Adam Parr: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/m...E73I10E20110419



Bernie said that the V8s should be used in a fuel restricted way. You can be pretty sure that Todt will not allow them to use as much juice as they want, or the whole exercise of building fuel efficient engines is moot. If the V8s are running parallel to the I4 turbos they will be at least restricted to a point where the turbos are required to win a race. My comparison was just showing how much more power a highly efficient engine makes in a fuel restricted formula.


I have it from the horses mouth, so to speak, from AMuS. They get the development plans of all German manufacturers years in advance. It was in the print edition or I would give you an URL. Take my word that the straight six will be discontinued and totally replaced by I4s.


The price difference isn't all that great and the engine still generates 500 nm torque. It is plenty to run the car to 240 kph. But the milage is revolutionary for such a car. http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1337440-1...-0-0-0-0-0.html


There are very clear reports that KERS will have four times the Energy that is has now and that it will work continuously in dual torque mode over the whole lap. Push to pass is out of F1 by 2013. (reported by Dieter Rencken in Autosport+).

There won't be many flames, teams will be looking at GDI technology. Allowing for lean combustion to occur and be controlled.

As for the V6, it will be slightly easier to balance because horizontal component of the reciprocating forces will balance each other out.

KERS has never been a push to pass system. DRS is though and all indications is that it still will be around coming 2013.

He doesn't say 840hp, just "over 800hp".

I also think he is being disingenuous when he says "800hp from 4 cylinders" - because a large chunk of that power will come from the KERS motor. And just because it is powerful, doesn't mean that it will necessarily sound good.

Parr also says:



That is well and good, that Ferrari wanted a new engine. But they have never wanted that engine to be a 4 cylinder.

I am sure he didn't say that a fuel restricted V8 would run alongside of the fuel restricted I4 turbo. More likely he said that they should fuel restrict the V8s instead of having the I4s. to achieve better economy, and less power from the ICE. Which would then be topped up by the KERS.

fuel limiting the engine while having frozen devlopment is kinda bad imo

Little different to limiting the rpm....

Wuzak, I'm not going to split hairs with you. The main point is that the turbo power train will be equal or more powerful than a fuel restricted current V8 and any KERS they can throw at it and it will still use at least 15-20% less fuel. The fans should realize that they are taken for a ride by the the Bernie/Montezemolo proposal.


It is very dumb indeed. The V8 engines are only affordable by the teams because the manufacturers are not allowed to spend development money on them. The moment you start spending again it needs to be spent in a cost efficient way and that is not done by starting with the V8s. It is done by a clean sheet design concept like the I4 turbo. All the experts agree on this.

F1 cannot afford to act dumb because it suits Ferrari's marketing plan. F1 is bigger than Ferrari. If F1 does the right thing it will attract the right manufacturers like VW, Honda, Aston Martin, BMW and the like. They will only come if the technology and the business climate is in sync with their own philosophy. Today that is downsizing, turbo charging and a radical efficiency approach on all levels.

Well WB, if they reduce the power of the V8s by 30% they will reduce fuel consumption by about 30%. Then they can replace the 30% power lost with KERS. No need to go to a completely new engine forula. I doubt the I4 will use 15-20% less fuel at the same power. In any case, a reduction in fuel consumption is the aim, and if all are doing the same thing it doesn't really matter if there is another option slightly better.




The V8 engines are affordable to the teams because they have been making them for 6 years and the design and development phase has been bought and paid for already. Any new clean sheet paper design will cost bucket loads of cash to the R&D up front, plus there will be loads of cash spent on largely incremental improvements.




So, F1 must adopt an engine that suits the marketing plans of companies who are not currently in F1, some of which have never been in F1? And if the engine rules so suit these companies why are they not lining up at the door to join F1? VW aren't, and won't be for the forseeable future, nor will BMW, have not heard a peep from Honda officially, Aston Martin are kinda dreaming about F1 (and it would be logical thatif it was their dream their Le Mans engine would have been a 4, not a 6). The only company that have said they will build an engine to the 2013 regulations is PURE, which the current engine suppliers regard as "PURE bullshit".

