F1 2013, a new start in Formula 1. The pinnacle of Motorsports

Turbo 4s would just plain suck. They would sound like a bunch of Honda's going around the track. Extremely boring I would probably stop watching as to me- it would seem like more of an extension of GP2 than F1.

A 1.8L V6 would be the way better and wouldn't be such a knock-out punch to chassis and engine designers.

 

If I remember rightly, during the turbo era, there were only a few 4-cylinder engines: the HART that was on the Toleman (remember them), the Ford-derived unit on Zakspeed and the BMW on the Brabham (later called OMITRON).

Piquet was world champion with a 4-cyl. BMW, which was , reputedly, more powerfull than the Ferrari, Renault, Cosworh, ALFA, etc... delivering 1500HP in qualifs!! (with some exotic ... and illegal fuel, we are told)

So, have no fear about power, a turbo, even a 4-cylinder.

The BMW units were built from STOCK saloon car engines that had been on the road at least one year!! BMW believed then, that an engine block that has been through hundreds or thousands of thermic stress cycles was more reliable than a block straight from the foundry!!

I am really looking forward to that formula, and I hope the FIA will not mess it up by more stupid regulation. A small engine with MASSIVE boost is the best recipe in my book.

 

You are right on some of your points:

BMW engine was called the Megatron after 1985... the Ford engine was used by Beatrice Lola not Zackspeed - they used their own engine until normal aspiration came back in. The Zackspeed engine did have a ford 4 cyl base to it, but was not associated with Ford / Cosworth.

BMW did in deed produce in order of 1300 to 1650 BHP under qualifying trim. in race trim in 1983 they were using anywhere from 850 to 1000 bhp on modified pump gas... it was only in the late 80' that all the super toxic fuels became the norm.

BMW did use stock 4 cyl engine blocks with at least 100K Kilometers on them, and they would let them pickel out side for up to a year, to get rusty and let the pourous iron blocks "cure" ... there is one at the BMW Zentrum in Greenville SC if anyone is ever visiting the area.

 

One fantastic little fact is that under that heavy load, the rods of the engine were compressed by up to 1mm. Crazy!!

 

The size, displacement and configuration of the engines does not really concern me, the nose that the engines produces does.
F1 should sound like nothing else, and be extreme in volume for the track site viewers, im sure everyone who has been to a F1 race on here can recall clearly the 1st time they heard an F1 at full RPM.
I fear a 4-pot with a 10'000rpm limit is just not going to sound like how F1 should, its going to sound like more like a low revving street motorbike.

 

I seem to be the odd one out, the noise doesn't bother me. It's that word "Pinnacle", the Pinnacle of motorsport seems to be going backwards again. I know it's to make the racing closer which is good and to be more tree friendly, but they could try bio-fuels etc. I'm also fairly certain the teams would would still be in the same order as they are now just maybe with a bigger gap between them. They should be pushing the boundaries of whats possible not putting the engine of a small hot hatch back in it.

 

You are not alone. Noise doesn't matter to me, and in fact, I don't really like high-pitch noise. One of the worst I have heard was John Surtees' V12 Honda. A few years ago, the public cleared the paddock in no time at the Festival of Speed at Goodwood when a Japanese mechanic started it for a warm-up: unbelievably loud and at the threshold of physical pain!!!

The same was said when Moto GPs adopted the 4-stroke and left the 2-stroke behind. Some people adored the shrieking noise of 2-stroke, whilst I prefer the deep 'voice' of a 4-stroke.

I don't recall the 4-cylinder turbo BMW having an umpleasant noise at the time, compared to a Ferrari or Renault V6 turbo. A turbo tends to dampen the noise anyway.

I must have seen one of the few last Indy 500s where the 4-cylinder turbo Offenhauser was present, and I remember that it had a singular deep note which I prefered to the 4-cam Ford.

 

Megatron, that's the one. That was the name under which BMW supplied other teams: Arrows? Ligier perhaps?

The Beatrice used a turbo V8 Cosworth, that proved to be a flop. Keith Duckworth wasn't a believer in turbocharging and adopted it reluctantly only when his atmo engines became obsolete.

As a private effoprt, Zackspeed used the Ford-based 4-cylinder turbo engine they had developed in Touring Cars for their Capri!

The BMW engine was also initially tested in saloon car racing in Germany.
But I like the fact that they sourced their blocks from one or two years old street cars before converting them to F1 engine. Says a lot for their production cars, doesn't it?

Marvellous era, the turbo era; I hope it comes back soon...

 

I am wondering if the rules will impose a 4-cylinder in line or give some latitude to that, like V4 of Flat-4.

The V4 configuration can give an advantage in the form of reduced length of engine, and also permit the adoption of 3 bearings instead of 5, reducing internal friction, etc... Same for the flat-4, but the advantage is lost by the penalty of doubling all the cylinder heads weight. Volkswagen has pioneered the 'narrow-angle' V engines which can be quite compact.

Just look at MotoGP where the V4 Ducati is the most powerful engine.

The adoption of 4-cylinder engines will allow more freedom to the chassis designer, and one can even imagine transversal engines in F1 (last seen in 1965 on Richie Ginther's V12 Honda!). Already some designers have adopted transversal gearboxes to centralise the masses.

A smaller engine could also reduce the amount of fuel needed, allow smaller tanks, and bring in cars with shorter wheeelbase and reduced length.

Brabham was the first to use a 'lay-down' 4-cylinder engine, but some constructors may want to revisit that design to lower the centre of gravity.

