I agree with the sentiment. The sticking point is that being 'planet friendly' is becoming a big factor in marketing. Sponsors will simply walk away from F1 if it is labelled as an institution that will not move forward in line with modern thinking.

the track is much shorter.

most of the barriers replaced by kerbs... much easier for the modern less skilled drivers, they don't know how to go through a corner that they cannot shortcut...

Please no more 8 engines per season rubbish.

I want hard racing not engine saving mode.

670bhp sounds very much on the 'light' side of the power scale to me.

670bhp is enough

1.5l is very low, how much troque we can expect?

So I realised we don't really have a specific thread for the 2013 engine regulations (unless I'm mistaken) which will be sorted out this year.

Lots of things have been rumoured or suggested such as a move to turbocharged engines, the re-introduction of KERS in some form, and the apparent desire from the manufacturers for the engines to be 'green', or, as green as they want.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83106



When turbos were mentioned I got a bit excited but having read that piece it sounds like the HP produced from an F1 engine is to be lowered to 670bhp, from what I've seen, the current Mercedes engine has roughly 755bhp. I really thought that this might be an opportunity to see more powerful engines with greener credentials, mixing both some fans 'wants' and some of the manufacturer's desires.

Your thoughts on the article and anything else to do with the 2013 regulations, please.

Edit : Mods - I see a thread is already there. Possible merge/delete?

670bhp seems very much on the 'light' side of the power scale in my opinion. When was the last time F1 generated so little power?

1.5l?


How much in torque is that

Considering that the most popular small turbo/supercharged engine in the industry is a 1.4l, wouldn't it make more marketing sense to go 1.4?

More than the current engines.

I just hope they don't lower the rev limit anymore, but I'm guessing they'll bring them down to around 15,000rpm

Well it's turbocharged, so naturally.

670 hp sound lows? The 3L V10s began at 600hp*...

*600 -> 990 hp. Therefore you'd imagine that number for the 1.6T would go up rapidly with various 'reliability' upgrades

I'm suprpised no one is more interested in the aspect of 4 cylinder formula one cars (following the WRC specs)? Indy will be running V6s won't they?

You have a point, but remember that:
1. Patrese was driving a Brabham BT49 equipped with a normally aspirated Cosworth DFV engine.
2. Monaco was one of the circuits that least suited the turbo cars due to its tight and twisty nature, especially in 1982 when turbo lag was still a problem.
3. The track has been altered several times; all bar one of these modifications (the installation of the new harbourfront chicane in 1986) have made the track faster.
4. The 1982 race had a chaotic finish as the leading cars spun off, crashed or ran out of fuel. The race time was further lengthened by the fact that light rain fell in the final few laps. Button had a completely clean race last year.
5. The 1982 pole position was taken by René Arnoux with a time of 1'23.281.

Also, if we look at the period from the 1977 British Grand Prix to 1988, there were five fatalities (Peterson, Depailler, Villeneuve, Paletti and De Angelis). Of these, two (Villeneuve and De Angelis) occurred in turbo cars, which indicates that turbos were not more dangerous per se, rather that general safety (impact protection on the cars, circuit run-off, marshalling etc.) was lacking by the standards of today.

I don't expect anything extraordinary and exciting from new turbo engines. With 8 (or even less) engines per season one can't do much really.
The way things are going they'll need a reduction gear to climb Eau Rouge.

It is not realistic to expect that the return of turbos could ever be anywhere near the power we had in the 80's.

Turbo's and increased Kerrs will be good. I said so on another thread and got lambasted.

Basically anything that encourages other engine manufacturers into the sport, can contribute to meaningful overtaking, and offres entertainment is fine by me.

I prefer any engine configuration to be allowed and speeds to be controlled by fuel-flow limits.

That's because of gov(s) requirements.

Germany requires all bio-diesel sold in Germany to be made w/German grape seed.... that effectively 'shut down' production at plants in the US - where were to stupid to realize the benefits of diesels.....you know 30mpg cars the size of an S-Class Merc.


