2013 Engine regs agreed: 1.6L turbo 4 cylinder

FYI, Bernie is actually on record as saying he's against this change.......

I think he's BS'ing about one guy getting an advantage, but beyond that I tend to agree with him eek.

Having said that, I don't think it's such a bad idea - They're claiming power will be about the same but they're looking for a 50% increase in efficiency, which is a pretty hefty engineering challenge and if nothing else illustrates a willingness to move forward. [OK, I know flying 'em around the world isn't "efficient", and "the show" is wasteful etc, but demonstrating substantial increases in "mpg" can't be a bad thing........ [IMHO.]

Cheers,
Ian

 

Correct... does the weight allowance provide for a set of neuticles to hang off the back of the car?

http://www.neuticles.com/

It will be like nothing ever happened!

 

Fuel capacity of the turbos was limited - They had to do *something* to try and slow 'em down!..... [Just short of 1500HP in quali trim!.....]

However, NA 3.5's were allowed without restriction in '88 when the fuel regulations were tightest, and Mclaren (with the Honda turbo of course) won 15 of 16 races - Domination as never seen before with an "economical" motor......

Having said all that, I agree we don't want economy runs in F1 (Le Mans anyone?) but it *may* be they've got it right this time by limiting fuel flow, rather than capacity per-se - We'll see I guess.

As for the comment about 'em being neutered - In what way exactly? They'll have as much power (and soon, no doubt more as they get it down) and 120kW of KERS. Bet $ to donuts lap times will be about the same.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

At what point will giant bolt on wings and coffee can exhaust be allowed per the regs?

 

Bernie has nothing to do with the Technical Regulations, this has to do with the FIA. I think they should have gone with a 6 cylinder Turbo for Noise reasons though.

 

So much for that beautiful F1 sound that we've all come to know and love though. A turbo 4 cylinder that only revs to 10,000 RPM vs a N/A v8 that spins to almost 18,000 .

 

Still don't see anything about this over on autosport, I'd wait till the info is there before passing judgement.

 

Thats the down side I'll admit.

However, got to accept the fact times are a changing, F1 should be at the forefront of tech IMO and tech in this day and age have ......green issues...Everyone is experimenting and investing in more efficient machines. F1 should show willing to be part of that, or it may end up like the dinosaurs.

Its just the way it is ...

 

Frankly the technology will be encouraging... at least this is something that F-1 can pioneer again.

as for the sound its got to be better than the high pitched wail... they all sound the same... the turbo cars at least had some character - but not much ...

 

blip..blip...blip.....name the driver

 

The regs will be interesting and a welcome change from the freeze. The engines will be limited in displacement and fuel but much more open in other areas. This is to encourage additional power through other means such as forced induction, KERS and some new methods.

Don't for a second think that they'll be significantly down on the current V8s in power. Think of the V10 era, despite increasing mileage restrictions the end of the V10 era in 2005 engines were hitting 950 bhp. The V8s even with the freeze and subsequent decrease in RPM are still slightly more powerful than they were in 2006.

My point is, we all want F1 to remain the pinnacle of technology and innovation. The rules are going to encourage that. Limiting RPM, fuel flow rate and a few other parameters encourages more interesting solutions in other areas.

 

Bring back NA V-10's!

I hate the nails on chalkboard noise of the V-8's which will be worse with the I-4's.

 

Well, that will free up 19 Sundays for me in 2013............

 

"Stakeholders ?" What does this mean ?
Doesnt matter;
F1 finally enters the 21st Century.
Ahead of the pack as always.

 

There always has been and always will be limits imposed.
Engine size, rpms, rebuilds, whatever.
This one has to do with fuel quantity.
Yet once again the cream will rise

 

Exactly, the traditional means for increased power are heavily restricted. Other areas are more open so expect some very clever innovations.

 

Tell me again how this isn't yet another spec series?

F1 -- with the best (pay) drivers in the world and the best (limited to the non-engineer-designed rules) race cars with the best racing (no blocking now!) and the most exciting passing (in the pits) in the world! (if by "in the world" you mean "in a desert somewhere").

 

Sounds like a great formula that can actually transfer economical/green technology over to road cars.

 

Because displacement, fuel mass flow rate and rev limits do no equate to a spec series.

If anything, engines now are just as similar, if not more so. Minimum CG, same bore and stroke, same displacement, rev limit, minimum weight etc.

As for pay drivers, I think you'll find that most drivers in the world aside from in F1 are pay drivers. Whether it be personal sponsorship or family money this is the main source of income for a team. Even biggest stars in the BTCC and GP2 are pay drivers.

 

Don't agree

I do agree that promoting fuel efficiency is a good thing... but by locking down so many parameters (such as limiting it to an I4) innovation is stifled. An example is that the V10 layout was discovered to be optimal in the 3.5l series (when up to 12 cyls were permited and 8 was also in common use).

If the FIA really want to promote innovation they should say "you have X litres f fuel per race with a maximum flow rate of Y" - that would allow innovation to deliver the best solution!

 

I like it for these reasons:

- it will shake up things, always a good thing
- turbos are cool
- it is closer to regular engines than what we have now

In the end it doesn't really matter: F1 remains the pinnacle of motorsports with the fastest cars on a road course and the best drivers in the world (aka as outside of the US).

 

and maybe Ferrari will stick a couple of those turbo 4's together to make a cool 458 replacement.

 

As someone else mentioned I say limit the total amount of fuel allowed for the race and let them build whatever type of engine they see fit.


But my opinion doesn't matter, I'm only a fan after all.



Rob