All this 'green' garbage really is a joke. A series that throws away a set of tyres every 10-20 laps. Most people know that tyres are derived from oil!!!
Lets go back to basics, 1 set of free compound tyres[or 6 max] per meeting.From any manufacturer prepared to submit product before the season for all the season. A maximum capacity limit and a restrictor[and equivilancy] of some sort for the forced aspiration engines And say a 10000 rpm limt .And the same amount of fuel they use now. Simple 5 or 6 speed transaxle, control if necesary. A wing on the front and a bigger one on the rear. Control if necesary. Get rid of all the bullshit boffins nightmare gimicry.
Fastest car with the best driver wins, oversubscribed fields because it will be 25% of the cost to run. And quite possibly one car will be better on slow tracks and another better on fast. The same players probably will still be at the front, but not as far in front. Cars should be slower, which is good so they can still use the existing tracks. And probably far better racing without all the contrivances used currently,eg KERS, flappy wings etc

Greener thinking people would have a 1.1Ton Ford Fiesta, may be a 1.4Ton VW Jetta, not a 2.1Ton Mercedes something to begin with. Not to mention the Smarts and other personal transportation devices.

Just as a reference, the 1981 MB 500 SEL weighted 1.6Ton. There is a long way shaving weight from the cars to be really green, not only from the plain useless hauling of so much weight but also the resources needed to dig such amount of aluminum, steel and plastic from the ground.

Calling an S-Class Mercedes or a hybrid Mustang or the what not green is plain and simple hypocrisy.

I rather see FIA take care of the current teams than going all: hey great idea here! lets see if hyundai or tatra wants to join and make engines if we force the teams to use a underpowered micro motor..

im ok with turbos but FIA needs to make very tight engine rules to keep the new development costs down. spec parts even..

Personally i would like to see the V8 as a option alongside for a few years with a gradual tuning down of it. say lower rpm limit pr year or whatever.

I agree with that point! The intention was spicing up the show but many feel that this is artificial and at the expense of wasting a huge amount of tyres. It would be better to pursue the FiA objective of cutting the drag by halve with ground effect tunnel floors.


Regarding your first point one can only say that luxury cars have their market and their purpose. You can't compare them to a Fiesta by functionality. That is comparing apples and bananas. There is no purpose in fitting an oversized engine to a luxury car that sucks twice the fuel of a 250 CDI engine unless you want maximum acceleration beyond 100 mph. Who actually needs that if it doubles the fuel bill? I'm sure there are wasters who need it for the ego or those who cannot tolerate a bit of an engine noise on start up, but I think those people have questionable objectives.

The second point is a bit moot because the weight gain is primarily from added luxury functionality like electric powering of just about any function. It is done in the pursuit of the product's objective.


Spec parts should only be a temporary answer to problems thatcan't be solved any other way. The SECU was such an example. It killed the unwanted driver aids and proved it's worth.

So it's OK to burn fuel to have power trunk lid action but not if I like a big engine?

Not.

And you can say what ever you want, but mentioning 'green' and S-Class, Cayenne, Escalade or any other 50K-70K+ car in the same sentence is BS.

You either fix this emissions problem by downsizing and reducing the number of cars or you will be wasting your time. It's treating the fever, not the infection.

And F1 has nothing to do with it. Just leave the racing alone or get rid of it.

I don't get this "F1 should adopt road car stuff" notion. To me this is scary. They already have a road car technology - a V8. Some folks just want a different selection.
I fear that by taking one example, say a 4-cyl turbo, other folks will start thinking of other crappy things in road cars: fully automatic gearboxes, anti-lock brakes, traction control, yaw control, lights for real night racing, tires that last 60,000 km, etc., etc.
It was awful when F1 had some of that crap. I've said it before and I'll say it again - stay the hell away from road car stuff.

I should have mentioned that spec parts was in my head a temporarly idea that would only last 1 year..

2nd year.. free design of crank, rods and pistons..

3year. free up the cyl head design and free turbo/supercharger design.

and so on.

all this while the V8 gradually gets tuned down..

Considering the vast majority of the world are using manual gearboxes, then I think a move in that direction mightn't be all a bad thing.

Some set of tyres to do 60,000km btw.