Anyways, back to the world of F1 and its inability to think outside of their greedy little box.

Bio-fuel Bio-fuel Bio-fuel Bio-fuel
(*hope that's green - I'm color challenged)

Branson is correct (although he just wants to push HIS bio-fuel, but bio-butenol or other algae-based fuel should be mandated. Its not like the fuel companies aren't already playing with it and we are talking about 3yrs down the road!

With all this grip, 670 bhp feels a bit to low, or? Dangerously close to GP2 or Indycar for example...

And they probably won't sound that good either. I miss the sound of the V10:s...

I don't mind KERS. As long as its power is blended in with the power from the engine.

Push a button for KERS is just ****ing stupid.

These engines will be ridiculous if introduced. I enjoyed the turbo era and was a Senna, Prost, Rosberg fan, but there is no way these turbos will be allowed by the ugly french midget to have anywhere near 1000bhp or more. In addition the sound will be of someone farting for 90 minutes, and anyone at the circuit not watching will probably think it's just another support race.

Will also be interesting to know what will happen with GP2 power levels. There is no way F1 will remain credible as the pinacle of single seater racing when it only has 50 odd bhp more than a junior series? Add to this that the cars will likely be fitted with bicylce wheels from next year I think I may finally lose interest in F1

The credibility of F1 over GP2 is made up for by the significant lap time differences. More so than the '50 odd bhp more'

This is the way to go. Let them choose the displacement and configuration, but limit the materials used (nothing exotic) and freeze the engines at the beginning of the year. And keep the 8 engine rule so that teams will have to factor reliability heavily into the equation.

In my opinion that makes the sport much more interesting to manufacturers, and will make the cars less similar (assuming engine makes decide on different characteristics).

No 8 engine rule please

It ruins racing

If they dont make reliable engines then they are only hurting themselves.

But we don't want teams making a ton of engines and running a new one for each session. If there's another way to keep costs low; perhaps a cap on customer engine fees (customer teams must be supplied with the same number of engines as the factory team for a fixed cost)?

Turbo engines would be disastrous for me if they go back to a limited fuel tank size. It will focus on fuel economy rather than driver skill, which I think is the utmost important factor in F1. I don't want to see drivers and teams win because they have the most efficient engine, though fuel efficiency is important for F1, it is not the most important. If the FIA make F1 about fuel efficiency then the sport itself would suffer.

But as things are now, teams dont want to practice because it uses engine life..bad for fans.

teams are turning down engines halfway through races because they cant afford to use it too much because they need them again down the track.... boring reliability races.

But nothing really changes if they do that. A driver isn't going to turn down his engine if he has a shot at gaining another place. He's only going to do it to manage a gap, in which case it actually keeps the cars closer together.

As for practice... perhaps they should break down the engines used into practice/testing engines and race engines. Say 7 race engines and 4 practice engines or something like that to encourage Friday running.

A turbo with the option of a mechanical flywheel. I watched a programme this morning on Porsche who have made it work. Lets the F1 teams have a crack at it. That way its environmental with tonnes of power in turbo and flywheel configuration.

The extra weight of a flywheel is offset by its power, so it will get developed quickly.

changing engine regulations increases cost, no matter what the FIA decides on for engines. Teams will be forced to redesign their engines. I think it is exciting and would be great if there was no engine freeze, but some sort of budget cap. Hard to regulate though.

turbo engines are not more green at all. you still have to burn a certain amount of fuel for a certain amount of power output.

KERS is cool, and would increase efficiency, it is green for the eco nuts out there. it is expensive to do in house. the limited push button deal was bad. open up the uses and implimentation of KERS.

I have a bad feeling everybody will be running pretty much identical engines soon, even if different teams make them.

This.

It is the electronics that have come the farthest in that time. Power levels would be greater but not dramatically so at similar boost levels and engine configurations; the difference would be in the much improved flexibility and efficiency made possible by modern engine management systems compared to the old boost on/boost off rockets of the '80s.

