FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#258174
http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/Ferr ... 24201.html

dimanche 29 mai 2011 - 23h37, par Olivier Ferret

Une nouvelle réunion est prévue demain à Paris entre la FIA présidée par Jean Todt et les motoristes. La pression est toujours grande pour faire abandonner à la Fédération le moteur 2013 qui a été voté, le 4 cylindres turbo de 1,6L.

A part Renault, Todt n’a plus le soutien des constructeurs actuellement engagés en Formule 1. Ferrari, Mercedes et Cosworth craignent que ce moteur soit trop cher à développer ou que sa sonorité ne soit pas compatible avec l’atmosphère de la Formule 1, un argument largement repris par Bernie Ecclestone.

Dès demain une nouvelle proposition sera mise sur la table, préparée par Ferrari : l’introduction d’un V6 turbo de 1,8L de cylindrée, plus facile et moins cher à développer car il s’agit basiquement d’un V8 actuel amputé de deux cylindres.

Le souci serait l’introduction de ce moteur : un V6 ne pourrait être développé à temps que pour 2015. Renault risque de poser son veto, puisqu’elle a largement commencé le développement de son 4 cylindres, un moteur plus en phase avec ses voitures de série alors qu’un V6 est plus proche des moteurs utilisés dans la production de Ferrari ou Mercedes.

En attendant Cosworth regarde passer les échanges. Mark Gallagher, son patron, donne du sens à la proposition de Ferrari. "En attendant le nouveau moteur, que ce soit en 2013 ou après, la FIA peut très bien atteindre son but avec un V8 bridé en flux d’essence maxi et un KERS plus puissant. Réduire à quatre cylindres ne veut pas nécessairement dire économiser de l’essence et être écolo. On peut y arriver autrement."

Interrogé à Monaco à ce sujet aujourd’hui, Todt répond : "il y a beaucoup de discussions en cours mais ce que je cherche c’est une harmonie pour le futur."



I've been waiting for such a proposal for a long time - now it's finally on the table. A good ol' compromise. Coincidence that it gets put forward only days after VW pretty much excluded themselves from entering into F1?
#258183
English, dammit! * shakes fist in anger *


That's the first source I came across, so you may wait till some of the English publications pick it up or you may use some online translator :director:
#258184
English, dammit! * shakes fist in anger *

Quick summary:
Ferrari propose taking a chainsaw to a V8 turbo (which they already have in development) to make it a V6. Cosworth and McLaren support the proposal but it won't be ready until 2015 so Cosworth suggest using a V8 until then with no fuel restrictions and massive KERS (not sure why they think that this would be acceptable). Renault not happy because their 4 cylinder turbo development is well under way.

Todt just wants sweetness and light and world peace.
#258185
English, dammit! * shakes fist in anger *

Quick summary:
Ferrari propose taking a chainsaw to a V8 turbo (which they already have in development) to make it a V6. Cosworth and McLaren support the proposal but it won't be ready until 2015 so Cosworth suggest using a V8 until then with no fuel restrictions and massive KERS (not sure why they think that this would be acceptable). Renault not happy because their 4 cylinder turbo development is well under way.

Todt just wants sweetness and light and world peace.


No word about Ferrari already having a V8 turbo in development.
Cosworth are suggesting to REDUCE/RESTRICT fuel and increase the power of KERS until the introduction of the new engine to attain the FIA's goals.
#258193
My bad. My quick read gave "together with maximum fuel".

Admittedly there's no mention of Ferrari developing a V8 turbo in the article but they do have one in the works for the next Enzo.
#258315
The forced induction format is smoke and mirrors.

The number of joules contained in a litre of petrol is fixed and finite. The amount of work that can be extracted from a litre of petrol is fixed and finite. The use of forced induction does nothing to change this, else it violates a basic tenet of entropy.

Yes, a forced induction engine can be lighter, but this only produces significant fuel savings when the primary mode of operation is partial throttle. Given a forced induction 1-litre engine and a normally aspirated 4-litre, if both engines have a maximum output of 650 bhp, both will be burning roughly the same amount of fuel at full suck. In motor racing, especially in formats without in-race refueling, the rule of thumb is that the driver who consumes the most fuel before reaching the checquered flag wins. Which is why, when FI is used, it typically is employed to enable the engines to consume more fuel, not less.

Simply amputating two cylinders from a V-8 would make a very poor V-6 (although Maserati did that very thing with the engine in the Merak and the Citroën SM). The 90° V-8 has perfect first and second order harmonic balances but dynamically, the V-6 is the most flawed of any 6-cylinder design. It needs its own peculiar crankshaft journal spacing and its own peculiar cylinder bank angles, both of which are unsuited to a V-8, to minimize that awkwardness. And if you know F1, you know nothing can ever be so simple as, "Well, let's just cut off this bit here and Bob's your uncle!" OTOH, a V-10 is even more harmonically unruly than the V-6, but that didn't seem to deter the boys in F1. And the V is a more compact design than any of the "perfect" 6-cyl configurations.

A far better option would be to give the teams a fixed amount of fuel for the race and let them build whatever the hell sort of engine they choose (so long as it is a reciprocating piston engine).
#259197
Copied verbatim from the FIA press release RE: the formula for 2013:



2013 Regulations

The Technical Regulations for 2013 were approved:

- Power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm, with extensive energy management and energy recovery systems (now known as ERS), reflecting the decision taken by the WMSC in December 2010
- The aerodynamic regulations have been based on 2011 rules, with modifications in order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency: together with the power train rules, this will enable a 35% reduction in fuel consumption
- The height of the tip of the nose will be limited to ensure better compatibility in a T-bone style accident
- A limitation on transmissions (gear ratios, number of gearboxes) in order to decrease costs
- The overall weight of the car must be no less than 660kg

In consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine the implementation date of these technical regulations. (Emphasis added)



Regarding the bit in bold face, does this not beg the question, are these people stone deaf or merely bloody stupid?
#259216
In consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine the implementation date of these technical regulations.

Regarding the bit in bold face, does this not beg the question, are these people stone deaf or merely bloody stupid?


YEAH, who the hell still uses a FAX machine?
#259222
English, dammit! * shakes fist in anger *


Yeah, us Yankies aren't generally multilingual. (I suppose I used that term correctly. In the US a "Yankie" is a northerner, but I was under the impression overseas it's used for the US in general.)
By pilotfriend
#259390
have seen the new engine forumula for 2013, I feel that this will be the end of F1 being the pinnacle of car racing. Suggest they save a bit more cost and race Clios. There won't be much difference.
By CarBore
#259393
People need to stop this doom and gloom with the new engine regs. I don't see people saying the old 1.5L turbos being un-f1

The day a Clio has a 650+ hp turbo 4 I'd be up for some torque steer
User avatar
By bud
#259417
English, dammit! * shakes fist in anger *


Yeah, us Yankies aren't generally multilingual. (I suppose I used that term correctly. In the US a "Yankie" is a northerner, but I was under the impression overseas it's used for the US in general.)


Yep, Even a Texan is a Yank to us Australians :P

See our F1 related articles too!