I hate to say this but the vast majority of the world use auto gearboxes. Some upmarket manufacturers do not even offer a manual. The only cars manuals are relativly common in is 4 cyl buzz boxes, and even then they are a minority and have been for 10 years.
The Europeans and Brits seem to love buzz boxes. But they are really so inefficient, most full size cars in Euope, the US and defenitly in Oz are nearly as fuel efficient as the buzzboxes [and the autos are terrible] and have room, strength and towing/ luggage capacity. And the engines are understressed and last twice as long. And to make it worse most of the buzzboxes are getting so damn heavy with all the safety gear tacked on they are even worse than they were. Never believe the theoretical figures, lets get real world.
Most people would have seen/heard about the Prius v The V8 BMW on Top Gear. Where around the test track the Prius went as fast as it could [bloody slowly inotherwords] and the Bimmer tagged along behind,, and used far less fuel. A bit extreme but very true. A boy will never do a mans job.

This goes some way to supporting my point.
Engines that run slow and have long lives, auto boxes, hard tires for maximizing fuel efficiency, someone earlier mentioned that road engines are going to two and three cylinder turbos (so F1 is once again late to the party), mufflers for quiet operation, etc., etc. (remember the protests at Monza). Why not enclosed wheels and cockpits, too, that's more fuel efficient.
F1 shouldn't be like road cars. This whole "must be road car relevant" is dangerous and stupid.
If some sponsors don't like F1's image then they can spend their money elsewhere. F1 could do with a lot less money flying around anyway.

I don't get the "road relevance" buzzword either. Does F1 has to be that much close to the road ? I don't think so. F1 is about different stuff, like RACING, for example !
It's the same when you have sex - does a baby has to be born every time ? No, sometimes it could be about pure pleasure.

Dieter Rencken has written a new article for Autosport Plus: Powering Formula 1 in 2013

I'm glad there's so much opposition to this new formula.

The real reason the V10 was mandated was because Toyota was building a V12 engine. Had it turned out that the V12 engine was the better one, then everyone else would be forced to build a V12 and that would have been expensive.

Another way to reduce the costs and the output of the V10 engine would have been to reduce the speed of the engines, mandate a much longer lifetime and introducing a minimum weight for the engines. Replacing the V10 with a V8 can't have been the cheap option.



The BMW four cylinder engine was a production based racing engine that had already been used in a few different series that was converted to a F1 engine. For a non production four cylinder engine there is no need for a frame. Some reinforcement tubes can be a good idea though as the engine is quite narrow compared to the tub (you can see this quite often with two seaters such as Le Mans prototypes, even when they use V engines as the tub is wider than the engine). But it also possible to make a wide valve cover that transfers the load from the tub to the engine.



The 1.5 litre turbos produced about 680 hp or less the last year they were used, in 1988. The same year the 3.5 litre engines produced about 600 hp, but where allowed unlimited fuel. So in practice the output difference wasn't that great. In 1989 the output of the 3.5 litre engines increased to 650 hp and the year following that 700 hp. By the time the maximum displacement was reduced to 3.0 litres the 3.5 litre engines were producing 815 hp, and that was after special fuels that was worth perhaps 30-40 hp or so were banned. So reducing engine output clearly wasn't the reason for the switch to naturally aspiranted engines. Like usual it's politics behind the changes.



To again see different engine types competing against eachother isn't possible in a professional racing series that is as competitive as F1. No matter how the regulations are written, they will favor one engine configuration and to be successful you need to use that configuration.

On a lower level the impact on the engine cofiguration is less significant.



They will be. Replacing the engine with a smaller turbocharged engine with the same output is among the cheapest fuel consumption reduction measures a car manufacturer can make. It's far cheaper per saved fuel than for instance hybrid technology.



Actually manual gearboxes have a market share of roughly 50%, making it the most common car transmission. In Europe the market share for manuals is around 60%, but it has been even higher in the past.

The Prius vs. BMW M3 test Top Gear conducted has absolutly not real world meaning. When driving normally at real roads the M3 have a big disadvantage in terms of fuel consumption. A piston engine is most efficient at high loads, while at low loads a larger proportion of the power the engine produces are used by the engine internally. So, during more normal driving the M3 engine will use more fuel to simply overcome the larger friction and pumping losses of its V8 engine.

The biggest reason was that the Prius was revving up around 5,000-6,000 revs while the M3 was messing around at 2,500. No wonder the Prius burned more fuel.

