http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/14402/
NO, they will be 2.4 ltrs, ie. take a 3 ltr v10 and remove 2 cylinders = 2.4 ltr v8. Repeating my quote ... They have been discussing this for ages ... was hoping that they would remove the number of cylinder restriction, and just restrict to 2.4 ltrs, but giving that much freedom obviously frightens Bernie Pete
There is NOTHING good about this. Reduce capacity (2.4l) and then why not give the teams the option of v8, 10, 12 - hell even an in-line 6, I don't care! THis kind of crap really pi$$es me off. Jim
Wow. You are pissed! I was pissed when they got rid of the Turbos too. I've been following F1 for long enough to know what's going to happen in the future. 1) FIA introduces new rules to slow cars down and reduce costs. 2) Everyone (especially the teams and manufacturers) screams and yells about how this is a travesty to the sport. How it'll drop performance and actually reduce the ability of drivers to compete with each other and is another nail in the coffin of F1. 3) Within 2 to 3 years the engineers will have clawed back the power and performance lost and the cars will be just as fast as they were now. Then they get faster. 4) Everyone gets concerned and repeat steps 1 through 3. 5) Charles (senna21 - me) continues to watch F1 regardless of steps 1 through 4. Just has more to talk about with friends.
Yup, that is exactly what'll happen! Only thing I would comment on is step 2. I think that there will be an opportunity for a lesser team to shine since they are essentially starting from scratch. It may not last very long since the big boys won't take all that long to adapt, and then surge ahead. It will be exciting, though, and I will continue to watch as I have been since the late '80s.
How does making all the R&D undertaken on their current motors obsolete, reduce costs for the sport? I can understand the engines lasting for two races, but the 2.4l V8 from 2006makes no sense to me. I don't even watch F1 anymore because of the yawn factor, but can't see how this is the solution to the problem. IMO the real solution is simple, make big brother Bernie to give a significantly larger slice of the pie back to the teams, inversley proportional to their success. The successful teams have less problems with sponsorship anyway, the less successful teams will get better funding for development directly through the sport. Make MS retire or join a second rate team, like Rossi did in MotoGP.
Yeah, well I was pissed when they went to the turbo's too! If you have ever heard the Ferrari 12 from that era you know what I mean. So diferent from the howl of the Cosworths. I was not real happy when they went to the 10 cyl only in the 90's (even though that is what everyone had), but at least they were still diferent than the other wanna-be series out there. I'm sorry, but this really sucks! I was hoping that the teams would band together and reject this. I do not understand how only 2 less pistons (plus accessories) together with the enormous added expense of developing a new motor is going to "save" the teams money. BS!BS!BS! Jim
I agree with the displacement reduction, but not the restriction to V-8 engines. I say: if you want to restrict the cylinders, make it to V-12s only! And I also say, put an RPM restriction on them to, say, 14,000 revs, which will make the engines sound better and less painful to the ears.
If you think about it Mercedes, BMW, and Honda backed out because they are hoping the new rules will hurt Ferrari's engine reliability. All of them were granading engines with the current rules. It would have been in their interest to fight the rule change. What will be funny is when Ferrari is still winning even with the new rules. Then what will they start to cry about. I really hope that these new rules work to Ferrari's advantage even more. Some how I think the new rules will. Oh it will be such mud in their face if it turns out that way.
