What do you think of the proposed V8 F1 formula?

True, but understandable. Remember the VISA sponsor fiasko that prevented the March (?) team from joining? No wonder they raised the bar.

But an option to buy a last year chassis would be nice. Kinda like it was back in the early eighties. Those teams wouldn't win the WC obviously, but make for a nice full field and offer a ladder for younger drivers to climb.

 

Because that is not what the spirit of Formula 1 is about. It has been a racing series that inspires new innovations and new ideas. Hence the number "1" within its name. There are plenty of other series you can goto if a highly regulated racing series is what you are after. Besides, I believe that all of us agree that just by limiting the number of cyclinders does not mean that the horse power will drop for sure on the long run. If the hp goes back up to the level of today again, are we going to make I-4 or V-6 mandatory??

 

The boxer 12 engine on the back of the BBs and the Testarossa series all owes their birth to the 1970's F1 cars. The carbo disc that are on production Porsches, 360CSs and Enzos all were tested on track first. The true semi-automatic gear, such as the F1 system for Ferraris and Astro Martins, the SMG for BMWs can all thank the 1989 F1/89 for that. BMW has created a brand new V-10 engine for its road going M5, and may be used in future M6 or whatever other M-series car they will be making. VW/Audi/Lambo's V-10 (Even know such configuration has not been used by them on the track as of yet) is lined up to be widely used in the top version of their road cars (The next generation RS-6 is rumored to be using the Gallardo V-10). The variable timing-cam, the variable length exhaust, pnuematic valve system in today's road going Ferrari all have their links to their F1 program. The list can go on and on. My point is, the roadcars will always see the track-breed technologies a little later, and rightfully so as they need to be improved and altered for street use. Now, instead of slowing down development, why not encourage the manufactures which in term will allow us to see these race-breed technologies being placed on the streetcars even faster?

 

follow the money here:

* costs are WAY too high for teams
* teams want more of a cut from Bernie & crew.
* Bernie doesn't wanna share $$.

So, Bernie figures, lower costs for teams so they're
happy, plus he doesn't have to give up any of HIS $$.

Nets out to 8 cyl engines, hand shifting/none of that paddle stuff for these guys, one tire manufacturer so no expensive tire wars...

'course, if'n Bernie doesn't watch it, pretty soon
F1 will be racing in North Carolina at a 'bubba' track

 

Hang on Anthony, when did Ferrari start using pnuematic valve systems on their road cars. Impossible I believe because they need to be pressurised before the engine is fired/started ... can't see owners to happy about doing that every drive

While race car technology does get passed down the goals of a road and race car are so different now that that link is now stretching it.

Road cars technology is all about safety now with stability, traction and any other anti-fun device you can think of ... plus the air bag cr@p. On top of that is the emission stuff.

For that reason I would like to see F1 cars have to meet emission requirements at the end of the race! ... very, very quickly we would gain technology in this area and WE via road cars would benefit. Instead it is left to underfunded research teams ...

Pete

 

While we are at it lets put fuel consumption restrictions too.

So let us award special points for F1 cars that use Solar power and use alternative resources of fuel.

I believe "... very, very quickly we would gain technology in this area and WE via road cars would benefit."

 

Good point. Actually back in the turbo days they did have fuel consumption restrictions ... ie. they limited the fuel tank size, and no refueling.

I do not think that we can go that far forward though ... but a separate solar power circuit racing series would definitely help the technology.

Pete

 

Tour de Sol (Solar Car Series)
http://www.nesea.org/transportation/tour/

F1 does not need to have fuel restrictions or emission inspections! Those things have other seperate series for developing their respective technology.

Next we will want to start awarding points in F1 to constructors that can power their cars with wind power.

 

Imperial83,

You do realise that a few years ago they did change the emission restrictions of the F1 engine ... by requiring them to pipe the oil breathers back into the inlet mainfolds. This caused some engine manufacturers a bit of a drama but they seem to have it sorted now.

At the time I thought it was stupid ... the motor racer in me still does, but it is not an issue anymore.

What this change did cause is if an engine starts to let go and thus pumps oil fumes it soon will die. In the old days it would have simply filled up a catch tank ...