To summarise the current situation:

• There are 3 engine suppliers who have oncerns about the cost of the new engines opposed to the engines being implemented.
• There is one engine supplier totally in favour of the new engine. They have threatened to quit F1 if the engine is not implemented.
• There is only one potential new engine supplier interested in the new engine (that'd be PURE).
• No manufacturers have jumped at the chance, notably VW/Audi have rejected the idea of entering F1 even with the new engine regulations.
• Most of the teams are against the new engines because they will cost more to the teams - and most can't afford the extra

I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment..

well the problem is they will all spend too much, in racecar engineering a few months back there was a guy who made his own v8 engine out of a couple of yamaha bike engine bits, for hill climbing, so he didnt spend a massive amount on that...

I dont think anyone is suggesting that builders like Cosworth *cant* make a 2013 engine for less money. Of course they could. But it wouldnt be competitive, so nobody would want it.

Latest AMuS column.
Basically manufacturers are pussies, they fear the wrath of Todt.
They send him a letter, a polite letter that they don't agree with the small engines.

Well, doesn't really bode well for the future, Cosworth will not be there with a 1.6 litre.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-...er-3785109.html

It's a new engineering challenge, rules is rules.

I would like to see engines that weren't 5 year old and frozen in design. And hello, it's the pinnacle of motorsport, they should be able to afford new engines more often then say every tenth year. But, I am afraid that they will be ridiculously weak, and that the KERS won't make up for it. 800 bhp from the engines plus double the KERS of today would be awesome, no less than 700 at least. I think I remember reading the number 580 or so, which would be stupid. Any idiot could get that out of his Impreza or Evo without THAT much work if one really wanted to. F1 should be about RACING, and road relevant only when it does not compromise the racing. I could live with inline fours as long as they are POWERFUL. More power, less fuel= win win situation.

And stop increasing the damn minimum weight more and more, more weight= more fuel. The current KERS saves NO fuel, and adds more to the laptime in weight than it gives back in power as far as I know. KERS is said to be worth somewhere around 3 tenths a lap as it is now. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think a current KERS system weighs in at about 25 kilograms or so. This would mean that it effectively steals about half a second per lap, without saving any fuel. Road relevant?

Damn, I came to think about a dream I had recently while typing this. I dreamed that they would screw the four cylinders and go back to V10s, damn, I was happy, until i woke up.

From McLaren - The Cars:

All are bhp, I would assume race figures.

1966: 321 & 260 (Ford & Serenissima) 3.0L
1967: 280 (BRM)
1968: 410 (DFV)
1969: 425
1970: 430
1971: 440
1972: 450
1973: 460
1974: 460
1975: 465
1976: 465
1977: 465
1978: 465
1979: 470
1980: 470
1981: 470
1982: 480
1983: 750 (TAG V6) 1.5L Turbo
1984: 750
1985: 750
1986: 750
1987: 850
1988: 900 (Honda V6)
1989: 685 (Honda V10) 3.5L
1990: 690
1991: 720 (Honda V12)
1992: 740
1993: 640 (Ford V8)
1994: 740 (Peugeot V10)
1995: 680 (Mercedes V10) 3.0L
1996: 700
1997: 720 - 740
1998: 760
1999: 785
2000: 795
2001: 810
2002: 825
2003: 860 - 885
2004: 895 - 910
2005: 920
2006: 735 (Mercedes V8) 2.4L
2007: 765
2008: 765

2009-2011 760 PS

The Prius engine is actually quite efficient even at higher engine speeds.



I suspect that the M3's road handling abilities is a big reason why it consumes less fuel in that test. The specific fuel consumption at full power isn't that bad, if the M3 had an advantage here running at lower speed and load, it wouldn't be a large advantage. On the other hand, if one car is forced to use either more power, or to stay on power longer to keep up, it has a big disadvantage. Here is where I suspect the M3 had its main advantage. It can take the turns faster, so the driver can go off the throttle earlier before he have to brake, and he doesn't have to use as much power accelerating after a turn. This means the engine have to produce less power, and if the specific fuel consumption is comparable at those load points for both engines, the M3 can manage a lower fuel consumption.



All of these numbers are not correct.

