FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[7UpJordan]

Good riddance to those whiny V8's. Even Scalextric motors sound more aggressive than the current 2.4L V8's.

The cars will be nice and tough to drive too with drivers having to change their style to adapt to the Turbo lag and aggressive torque-curves as the Turbo kicks in.

Also no longer will getting pole almost guarantee you'll lead into the first corner, back in the Turbo era you could often start as far back as 4th, 5th or 6th but find yourself crusing into the first corner first, all depending on who has their boost pressure set at what level.

[Jack Master]

IMHO these new rules will attract more car manufacturers because the engineering advances they get by the development of these new cars apparently should have a greater application in normal cars. What is his real business.

[texasmr2]

We unfotunately have no say so thus we must accept the hand we are delt, I for one look forward to the change as change is normally a good thing.

[Jack Master]

We unfotunately have no say so thus we must accept the hand we are delt, I for one look forward to the change as change is normally a good thing.

Why are thy closing all the threads? Who's that FRAPFF?

[texasmr2]

We unfotunately have no say so thus we must accept the hand we are delt, I for one look forward to the change as change is normally a good thing.

Why are thy closing all the threads?

It's par for the "silly season" no biggy.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...I say V's because it means they can basically just chop the current engines in half....

Depends which way you chop them. Length-wise gets you a straight-4.

All 4s are a compromised design, the V-4 a bit more than the L-4, which explains why the automotive world has shown the V-4 so very little love. If memory serves, the most recent (in the developed world) were built by UK Ford (Essex V4) and FRG Ford (Taunus V4) but those all went auf wieder bye-bye more than 30 years ago. Compare that to the L-4, which has seen more than 110 years of widespread use (and probably is the most widely produced automobile engine of all time).

Turbochargers now are about three generations more evolved that what was last used in F1 (thanks mostly to Porsche). In the 1980s they didn't have variable vane geometry or ceramic vanes (but it remains to be seen if either of those innovations will be allowed). Nor did they have digital fuel injection or the strapping 7% extra displacement of the 2013 formula. Another point not being addressed is the number of turbos permitted. Also, an engine limited to 10,000 RPMs likely will have a much more nearly square bore and stroke compared to the current highly over-square engines, which means a relatively longer stroke. Not only do longer-stroke engines tend to be torquier, the longer stroke increases exhaust gas pressures at low RPMs, which reduces turbo lag. So if the teams are permitted to use multiple SOTA turbos, they should be able to reach the projected 650-BHP and be no more pipey than the current lot of V-8s.

It all comes down to the exact numbers and wordage used in the regs (and how many grey areas Adrian Newey can find).

[darwin dali]

...I say V's because it means they can basically just chop the current engines in half....

Depends which way you chop them. Length-wise gets you a straight-4.

All 4s are a compromised design, the V-4 a bit more than the L-4, which explains why the automotive world has shown the V-4 so very little love. If memory serves, the most recent (in the developed world) were built by UK Ford (Essex V4) and FRG Ford (Taunus V4) but those all went auf wieder bye-bye more than 30 years ago. Compare that to the L-4, which has seen more than 110 years of widespread use (and probably is the most widely produced automobile engine of all time).

Turbochargers now are about three generations more evolved that what was last used in F1 (thanks mostly to Porsche). In the 1980s they didn't have variable vane geometry or ceramic vanes (but it remains to be seen if either of those innovations will be allowed). Nor did they have digital fuel injection or the strapping 7% extra displacement of the 2013 formula. Another point not being addressed is the number of turbos permitted. Also, an engine limited to 10,000 RPMs likely will have a much more nearly square bore and stroke compared to the current highly over-square engines, which means a relatively longer stroke. Not only do longer-stroke engines tend to be torquier, the longer stroke increases exhaust gas pressures at low RPMs, which reduces turbo lag. So if the teams are permitted to use multiple SOTA turbos, they should be able to reach the projected 650-BHP and be no more pipey than the current lot of V-8s.

It all comes down to the exact numbers and wordage used in the regs (and how many grey areas Adrian Newey can find).

Ah Adrian - yes!