But yes for the rest of the stuff I do jest, but fuel restrictions and emissions would not hurt F1 as much as you think ... and then the greenies could feel good about F1 too.

As one of my step sons reminds me (ocassionally), motor racing is a pointless sport that simply wastes fuel, oil, tyres and polutes ... he is right, but it is not pointless to me

Pete

 

I don't think the greenies would be content of anything short of a complete F1 ban. But that is a completely different story and luckily they are not popular enough to have much say.

Coming back to the thoughts about V8 engines in F1. I wonder if this crap actually does pass will they also change weight restrictions or keep it the same? Current weight restrictions are 600kg minimum weight for the race itself(605kg for qualifying). Presumably the V8 engine will be lighter than the V10. So maybe a reduction in minimum weight requirement would offset the reduction in engines from v10 to v8.

 

I doubt they will reduce the minimum weight as they want to slow the cars ...

Pete

 

Darn it, I was hoping that I could have slip that one in there. Just wondering if anyone actually reads my posts.

 

The Visa F1 sponsorship fiasco involved Lola, not March.

If all the cars have the same engine it will be as dull as now. Whatever they do, the cars are likely to end up outwardly identical like now.

Variety and liberal rules, that's the Way! (see below)


Paul M
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ah, thanks.

Love that six wheeler!

 

I believe the proposal included the use of bio-fuels, to make the race "carbon-neutral", at least to a point.

 

I witnessed and had the pleasure of hearing the 1971 Tyrrell Ford that Jackie Stewart drove run the track here at Pacific Raceways during the Historics and I had absolutely no problem with the sound of that 3 ltr. V8. VERY typical F1 sound.

 

I like BMW's idea of making V10's good for two race's.
Thereby reducing power and cost's which is what the FIA
are looking to do by going to V8'S.

 

Agreed...fix the rules at 12 cylinders and let's get on with it... MARK

 

Again I am very against this we have to stick to v10 engines. v10 is just a configuration, it is nothing to get all wet about ... whoopy ****.

It is not a sudden new invention that makes all other engine configurations obsolete ... it just happens to be the right number of cylinders for a 3 litre engine based on radiator size, fuel usage, etc.

Thus please guys and girls, open your minds and stop this rediculous orgasim about the v10 as though it is something more special than it is.

It is still a 4 stroke engine that has a piston going up and down, connected to a crank ... there is just 10 pistons. 12 cylinders have 12, 8 cylinders have 8 and 10 cylinders have 10. Hardly a difference to make all engineers prematurely ejactuate ...

The real science of an engine is combustion shape, valve actuation, air flow and packaging ... and its ability or strength related to revs. The v10 is nothing special in these areas. A v8 F1 engine will rev just as well if not better, it will just have 2 less power pulses per 2 revs.

If F1 means v10 to you guys then you are watching the wrong formula. There are plenty of race series that have fixed engines and all cars the same ... go watch those, F1 is supposed to be the engineers series that promotes laterial thinking ... the v10 was one of those things by Renault, which made sense at the time ... it will not and should not be seen as the only engine for F1 for ever!

Pete's not happy about this stuck in the v10 mud attitude

EDIT: You all talk about fixed rules and continuation, etc. to allow slow development, etc. ... again WRONG series. F1 is all about thinking.

Also the whole reason they have suggested a v8 of 2.4 ltrs is because the engine manufactures will NOT have to redesign the inportant and costly part of the engine ... the combustion chamber, etc. All the will have to do is make an 8 cylinder version of exactly what they make at the moment.

3 litres minus 2 cylinders = 2.4 litres.

Remember these engine manufactures are casting heads and blocks by the hundreds and making cranks, etc ... that is NOT the big cost.

The HUGE cost is in the R&D of probably a single cylinder engine trying to optimise the combustion chamber shape, porting and valve actuation. Once they get this right, they just make X number of them in a configuration that the chassis manufacturer and they agree makes sense.

With this v8 of 2.4 ltr suggestion they will simply be able to continue where they left off with the v10 ... bugger all new costs.