Power of the strongest engine I have found data about, year for year:

1967: 400 hp (3.0 DFV engine)
1977: 500 hp (1.5T, first turbo engine)
1980: 550 hp (1.5T)
1982: 600 hp (1.5T), 520 hp (3.0)
1983: 700 hp (1.5T), 530 hp (3.0)
1984: 880 hp (1.5T, fuel limit introduced 220l)
1985: 850 hp (1.5T)
1986: 900 hp (1.5T)
1987: 1010 hp (1.5T, 4.0 bar abs boost limit, max 195l fuel)
1988: 685 hp (1.5T 2.5 bar abs boost limit, max 150l fuel), 595 hp (3.5)
1989: 650 hp (3.5)
1990: 700 hp
1991: 750 hp
1992: 806 hp
1993: 790 hp (special fuels banned)
1994: 815 hp (in race refueling allowed)
1995: 700 hp (3.0 displacement limit introduced)
1996: 730 hp
1997: 760 hp
1998: 800 hp
1999: 810 hp
2000: 820 hp
2001: 850 hp
2002: 880 hp
2003: 920 hp
2004: 950 hp
2005: 980 hp
2006: 760 hp (2.4 litre V8 introduced)
2007: 755 hp (engine speed limit, 19,000 rpm)

Numbers are taken from technical papers, interviews with race engine designers and other technical articles.

The numbers I quoted are correct for the engines used by McLaren.

Well the number you posted for 1988 is patently wrong (it claims 900BHP). The Honda V6 turbos are 685BHP and I have SAE papers to prove it.

Could the 900BHP figure somehow refer to the Honda's spec without pop-off valve in place?

Without the pop off valve it could have been over 1100bhp.

Some OT


bad and erronous picture.. most of the animals at the time where killed by a meteor.

Some animals from that time survived. and they are still very much in the "race" sharks, crocs, turtles, squids, lizards.

did you know that turtles and crocs can go without food for a year?
lizards can grow their limbs out again if they get cut off.
and that some of the turtles can become 150years?
or that one spesific type of squid has lived without chancing its design for tens of millions of years...

Cephalopods, the class of millusks which scientists classify octopuses, squid, cuttlefish and nautiluses, can change color faster than a chameleon. They can also change texture and body shape, and, and if those camouflage techniques don't work, they can still "disappear" in a cloud of ink, which they use as a smoke-screen or decoy. Cephalopods are also fascinating because they have three hearts that pump blue blood, they're jet powered, and they're found in all oceans of the world, from the tropics to the poles, the intertidal to the abyss.

Shall i continue with sharks?..

anyway..

Thy should make fuel flow with more freedom within the current engine formula until a propper new formula that everyone agreeds on is made..

Looks like Ferrari have brought a V6 Turbo compromise to the table.

this is the meeting during or after Monaco.

would love to see the team race whatever type of engine they wanted.

Then you can say bye bye at FI, Sauber, Williams, Lotus, HRT, Virgin, Toro Rosso.. Engines will be too expensive for these teams.

Ferrari will stay, Mclaren too, Red Bull and LRGP i don't know..

v6 turbo would make the most sense IMO

thats what i mean. they could buy a Merc/Reno/Ferrari/Cosworth V8, and have a variety and choose the cheaper option. but it would bring back innoavtion in something else other than aero, which is what i would love.

I think BMW around '82/'83 were running different set-ups in qualifying that would provide up to 1200-1300 BHP for a short time at the cost of engine life. They'd tune it down to 700 for the race. IIRC.


I for one applaud the return of the turbos and smaller, more efficient engines. Next up should be fuel caps. I'd say gradually reduce race fuel load to 120 liters by 2020. Then bring it down further by implementing a fuel cap for the entire weekend.

And we need different tire rules. Give teams a few sets of all types and they have to make do with that over the weekend. No more artificial "you must use both primes and options during the race". Just give the teams three sets of each and let them decide how to use them.

No, they're not. Like already mentioned the output of the 1988 Honda V6 is not correct and I highly doubt that the TAG V6 engine produced 750 hp year after year during the eighties.



No, it couldn't. There is something called compressor choke that will limit how much air a turbocharger can supply. There is also a maximum turbocharger speed that will limit compressor pressure ratio (boost pressure). The engine itself also had a higher compression ratio than earlier high boost engines.