"Spain's El Mundo Deportivo newspaper said an in-principle agreement has been reached for a
four cylinder,
1.5 litre engine equipped with a
twin-turbo and
direct injection.
The new formula would reportedly also involve KERS. "

it also says 'similarly powerful' to current engines.

ESPN-F1

A great pity it's only 4 cylinders - I love the sound of racing V6 engines.

guess you could have v4, flat 4, boxer 4, and inline 4
bet they mandate inline 4....

There should be a choice between 6 or 4 cylinders, in whatever format they choose. Lets get a bit of variety going.

sorry but that's wrong
I understand why you think that if you turbo charge an engine you will use more fuel but the simple fact remains if you compare two engines which produce the same power one a smaller turbocharged engine and one a normally aspirated engine the turbocharged engine will be the more efficient. That being said the larger engine will produce greater torque so could use a taller gear to reduce engine revs and hence gain back some of the efficiency lost to the turbo but it still remains more greedy.
Remember greater oxygen content through forced induction allows for more efficient burning of the fuel hence while the amount of fuel injected will rise the amount of power output from that fuel will increase even more.

I think that this solution is partially a good idea. Turbo's are a good idea, it will make racing more spectacular and it will put more emphasis on the abilities of the drivers. What is worrying me however is that F1 over the last 10 years have decreased the engine volumes, the amount of cylinders and also the aerodynamics regulations have been altered, but not with much success. The idea was to create a safer, a more environmentally-friendly, cost-effective and above all a more entertaining sport. The last part hasn't worked out very well, since the entertainment level hasn't risen dramatically IMO. The F1 should stay the pinnacle of motorsport and with 4 cylinder engines and 670bhp you're close to GP2 power levels. Also on the safety part, F1 haven't had a major blow during the V10 era, and it is still a dangerous sport, as Felipe Massa proved last year.

Also, thanks to Mad Max, the standardization of F1 has almost become reality. Rev limit, only four engine suppliers, etc. But the thing that sets F1 apart is in fact the innovation of the constructors. They're called constructors for a reason, they're ought to build a race-winning machine and conquer the world's circuits. F1 is a class that is not solely focused on the drivers, but on the cars as well. If you give the constructors some freedom, they will have to be creative and innovative to win races. Of course, some might say that costs will rise dramatically. It is a fact however that teams like Ferrari and McLaren don't spend less money than in the 90s, despite the attempts of the FIA to decrease their budget by measures like a test ban etc. Besides, if the constructors will be granted more room for innovation, it might be attractive again for manufacturers to get into F1 again, so they can test their new technologies with the whole world watching. This is not the case now and that's why the Volkswagen Group are not interested in F1, but are focusing on Le Mans.

So what the FIA should do is to give constructors the choice: either a 3 liter direct injection engine with no cylinder restrictions, or a 1,5 liter turbocharged V6. Both engines have to last 4 races, in order to keep both the costs as well as the power a bit under control. This would create a lot more diversity on the grid and it would stimulate constructors to find innovative solutions.

Absolutely agree

I disagree.

It depends on the application. There is a reason why turbos are used in heavy industrial applications including marine applications. All driven by its overall cost effectiveness.

Turbos recycle heat(more than kinetic) energy which would otherwise be wasted.

Turbos are used in industrial applications to increase efficiencies. It is very quantifiable.

In road cars they tend to be 'exploited' for power by the driver thus negating the efficiency benefits but in constant cruising conditions, the turbo'ed engine is generally more fuel efficient than a non-turbo producing similar output. The smaller engine also contributes to less friction and poor cylinder filling particularly in part-throttle applications

Why do you think car manufacturers are all downsizing and turbocharging the new engines they develop; More efficient and therefor greener compared to naturally aspirated engines with the same power output. Using a two turbo's (a small and big one) makes sure the engine is also able to deliver the power on low revs.