If it wasn't for him (and some other guys), I'd say this entire exercise smells suspiciously similar to the ill-fated 'No Child Left Behind Act' we here in the US can thank W for. It's generally accepted wisdom that this mandate caused the widespread dumbing down of educational standards. I sure hope F1 won't retard itself for VW's sake

[MattMK45]

Let's hope the power output stays about the same as the current engines (Even though I would happily welcome more power!). The good thing as well is that the engines should produce a lot more torque and am I right in saying the engine should weigh a lot less?

[CarBore]

I imagine they would try to get them lighter. You are definitely going to end up with lighter cars though with the reduction in fuel tank size. Personally I think the move to turbos is great a smaller capacity turbo just makes more sense in the modern automotive market than a bigger NA with the same power.

Also higher power KERS might be interesting in neutralizing the turbo lag since electric motors generate so much torque from 0rpm.

[What's Burning?]

...I say V's because it means they can basically just chop the current engines in half....

Depends which way you chop them. Length-wise gets you a straight-4.

All 4s are a compromised design, the V-4 a bit more than the L-4, which explains why the automotive world has shown the V-4 so very little love. If memory serves, the most recent (in the developed world) were built by UK Ford (Essex V4) and FRG Ford (Taunus V4) but those all went auf wieder bye-bye more than 30 years ago. Compare that to the L-4, which has seen more than 110 years of widespread use (and probably is the most widely produced automobile engine of all time).

Turbochargers now are about three generations more evolved that what was last used in F1 (thanks mostly to Porsche). In the 1980s they didn't have variable vane geometry or ceramic vanes (but it remains to be seen if either of those innovations will be allowed). Nor did they have digital fuel injection or the strapping 7% extra displacement of the 2013 formula. Another point not being addressed is the number of turbos permitted. Also, an engine limited to 10,000 RPMs likely will have a much more nearly square bore and stroke compared to the current highly over-square engines, which means a relatively longer stroke. Not only do longer-stroke engines tend to be torquier, the longer stroke increases exhaust gas pressures at low RPMs, which reduces turbo lag. So if the teams are permitted to use multiple SOTA turbos, they should be able to reach the projected 650-BHP and be no more pipey than the current lot of V-8s.

It all comes down to the exact numbers and wordage used in the regs (and how many grey areas Adrian Newey can find).

Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years

I take this to mean a low and high end turbines coming in the future.

[scotty]

...I say V's because it means they can basically just chop the current engines in half....

Depends which way you chop them. Length-wise gets you a straight-4.

Yup, but it also requires more drivetrain modifications than going to a V. I mean, if they want to save some money in development it seems like the logical option to me. Yet as we all know, logic doesn't always prevail when it comes to those who make the rules...!

The cars will be nice and tough to drive too with drivers having to change their style to adapt to the Turbo lag and aggressive torque-curves as the Turbo kicks in.

Also no longer will getting pole almost guarantee you'll lead into the first corner, back in the Turbo era you could often start as far back as 4th, 5th or 6th but find yourself crusing into the first corner first, all depending on who has their boost pressure set at what level.

To be blunt, don't kid yourself - turbo technology is far better than it was in 1985ish when lag was a major factor. I bet the teams will all just be setting the boost to max for the first corner... KERS is the 'new' boost advantage.

[texasmr2]

Compounding turbo's will only add weight and expense not to mention packaging and cooling issues. A DBB turbo would be the correct way imo. Also using ceramic compressor's will only add to the expense as they are very fragile and will not have the lifespan of a nat at the temp's and pressures they will be subjected to. Who knows what will happen but it will be fun to see what the engineers comeup with .

[myownalias]

I'm quite excited about a return to turbocharged engines, I missed the turbo era, didn't start watching F1 until 1991, a little engine with a HUGE turbocharger, bring it on!!!

[bud]

I have a feeling the boost pressure will not be allowed to be adjusted throughout a race. Also KERS could be used at race starts to compensate for turbo lag.

[texasmr2]

I have a feeling the boost pressure will not be allowed to be adjusted throughout a race. Also KERS could be used at race starts to compensate for turbo lag.

I think your right and having a 'set non-adjustable bar' will only add to the excitement and race strategy. Turbo lag I don't think will be an issue especially if they us an anti-lag setting but I could be wrong as the turbine housing's will most likely be T4's and you and I both know how difficult they are to get into an optimal rpm range.