2013 Engine regs agreed: 1.6L turbo 4 cylinder

Bring back the V10's. This is one of the reason what sets F1 apart from every other racing series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLty2Vc2Bs&feature=related

 

Did any of you guys "whining" about this actually ever see the 1.5's run?

I'm pretty sure they were the most powerful F1 engines in history and they sounded (like *all* F1 lumps IMHO) absolutely awesome......

Nothing "gay" about a 1500cc motor putting out almost 1500HP.....

Cheers,
Ian
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yep.
It seem's change is harder to accept than the new rules, one of my main loves about F1 was the turbo era. Why so much hate without really seeing/knowing what kind of racing the new regs will provide, we might have some good passing on the crappy Tilke tracks!

 

Daym straight!!!

 

Saw 'em, heard 'em, and watched them run out of fuel two laps from the end.......

 

V10's! - Bah, humbug!....

A Matra 16 or Ferrari 12. *Music*......

[Seriously, the V10's were also pretty darn good - Like all of 'em get to be - It takes time for 'em to make noise it seems. I was at Brands (IIRC) when Renault first showed up with theirs - Oh, how we laughed at the silly Frenchmen! Damn thing didn't even make any noise!...... F/F a few years and they were all *loud*....

Cheers,
Ian

 

"That's racin'....." [It actually happens a lot more in many other formulae it seems(?)]

The tank in the HRT (?) earlier this year wasn't big enough to even last a race.....

Hopefully we'll never have to watch any economy drives though - And I know that's the fear of some..... As I said before, we'll have to wait & see.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Indeed, makes sense to me.

 

As I like to reiterate, the rods of that engine changed their length by 1mm under load - crazy stuff!

 

I take it they get longer..expanding with heat ..?

 

I agree. I want my 750hp clean burning 40mpg 10000 rpm 4 cylinder turbo hot hatch of some kind.

 

IIRC, the 1mm change in length was due to the combustion pressure...

 

Your hypothetical does not hold water in the real world. To produce 750bhp you still need 750bhp of fuel and air. The air:fuel ratio is must still be maintained and honestly, it generally needs to be richened when compared to a naturally aspirated setup. The benefit from turbo results from being able to increase the volumetric efficiency of the motor by forcing air in the cylinders well beyond what they could simply "suck" in on their own. So a NA 2.0l I-4 producing 300bhp will most certainly need much more fuel to become a Turbo 2.0l I-4 producing 500bhp.

 

Bring back the V-12's!!

 

Yes Al has a high coefficient of thermal expansion, increases compression ratio. By comparison Ti is very low.

I understand your point, maintaining a lamba of .9 is usually desired. And that richer setups are frequently used to cool the exhaust valve. That being said, NA engines can readily have a Ve above 100%

Even given the mass flow restriction on fuel for the engines the power will still be very high. A similar NA configuration would use no where near the 25g/s limit and therefore would have plenty to spare for when the charge density is increase and the lambda value maintained.

And my hypothetical does make sense, the extra power recovered doesn't necessarily have to go anywhere near the engine. The fact is for a 500 bhp engine, the lowest heating value of the fuel multiplied by the speed the engine is running is usually around 1500 bhp.

Remember, turboing isn't free energy

 

Spot on!

Here is a picture I took at the 83 Monaco GP of the same engine in action: 6 feet long fire plumes coming out the exhaust at downshift.

These engines produced 1,200+ hp in qualifying trim. They were the most powerful engines F1 had ever used. They were so compact that combined with the ban of the side skirts they formed the "pencil rockets" of the late eighties. Only real men could drive those things. Particularly around Monaco. No traction control, no paddle shifting, no electronic nannies.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Nice!. [Probably *not* considered terribly "green" however ]

Fixed it for you

They didn't start out that way though.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I doubt the new motors will be able to match those for shock and awe factor and I'd be surprised if they put down 1/2 that power...

 

Come on 2013!!!

 

I guess its official. Not happy about this. The cars are going to sound like ****. This Green effort is complete BS. I dont understand how others think this hybrid/electric is better for the enviroment , when reality its worse. If they are so concerned about more fuel efficient motors, than limited the amount fuel they use through out the season and its up to the teams on what kind of motor they would like to run. I am sure this has been discussed in pervious posts. IMO I think its the best solution and makes more sense for the teams to develop other technologies.

http://www.formula1.com/default.html

 

Only 2 more years of the epic V8 , 2013 is gonna be Sh**e.

 

Relax dude!

I'm sure we could find the same nay-sayers when they killed the V10's.

And before that, the 12's & 16's

And somewhere in there, even the "hated" turbos!.....

They'll be fine!

Cheers,
Ian

 

I'd still be watching even if they ran B&S engines. Nobody knows how the new engines will sound or perform and comparing them to the old 50+ bar engines, with trick fuel I might add, in sound and performance is rather futile, kinda like teaching an old dog new tricks.

I love F1 for what it is and that is simply racing and I have never complained about any of the engines strictly because one may sound more appealing than the other. Are we not F1 fans first and foremost?

 

They've always managed to amaze no matter how foolish the rules.
I just wish they'd either leave things as is and save everyone the expense or let folks spend the added cost as they saw fit.

 

I hope so.