I have explained this until I am blue in the face on this site and still many do not get why they have selected an engine size of 2.4L and the restriction to v8's (which I personally do not agree with ... the v8 part that is). Lets start from the begining. F1 decided that it wanted to reduce the engine size, for speed reasons. This has to happen every so often, because unlike CART and other series, F1 engineers still try and improve their game ... and thus a 3L engine in the 60's produced 400hp and now produces 900 hp!! ... more than double, amazing. Thus they were sitting around wanting to reduce the engine size but NOT force the teams into starting all over again with the R&D, etc. Thus they said, if we simply take 2 cylinders of the current 3L v10's what engine size do we get ... and that equals 2.4L's. Thus all the R&D on bore and stroke length, combustion chamber, etc. ... the really expensive stuff stays and does not have to be started from scratch again. Thus they have successfully reduced engine size without incurring large costs for the teams. Ofcourse may not save them money, but atleast this does not cost them heaps of money. Now does that make sense? Now Jim if you read my above paragraph you can hopefully see that they are not having to develop a completely new engine ... just arrange the current components in a 8 cylinder layout ... that is no big deal to F1 teams. Actually this bit to me makes no sense. This is supposed to be F1, not Formula Vee. This is actually a CART type rule and is very bad for the sport. This rule means that we will get lower tech engines and eventually Mercedes will be able to sell a production model with a F1 engine ... with no detuning. Yes it will (or should) reduce hp, but the best way to do that is to ban the fly-by-wire accelerator. This is the main reason we have such huge powers as the 'computer' sorts out the drivability issues. Without the fly-by-wire stupid accelerator these current engines would be completely undrivable and even MS would not be able to drive out of the pit lane. If they want to reduce power and costs, make a rule that says that the accelerator butterflies must be moved directly by the drivers foot. This will mean that the engines will have to be built with a suitable torque curve, instead of this HP is everything attitude. I estimate a 300hp drop in power over night if they did this. Agree with this part of the sentence Pete
It's theory of unintended consequences: sure they could use all of their existing architecture, but are any of them actually going to do that? The threat of one of them making a clean sheet design will force all of the others to do the same. The FIA is famous for these gaffes, remember when the narrow track was supposed to slow the cars down and make them safer, but in reality it actually made them more aerodynamic, and now we have F1 cars topping 220mph.
Pete - I agree with your logic in principle but I feel that while the general dimensions may not change, there might be a lot of components changed / redesigned to cope with higher engine speeds to claw back some of the horsepower loss due to reduced capacity. This would add to the cost...
Speedy_sam and Koby, Yes ofcourse, but atleast all the computer simulation, etc. that they already have for a 300cc cylinder can be reused. Now if the FIA had chosen say 2.5L's then they could not have. So yes I agree, ofcourse all teams will be trying to find an edge and will constantly be revising everything ... but they would have been doing that with the 3L v10 too ... thus FIA have NOT INCREASED COSTS with this engine size reduction. That was the FIA's aim. The longer engine life is about cost reduction, the reduction is engine size is NOT, but simply to slow the cars down. Pete
Pete, I DO understand all that! However, lose 2 cyl's and you have new castings, new crank, new engine management, new chassis, etc., etc., and most important (I think) will be the all new harmonic issues running 8. Say what you will, but I will bet big $$$ that there will be plenty of smoke on the track before they get these motors lined out. Just because they can use the same pistons and con rods does not constitute a "savings" - and is hilarious to even think of it as break even! Jim
My understanding is that most R&D money is spent on combustion chamber development, ie. simulating or building a single cylinder engine. This has nothing to do with the number of cylinders (other than ofcourse coming up with the cylinder cc size in the first place ) I believe that 80% of F1 engine costs would go in the simulation and combustion chamber development. The actual building of the engine in comparison is chicken feed ... ie. casting a new block, heads and making a new crank costs bugger all. Engine management good question but I thought F1 engines basically ran like 10 individual cylinders (ie. had their own throttle actuators and sensors, etc. ... like the new BMW M5 v10). Harmonic issues ... well yes that could be a biggie, but we are talking about some pretty clever people. New chassis ... well they produce a new chassis every year anyway. Thus IMO this change has to be the best option for reducing engine size ... which had to happen. If they had chosen any other size it would have added even more costs. I hate Bernie with a passion, but even if it was him , this does make sense. Pete ps: Pity we could not get somebody involved to help this discussion ... but design and R&D always costs heaps more than build, especially something as black art as an engine.