Please guys and girls think about engine design before rubbishing a very SENSIBLE engine size reduction proposal ... that is 100% aimed at keeping F1 at the top and maintaining costs and design capital ... not starting with a clean sheet.

Also all you guys that think a F1 v8 will sound like a Chevy or Ford ... er, wake up and smell the roses. a F1 engine will definitely use a flat plane crank and will NOT rumble at all. Does a CART or IRL engine sound like your Chevy? ... ofcourse not. Will it sound like a v8 Ferrari road car engine ... NO. Does a v10 F1 engine sound like a Dodge Viper or Lamborghini Gallardo ... NO.

A v8 F1 engine will probably sound so close to a v10 F1 engine not many will be able to tell the difference. Remember the v12 Ferrari engine ... ever so slight difference to the v10, just slightly sweeter IMO.

 

The new A1 GP will show us how F1 could look like.
All V8 engines, but they will have a standard chassis as well.

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13947

 

NO, this is NOT what the 2.4 ltr v8 F1 series will look or be like! Because the engine is standard as is the chassis in this series, thus this series will be like a super fast Formula Ford series.

NOBODY is proposing that F1 go down that road ... just reduce the CC size to 2.4 ltrs ... and the cheapest way to do that is to remove 2 cylinders from the current v10's.

Pete's banging his head against the wall
ps: But this could be an option for F1, ie. standard everything ... but that to many would be the death of Formula 1.

I want F1 to free up the engine rules more ... just restrict CC size.

 

Yea, what he said

 

Engine (2005)
One engine to last for two race weekends.

Explanation: both peak and average power will be less than for an engine with a shorter life.

Engine (2006)
2.4 litre V8 (90º) with maximum bore diameter, fixed cylinder spacing, minimum crankshaft centre line height, minimum weight and minimum height of centre of gravity. Direct fuel injection, variable geometry inlet systems, variable geometry exhaust systems, variable valve timing and variable valve lift systems all prohibited. Only one spark plug, one coil and one injector per cylinder. Exotic materials banned.

Explanation: a 20% reduction in capacity will produce a corresponding drop in power. Constraints on design and the use of materials will significantly slow the rate of power increase and reduce the scope for using engine design to improve chassis characteristics. Keeping existing cylinder sizes retains many current engine components while keeping engine revs close to current levels.

Other engines
During 2006 and 2007, teams which cannot obtain a 2.4 litre engine will be able to use a 3 litre V10 with power restricted by means of a rev limit fixed by the FIA.

Explanation: this will ensure that all teams (including new entrants) have access to a competitive engine, even if supplies of the new 2.4 are initially restricted.

Press Release
FIA

 

Thanks, very interesting.

My only question is in regards to the two weekends rule. How is this controlled?

I can only imagine, that the teams get the engines stamped by the FIA and after race one the engine has to come out and be stored with FIA and get reinserted into the car for race two.

I can't imagine them putting the entire field into a parc ferme after race 1. Imagine the logistics and the stop on car development.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how it will all pan out in the end.

 

As an automotive engineer specialised on engines, I have my (biased) opinion on this matter.

I think the 2.4l v8 formula is absurd. Within 4-5 years we'll have engines with 900 bhp at 22'000 rpm, which will cost a fortune and will be even less affordable to small teams than today's V10s. And all the issues about safety will be there all over again. What will they do then: reduce engine size to 2.0l? And 5 years later to 1.5l? By 2020 Formula 1 cars will be running 500cc engines like Moto GP racing bikes... Come on, it is obvious that this is not the way out.

the way to make Formula 1 cars simultaneously

a) more interesting technically
b) more exciting to watch
c) reduce speeds and costs

is simple:

a) COMPLETELY FREE ENGINES - use what you want: 5l turbocharged V16, aspirated V12 10l.... whatever you like, give free rein to engineering!

b) MAXIMUM FUEL LOAD 220l per race WITHOUT REFUELLING STOPS. Let's see if these whinging, overpaid kids are capable of OVERTAKING each other on the track.

c) VEHICLE WEIGHT 600Kg WITHOUT BALLAST - any form of non-structural ballast should be BANNED.

d) Engines should last 3 races without rebuilds.

Now, that should bring some fireworks...