The 10,000rpm rev limit is about right to give some reliability to a 4-cylinder turbo, but the most important is the turbo boost. No mention of it yet.
The turbo boost is crucial to control engine power, and the FIA may well impose a limit, or even modulate its pressure from track to track!
Maybe the FIA will go the way Champcar did and impose pre-set pop-off valves, like they do ECU now? I am sure that, left unregulated, the power of turbo engines will soon scare the FIA!!
But it's good for spectators: more power, less grip!!!

 

The primary point, in my opinion, is that once again Ferrari is taking the spoiled brat attitude of "play the game my way or I will leave". Most if not all of the other teams, including McLaren and Mercedes have apparently agreed to these rules.

It has become tiring to hear such BS. Let Ferrari leave. I would suggest they would return within two years.

I used to love this team, but I have a really hard time with control freaks. They treat 99% of their street car customers with no respect, they act as if they are the only team in F1 that matters.

Again, I hope Ferrari and Alonso lose this season. Such crap.

 

I think that we have to accept that regularly Ferrari contests the rules and threatens to leave. It was more present when the old man was still alive.

It was still a 'sport' in those days, and now it's a business.
Ferrari could do immense damage to its image by leaving F1.

Gone are the days when Ferraris street cars were unique. Now you have serious rivals on the market, and Ferrari has even been completely overtaken in the realm of supercars.
Only its constant participation at the higher echelon of motorsports marks it out of Koeniggsweg, Bugatti, Aston Martin, Porsche, Zonda, and other exotics...

Throwing aweay that link with F1 because they don't like the rules would be counterproductive in the long run.
F1 isn't like Le Mans that you can leave and come back to when you want...

The fact is that Ferrari had 4-cylinder engines in the past!! So, no shame there, is it?

 

could it be that those other teams have different parameters within 'give and take' that allows them to continue to make money? how nice of you great to have your support...

 

+1 I agree there. F1 is not F1 without Ferrari. Through Ferrari's F1 program have such technologies like F1 'boxes and the like been adapted to road cars. The entire sport auto industry would suffer to an extent if Ferrari left the field. A compromise between what the teams and drivers want to do and what the Fia wants needs to be made rather than the one-sided almost communist-like Fia Stalin-ish dictating what will be done.

 

The pinnacle of motorsports is going to become
the HMS Pinafore of motorsports?

Tiny motors with electricity.

Oh wait: Bernie is talking about F1 *SLOT CARS*!!

Then they can just pack up the track and take it along with the "show".

We don' need no steenkin' Ferrari.
We got Matchbox!.

 

Changes in engine configuration and capacity has been part of F1 since the beginning. I can't wait to see small cap. turbo 4's return. I will admit the 10,000 redline kinda bums me out. I'd like to see F1 have more revs allowed.

 

Against our wills Papa, Against our wills!

I imagine that if this spec is accepted we will be seeing drifting in F1 soon after.

 

With turbo engines, you mostly get more power by allowing more boost, not by increasing the revs.

The FIA understood that very well when it imposed a boost limit in the previous turbo era.

And in Indycar racing, they even imposed mandatory pop-off valves to limit the boost pressure at a certain level.

I am actually surprised that FIA mentions revs limit in a turbo configuration: it's boost that is all important!

 

Then add a turbo "muffler".

 

(Amid Ferrari's staunch opposition last year to the proposed budget cap rules, the team threatened to quit formula one.

In a new interview with Corriere dello Sport, team boss Stefan Domenicali said anyone who thinks F1 would be the same without Ferrari "is wrong".

He warned that, "depending on how the rules are configured", Ferrari is open to seeking new challenges in "Le Mans or the major American championships".)

First of many times in the next year that Ferrari will threaten to take its ball and go home.
One of these days no-one will come when Ferrari calls "Wolf !"

 

All this talk of teensy turbo muffled motors just serves to cement the 3 litre V12 era in my mind as the halcyon days of F1. I'm just glad I can say I was there to see and hear it live.

 

Does Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari?

That's the question.

Alfa Romeo and Maserati left F1. That was a tragedy at the time, but hardly anyone remember them in GP now.

The new challenges like Le Mans or the major American championships (NASCAR really?) will never provide Ferrari with the same opportunity to shine worldwide.

Ferrari wons Le Mans 9 times and gave it up to concentrate in F1 instead.
Endurance racing isn't structured to be compared with F1.

As for Indy racing (IRL, I suppose that's what they mean), it's a national championship at best.

 

Not that it matters but we might ask who is leaving who(m?) ?

 

Consider what would happen with little tiny I4 engines with a pop off valve set at a regulated pressure (3 bar) and an unlimited RPM limit. The pressure regulator dose not limit HP--it just limits the RPMs necessary to reach a given HP level. 3 bar of boost at (say) 25,000 RPMs will produce (lets just say) prodigious amounts of power.

Most of the old turbo era was fought with valve springs not pneumatic valves, where the old 3.0 litre engines were basically at a dead-end development wise between 550 and 600 HP (12,000-13,000 RPM). Enter the pneumatic valve and suddenly they are having to restrict the engines in order to prevent them from becomming 1000 HP misles.

Thus, boost needs to be regulated, bore spacing needs to be regulated, and RPMs need to be regualted--now somebody tell me why a single engine series would not be "just as good"?

But, I have never been a real fan of forced induction.....

But let me advance a different means to an end: Regulate the amount of engine development money to $5M per year (or pick a favorite number). Not the build costs of the then developed engines, or the number of engine that can be built or used, just the total amount of dollars that can be spent developing engines. That is regulate engine development to about the same as can be accomplished in a backyard garage with the right equiptment.