Pete, I do hope you are correct. I guess internal stress issues with a 10 would be similar to an 8. I was thinking that this would have to be a total redesign/testing issue for the casting design. I was also thinking new balance and c/g issues with a new engine/chassis design would basically void all the old data. I still just do not like it! Ok, fine! Slow them down by decreasing dispacement! But I think all these restrictions go against the whole F1...."sigh" we've been down that road before. I guess the only thing I am looking forward to is how each design team will cope with these issues. I am thinking the cars may look very diferent the first year until they all figure out what works for who. I too wish some other folks would chime in here - especially if you'all know any details on F1 chassis/engine design. A while back I posted a question on the pnuematic valve and cam designs (since it has been out for a while, and should be available), and nobody answered. Anyone? Bueller? Jim
The big boys have more resources and will be ahead from the beginning. Way ahead in fact. Even further than they are now. Each year Minardi, Jordan, etc. close the gap a little bit then POOF, FIA introduces "speed reducing - cost savings" ideas than only hurt the poor teams. There is not such thing as cost savings in racing. Never has been, never will be. It's a Utopia that gets passed around every 5-6 years and everyone falls for it all over.
Yes I too think that we needed a change in F1, we need something to make the engineers start to think laterially again. I am well aware that the rules are now to tight, but atleast this change may make things interesting for a little while. In the end I am all for keeping the technology at the fore front in F1. If we did NOT reduce the engine size ... well how can F1 be considered a technical tour-deforce with unnecessarily large dinosaur engines. Don't worry Jim, I reckon in less than 2 years they will be producing 800+ hp again ... and that is what progress is all about. Also reducing the HP is the best way to push advances in the rest of the car package. If we never went to the 1.5 L formula in the early 60's ... I do wonder if we would still be racing front engined, wingless cars ... in hindsight that formula was the best thing that ever happened to motorracing, and the technology of the WHOLE car jumped the most in that formula (rear engined cars, monocoque chassis, modern twin wishbone suspension, magnessium wheels (admittedly both of the last things were slowly appearing in the last front engined cars), focus on frontal area, etc.). CART took the big lazy engine direction ... I do not want F1 to do that. There are many Nissan GTR's that produce more hp than a CART engine and I think they are smaller and run on petrol. Something I just cannot get excited about ... infact it's pathetic IMO. Pete
Pete! How've you been? Now I I've read you're post and both you and I do tend to think along the same lines but, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. This is exactly the kind of rule that make Formula 1, FORMULA 1. I see this rule as the same bold rule making that lead to the banning of refueling in the 1980 and the advent of the ECU that has propelled not only Formula 1 but every modern car made today. Fuel economy was the name of the game during that time of the post oil crisis and new air regulations and F1 was at the fore front of refining technology to achieve both performance and fuel efficiency. As for lower tech F1 engines in road cars that arent detuned... well, I'll take an F50 any day and I'll surely take one without the detuned engine. Ok, here you just go off and forget all of the F1 history I know you have. During the late 1980s the turbo's were kicking out 1,100hp in qualifying trim with no fly by wire technology. And that was with massive turbo lag. Race trim they were running at about 800hp if they needed more to pass, just turn up the boost. If they could drive those cars then todays cars would be comparative *****cats to drive without the drive by wire technology. Or if you want to make the argument that since today's engines rev so much higher than the turbo era's the torque power curve would be about the same as the turbos in relation to power build up over the entire span of the rev range... they'd be about the same to drive. But, I'd say the turbo's with their older clutch technology, limited slip technology, traction control technology, would still be much, much harder to drive. Side note: Lopealong, what kind of horses do you have? My sister breeds, shows, sells Connemaras.
Good point ... I stand corrected and humbled . But the fly-by-wire throttle still makes the cars easier and faster to drive. Getting rid of it would slow their lap times and give us a thrill ... as the cars bucked and slid around Pete Oh ... I can see your point about F1 developing new technology to make reliable long lasting F1 engines too, but time bombs are so much more fun to watch ... While I have been knocked back with these 2 points ... I still am excited about the 2.4L engines and believe reducing the engine size in F1 is well overdue.
