FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jensonb]

It doesn't matter which one they'd pick Trypt. The FiA is not interested in running big normally aspirated engines any more. They want to run small, turbo-charged engines like a V4 or V6 for fuel economy.

[What's Burning?]

And open the door to new engine manufactures like VW, or Saab? Now we're talking.

[What's Burning?]

The limit should be the fuel available per race - everything else should be unrestricted

That would certainly bring KERS back!

[DOOOMKULTUS]

Turbos ,do you think the world is ready to accept the 1980's 1500bhp+ insanity again. There'll be more useless media whining on that issue as well i am sure.

[vaptin]

The limit should be the fuel available per race - everything else should be unrestricted

This.

This is where I think the fia need to be with their regulation, they should stipulate the ends not the means. The problem is they won't do that as controlling the means makes it a lot easier for smaller teams as they get told what to do and its a lot harder for bigger teams to get ahead.

[Jensonb]

Turbos ,do you think the world is ready to accept the 1980's 1500bhp+ insanity again. There'll be more useless media whining on that issue as well i am sure.

Not if we're using small turbo-charged engines tuned for fuel economy.

[scotty]

I do wonder whether we are going to be subjected to diesels in F1 soon....

Car manufacturers are going smaller in car and engine size, finally! Even the American companies are churning out smaller cars.

It's good for the environment (to an extent anyway - the whole thing about smaller engines always being more fuel efficient is a myth in some circumstances), but the fact that V12's and V10's are basically dead now kinda sucks.

[f1ea]

I think I meant a Straight 4. Too used to saying V I think. I can't remember where i read it to check though. I agree a V6 is better though

Closest thing to a V4 is the Boxer 4 (Subaru Imprezza, older Alfa romeos etc)

The limit should be the fuel available per race - everything else should be unrestricted

Now how did I not think of that? That is awesome.. That would be the ultimate competition, get the most efficient power possible for the fuel allowed.. Very interesting indeed, and only possible for a F1 type competition with manufacturers competing with each other.

You're new on the forum. DD's brilliance should rub onto in due time

[texasmr2]

V4 would use less fuel than a V6 only if an overall restriction was set on boost which is pretty much a guarantee. More boost always equals more fuel consumption so to be fair the FIA would have to set a seperate boost limit for the number of cylinders not the displacement.

I'm all for bringing back the small displacement turbo engine, full circle comes to mind .

[Denthúl]

The limit should be the fuel available per race - everything else should be unrestricted

By far the best suggestion I have heard regarding the current engine regulations.

[Trypt]

I don't get it, how did this discussion get onto fuel at all? Who cares about how much fuel they use, this is F1 for crying out loud. The less fuel an engine uses, the less mass the car has to carry around, so this is good for the team as it is, and a huge incentive, there is no regulation necessary. As far as the public is concerned, I really don't think the people watching the race on race-day care if they have to breathe in 10% more or less nitrogen and sulphur compounds then usual. Don't let me get started on the environment, as if the atmosphere cares whether F1 uses V12s or I4s, lol, get real.

Anyhow, back to my original question. Does anyone have any idea what limit would be good to put on naturally aspirated engine size in order for manufacturers to be competitive against a 1.5L turbo no-boost-limit engine?

Say Ferrari gets to build a 3.5L V12 naturally aspirated engine, no limit on research and development cost. Could they build an engine that would compete with a 1.5L no boost limit turbo? By compete, I mean power, reliability, fuel consumption, everything which matters on race day.

[scotty]

Anyhow, back to my original question. Does anyone have any idea what limit would be good to put on naturally aspirated engine size in order for manufacturers to be competitive against a 1.5L turbo no-boost-limit engine?

As i said before, i think the 1.5 turbo would far be better regardless! Even if it was, say, a 3.5 V12, the weight and fuel consumption would negate and power advantage, if there even was one in the first place...

[Red_Five]

At the time the 3 litre formula was introduced (1967 ?) the blown 1.5 was only allowed to remain in the regs due to the fact that FISA, as it was then, wasn't sure if there'd be enough race ready 3 litre engines around to fill a grid. So they thought that teams unable to get one of the new engines would be able to supercharge their existing 1.5 l engine from the previous years formula. No one took them up on this course of action until a decade later........ Of course the turbo equivalency formula was worked out over 40 years ago so with advances in materials technology being what they are it would have to be massively out of date. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what it should be though.
As for limiting the amount of fuel available to each car, it's been done before. I seem to recall quite a few cars running out of fuel within sight of the chequered flag.

[texasmr2]

I don't get it, how did this discussion get onto fuel at all? Who cares about how much fuel they use, this is F1 for crying out loud.

Because the three, turbo's - # of cylinders and maximum engine capacity, go hand in hand unless you do not understand the concept.

Anyhow, back to my original question. Does anyone have any idea what limit would be good to put on naturally aspirated engine size in order for manufacturers to be competitive against a 1.5L turbo no-boost-limit engine?

Do alittle research so you can fully understand the differences, advantages and disadvantages of each engine configuration. A N/A engine will never be competative in sheer hp to a turbocharged engine but has the advantage, maybe, in reliability.

Say Ferrari gets to build a 3.5L V12 naturally aspirated engine, no limit on research and development cost. Could they build an engine that would compete with a 1.5L no boost limit turbo? By compete, I mean power, reliability, fuel consumption, everything which matters on race day.

The issue with such large engines ie the # of cylinders is the weight and the packaging nightmare.

[cap-dude]

F1 has to survive, and to survive it's kinda nessacary that things done in F1 relate to todays road cars. Straight 4 engines would therefore make sense.

I hate the whole make F1 green thing. It just isn't and shouldn't be. But I seen the reasoning behind it. It has to be done to avoid people complaining and protesting against the sport.


Besides I don't mind new engines being brought in. It means an end to the engine freeze, and hopefully we can move away from developing aero dynamics, and move towards engine development, which could mean more overtaking.

Personally I'd like to see in 2012, major aero restrictions, and moving towards straight 4 engines being developed, and a standard KERS system that can only be used around 10 times during a race. Simply because it creates better racing and overtaking, and keeps the eco-mentalists happy. It'll bring in people like VW which is good for the sport.