a source of competitive advantage i.e. what we have now works.”

With regards to one engine gaining a massive advantage – if it worked in the early 90s and previously, why wouldn’t it work now? To me, it doesn’t matter if one engine is down on performance – it’s all part of the game. You could say the same for other areas of innovaton (i.e. aerodynamics), but they still allow the said innovation, even though some teams still gain massive advantages from them. Plus, I’m sure that fans would love the variety of sounds that the engines would produce.

With regards to the costs – does it cost more to develop an engine in relation to other parts of the car? I’m sure that many fans would prefer it if engines were developed instead of other areas. It just feels more satisfying somehow, knowing that the beating heart of the car is continually being advanced. This is another reason that the budget cap would have been good – it would have wiped problems such as these clean away.

Of course, it’s great having a sport where every car has very similar performance, and having great racing because of that. But one thing that most of us don’t want is the sport to become a single-make formula – unfortunately it looks like it may be heading that way, only with different badges on the cars.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the engine more than half the budget of the biggest spenders (toyota, honda etc) at around 200 mil a year
 
Teams have apparently asked that the 1.6 V6 turbos rev to 15,000 instead of 12,000.

autosport said:
And although the meeting was not an official gathering of the Technical Working Group, it is understood a letter was sent from the teams to the FIA's Charlie Whiting expressing their support for the V6 plan that was put forward earlier this week - with a few minor tweaks which included lifting performance from a 12,000rpm limit up to 15,000rpm.
Click to expand...
 
I can see the tactics here. Aim for a I4 12,000rpm engines, and settle on a V6 15,000rpm middle ground.

However, I cant help thinking the V6 has completely missed the point that the I4 was trying to achieve in the first place. The V6 may be a middle ground, but its a middle ground that is of no use to any parties.
 
Deathwish said:
Did anyone see the ESPN article quoting Newey?

http://en.espnf1.com/fia/motorsport/story/52832.html

Audi shoving their beak in then backing out the reason for the I4 idea.
Click to expand...

derfderfley said:
I thought the latest proposed regs allowed for a maximum configuration of a V6, which would still allow other engine manufactures to package as a I4, S6, V4 ect ?
Click to expand...

hmm would be interesting if so...

To get around newey's spaceframe complaints, they could possibly mount the I4 horizontally, so get a much lower CoG, much lighter engine, whilst still retaining the structural width....
 
I can see the draw of a 1.6 I4 turbo engine as it's the new engine for WRC (which VW are entering with their Polo and BMW/Mini with the Mini Countryman WRC as well as Ford and PSA already there) and I also believe it's the planned new engine for the WTCC 2012 specs. If a company (or group of companies like VAG) can do 2 or 3 world or continental series and share engine development (to a certain extent) between WTCC, WRC and F1 then costs would be lower, but it's always shaky ground doing something to attract a company without them putting it down firmly in writing. Audi suggested they'd come in, but obviously weren't serious. V6 turbo's with a 15k rpm limit will sound awesome.
 
Its not so much to do with cross development between motorsports, its more to do with cross marketing between a companies road and racing cars. There is massive marketing potential in a car maker having an I4 1.6 Turbo in a WTCC, WRC and F1 car, and then also stick one in a lot of their road cars.

There are 2 ends to the spectrum. The I4 appeals to mass car makers like Renault, Audi, Peugeot, etc, while the high capacity high cylinder engines appeal to premium performance car makers like Ferrari, Mercedes and to an extent, McLaren. These people like V8's, 10s and 12s, as this is what they use in their road cars.

The FIA stated that they wanted more of the lower end car makers in, as at the end of the day they make up the mass market. This is where the I4 idea came from. The only problem is, while the teams may feel they have 'won' by getting a V6 middle ground, its actually a pretty irrelevant specification to both camps. Neither the likes of Renault, Honda, Toyota, or the likes of Ferrari or Merc, are fitting V6 Turbos to any major percentage of their road cars. The V6 engine is actually less relivent to the F1 teams interests than the current V8's are.

Personally, while with my F1 fan hat on I am much more excited about 15k V6's than 12k I4's, with my real world hat on, I can't help thinking they have completely missed the point with this specification.
 
Why not let the manufacturers choose the amount of cylinders then? That way it's up to the teams to make sure their designs are competitive?
 
Because its not that simple.

If you allow the engine designs to be open, then you will have to allow the gearbox design to be open to. Then you have to take into effect the different physical sizes of the engines, so the mountings will have to be different. The positioning of them will also vary so the suspension mounts that come off the engine and gearboxes will all vary, so the regulations will need to be open for that. Then there is the rear wing construction and where and how that mounts. Then you have to consider that the length of the setup will vary so you have to open up the regulations to allow either the length of the cars to vary or the position of the cockpit in relation to the car dimensions to vary. Then if you start moving the cockpit, you change everything that relates to it, which affects the front end design of the cars.

Put simply, allowing any sort of engine would mean the regulations would have to become fully open. Whilst those stuck in 1970 may think that is great, its not. In the modern day open regulations mean spiraling costs and massive field spread.

So the solution therefore is to limit the development. If you are going to fit it into the limited chassis designs of today then you really need to limit the physical dimensions of the engine and its positioning in the chassis. The issue then is there will be an optimum engine design for that setup, and I can guarantee all the teams will find it, and quickly, and the end result will be everyone running the same engine anyway. So you may as well set an engine regulation.