First: Forget 1500hp turbos -they only worked in the era of super downforce and wide tires/Cars. You romanticize, but forget how many died in this era.

Second: turbo engines can use stock blocks-cheaper. that's the only consideration. Boost control will allow regulation, but turn F1 into Indy cars.

Third: Put 1000hp+ engines on modern F1 cars and all you will do is kill people.

You don't need horsepower to emphasize car control, you just need less downforce. That's why the racing has been so good this season: rain, less grip, once they move back to dry Europe, it will be the same old boring parades.

Wrong application. Turbos work in road cars for efficiency because at highway cruising, little HP is needed, and not the turbo. Mileage in turbo cars can be hugely variable depending how you drive them.

Turbo f1 cars used huge amounts of gas. Power has to come from Gas.

A modern application of turbos is being exploited by BMW, which uses turbine heat to convert to electricity to charge hybrid batteries.

Cars waste a tremendous amount of energy in heat.

I don't really have that much of a problem with 4 cylinder turbos per se, but 670 bhp is not enough. Might be different with some serious hybrid power, but I'm not talking about a stupid push to pass thing for a few seconds every lap, but rather something which could give the equal power of an 800 bhp or so engine over a lap.

I bet there's very little or no correlation at all between power and danger. According to your logic 1985/6 should have been the deadliest F1 seasons, but, of course, they weren't. There are many other more important factors. And weren't we close to 1000 bhp just a few years ago?

Also, downforce in 1985/6 was nowhere near what it is today.

You're probably right there, unfortunately. Any new turbo formula will be a lot less powerful.

Yeah...? Just how many did die then? I may be looking through rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, but I don't remember that many fatal accidents.

I don't think so. Back in the earlier F1 turbo era, I believe only the BMW engine was made from used stock blocks (From out of long mileage BMW 316s, as I recall.) Whatever cost might be saved on blocks would be more than compensated for by development costs though.

Not if the drivers are skilful enough. But I thought you had dismissed 1000+hp engines already anyway.

Yep! With you there 100%!

Turbo charged engines have a better volumetric efficiency when compared to NA engines. This is why turbo engines can produce similar max power output when compared to NA engines. Small turbo engines have good fuel economy when you aren't on the throttle and adding fuel and air to the engine. You can cruise with lower power levels and burn less fuel. Large GM V8s return good fuel economy as well when you are cruising around at set engine speeds and low revs. Stomp on the throttle and the engine will produce lots of power and it will drink gas, the same with a turbo engine. The energy is coming from the gas. All a turbo engine allows for is producing more power with a smaller engine.

budgets were highest in early 00s not 90s though. In the 80s to early 90s budgets of Indycar/CART and F1 teams were very similar, F1 budgets only sky-rocketed afterwards.

Fact: Mercedes spends less on MercedesGP and McLaren and Force India combined including the Mercedes chassis than on McLaren Mercedes in the early 00's.

FIA proposals work for them, and also for BMW whose BMW Sauber team including the chassis was cheaper for them than BMW Williams in the early 00's high-spending.

I have a very hard time believing that F1 budgets and Indycar budgets were even remotely close. F1 had active suspension, ABS traction control, multiple chassis and engines, not to mention driver salaries. Indycar had spec chassis and fairly normal engines. Not doubting the rest but I believe you are wrong on the early 90's budgets being similar to Indycar.

They were not spec chassis back then. March, Penske, Reynard, Lola etc.* + Numerous engine manufacturers. In many ways they were more advanced, especially in terms of driver protection than F1 cars of the same era. The likes of Team Penske, Newman/Haas... very serious racing teams with big sponsors I think even if some rather "wild" NASCAR backmarkers/rally raid drivers like Robby Gordon were able to run in the top 5...

*

Ferrari F637 Indycar ;)

Well i will politely say you are wrong :-) Yes they had a few different chassis, but you could buy any one of them except maybe a Penske. Their technical rules and budgets were no where near F1. This is no put down on Indycar, they had some great cars, but F1 budgets were way higher.