The power figures from 1980-1984 in my list are from the BMW engine, it started out producing about 550 hp during testing.

To find 1200-1300 hp in qualification I would say you have to wait intil 1985, 1986 or something like that. Since it was allowed to change the engine after qualification at that time we talk about a different qualification spec engine here. Some of these engines had trouble surviving even a single lap.

Just to add another set of figures to the existing data, the Great Encyclopedia of Formula 1 also gives estimated bhp figures for the various McLaren engines:

1966 - 315 bhp @ 9600 rpm (Ford V8)/260 bhp (Serenissima V8)
1967 - 260 bhp @ 10000 rpm (BRM V8)/356 bhp @ 9000 rpm (BRM V12)
1968 - 410 bhp @ 9000 rpm (Ford V8)
1969 - 410 bhp @ 9000 rpm (Ford V8)
1970 - 435 bhp @ 10000 rpm (Ford V8)/430 bhp @ 10000 rpm (Alfa Romeo V8)
1971 - 440 bhp @ 10000 rpm (Ford V8)
1972 - 450 bhp @ 10250 rpm (Ford V8)
1973 - 455 bhp @ 10250 rpm (Ford V8)
1974 - 460 bhp @ 10250 rpm (Ford V8)
1975 - 470 bhp @ 11000 rpm (Ford V8)
1976 - 475 bhp @ 10750 rpm (Ford V8)
1977 - 475 bhp @ 10750 rpm (Ford V8)
1978 - 475 bhp @ 10750 rpm (Ford V8)
1979 - 470 bhp @ 10800 rpm (Ford V8)
1980 - 470 bhp @ 10800 rpm (Ford V8)
1981 - 480 bhp @ 11100 rpm (Ford V8)
1982 - 480 bhp @ 11100 rpm (Ford V8)
1983 - 510 bhp @ 11000 rpm (Ford V8)/700 bhp @ 11500 rpm (TAG Porsche V6T)
1984 - 750 bhp @ 11500 rpm (TAG Porsche V6T)
1985 - 750 bhp @ 12000 rpm (TAG Porsche V6T)
1986 - 850 bhp @ 12000 rpm (TAG Porsche V6T)
1987 - 850 bhp @ 12000 rpm (TAG Porsche V6T)
1988 - 650 bhp @ 12500 rpm (Honda V6T)
1989 - 675 bhp @ 13000 rpm (Honda V10)
1990 - 690 bhp @ 13000 rpm (Honda V10)
1991 - 710 bhp @ 13000 rpm (Honda V12)
1992 - 770 bhp @ 14500 rpm (Honda V12)
1993 - 700 bhp @ 13200 rpm (Ford V8)
1994 - 720 bhp @ 13500 rpm (Peugeot V10)
1995 - 690 bhp @ 15600 rpm (Mercedes V10)
1996 - 720 bhp @ 15700 rpm (Mercedes V10)
1997 - 760 bhp @ 15800 rpm (Mercedes V10)
1998 - 800 bhp @ 16100 rpm (Mercedes V10)
1999 - 810 bhp @ 16200 rpm (Mercedes V10)
2000 - 815 bhp @ 17800 rpm (Mercedes V10)
2001 - 830 bhp @ 17800 rpm (Mercedes V10)
2002 - 845 bhp @ 18300 rpm (Mercedes V10)
2003 - 850 bhp @ 18500 rpm (Mercedes V10)
2004 - >900 bhp @ >19000 rpm (Mercedes V10)
2005 - >900 bhp @ >19000 rpm (Mercedes V10)
2006 - 750 bhp @ 19000 rpm (Mercedes V8)

Numbers for the Chrysler/Lamborghini engine?

The 1993-spec Lamborghini engine, used by Larrousse, is estimated at 710 bhp @ 13800 rpm.

So thet will decide by June the 30th if the 4 pot is a go:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91958

I guess not.

I think it's pretty clear they will go ahead with the 1.6 litre four cylinder engine. They question that remains is simply if they will be introduced 2013 as planned or later. Given the short time frame between the final decision on the technical regulations and the 2013 introduction date, the time schedule have always been a bit tight.