Open regulations will not work.
 
Skeeter said:
Because its not that simple.

If you allow the engine designs to be open, then you will have to allow the gearbox design to be open to. Then you have to take into effect the different physical sizes of the engines, so the mountings will have to be different. The positioning of them will also vary so the suspension mounts that come off the engine and gearboxes will all vary, so the regulations will need to be open for that. Then there is the rear wing construction and where and how that mounts. Then you have to consider that the length of the setup will vary so you have to open up the regulations to allow either the length of the cars to vary or the position of the cockpit in relation to the car dimensions to vary. Then if you start moving the cockpit, you change everything that relates to it, which affects the front end design of the cars.

Put simply, allowing any sort of engine would mean the regulations would have to become fully open. Whilst those stuck in 1970 may think that is great, its not. In the modern day open regulations mean spiraling costs and massive field spread.

So the solution therefore is to limit the development. If you are going to fit it into the limited chassis designs of today then you really need to limit the physical dimensions of the engine and its positioning in the chassis. The issue then is there will be an optimum engine design for that setup, and I can guarantee all the teams will find it, and quickly, and the end result will be everyone running the same engine anyway. So you may as well set an engine regulation.

Open regulations will not work.
Click to expand...

This. While a completely open formula sounds absolutely fantastic there lies a potential that someone would come up with a car so amazingly fast thanks to some trick part or parts or just a fantastic piece of design that makes it the class of the field by seconds a lap. Take the McLaren in 1998. It lapped the whole field in Australia, so was it's dominance. Would you watch that?


Also it's been said an inline 4 engine would need some sort of space frame as it can't be made into a stressed member of the chassis for some reason, adding to the cost. A V6, due to the shape and size can be they said, hence making it a better design to use.
 
Last edited:
Open formulas are fabulous right up to the point a manufacturer gets involved and wants to win. Look at the CanAm in the early 70's when Porsche turned up with a 2100bhp 917 and walked away from the rest of the field. Open formulas don't work really as money always talks and when it gets good big money gets involved and ruins it.
 
What Housey said. Open formulas work where there is limited budgets, or limited scope. Open formula in F1 in the 70's worked as there was less money around, and a lot of teams were men in sheds inventing things. The open formula works for Pikes Peak open class as its a very limited scope, with limited entrants, and only makes up a small percentage of the total event.

F1 has potentially unlimited money in it. Opening it up wouldn't be a case of people competing if they are fast enought, but competing only if they could afford it. As I have said before, the largest car makers in the world dropped out of F1 with its current restricted regulations as they couldn't afford to stay in it. Based on that, how would anyone be able to afford to compete in an open F1?

I still stand by my opinion that the V6 is, in terms of the FIAs goals for the future of the sport, the wrong way to go.
 
Skeeter said:
I still stand by my opinion that the V6 is, in terms of the FIAs goals for the future of the sport, the wrong way to go.
Click to expand...

So which way would you go, remembering what you also said about costs in an open formula and also remembering that F1 is trying to appear more green?
 
I understand the point of the posters previous to me (Skeeter) commenting on open rules.

However I have an interest in sustainability (doing a PhD in it starting soon) and the rules are so tight that they completely stifle creativity. iirc the current cars use around 150 litres of fuel per race. If this was limited to (for arguements sake) 100 litres and the teams were given limits to the engines that were not as tight as they are now then this would spark innovation. Such as limit to one turbo, engine block must be steel, must be 4-6 cylinders, no turbo boost of X amount etc.

At the moment the engines are 18,000 rpm - Use to the real world? Not much. The teams spend millions on tweaking wings and fins to gain 0.1 seconds- Use to the real world? Not much.

I appreciate your point but the rules must meet a middle ground. Not too open to be too complex to cover different situations (ie engine mounts on different engine sizes) yet not too strict to stifle innovative designs that could drastically increase the engine efficiency.

(Whilst I argue these points I feel F1 should be big, loud and say **** off to the environment. I personally want 20,000 rpm engines that should last 1 race. I want more car breakdowns, engines that scream even louder and more dramatic racing).
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
Also it's been said an inline 4 engine would need some sort of space frame as it can't be made into a stressed member of the chassis for some reason, adding to the cost. A V6, due to the shape and size can be they said, hence making it a better design to use.
Click to expand...

Back in the mists of time when I was in short trousers, Channel 4 had a documentary series called Equinox. The first program covered Cosworth designing and testing what became the Ford V6 used by Haas-Lola in '86 and Benetton in '87. Cosworth started out with a 4-cyl engine (some sort of BDA derivative perhaps?) but it kept breaking on the dyno due to crank vibration. They went back to the drawing board and did a purpose built wide angle V6 for strength and packaging reasons.
 
MissChief said:
So which way would you go, remembering what you also said about costs in an open formula and also remembering that F1 is trying to appear more green?
Click to expand...

1.6l Inline 4 Turbo, as that is what is becoming commonplace in many mass market road cars, and many world motorsports.

V6 Turbos are to big for mass market car makers, and too small for premium performance car makers. They offer no benifits to anyone, yet will still carry all the costs of new engine developments. Its actually a worse move than just staying with the current V8's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom