New F1 engine formula for 2013

vincenzolorenzo

Just after seeing it on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9255871.stm

Its been flagged for a long time but looks like its definitely going to be confirmed now. What do ye think? I'm not too sure yet. Limiting rpm to 10,000 just won't sound the same, and the engines are only 600 bhp, with up to 150 bhp to come from energy recovery. Hmmm, i'm not sure what to make of this

amacachi

10,000 RPM sounds a bit crap.

I dunno why they don't just go for say a 2 litre engine with a turbo and no limit on the pressure.

amacachi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Then watch as they blow engines at every practice session! Unlimited boost would result in much higher number of failures and hence cost issues!

Exactly. Let them have free reign somewhere. Let them turn it up to whatever they want at different points in the race and see who takes the biggest risks and who doesn't, and see who comes out best.

losthorizon

I think its good. f1 is supposed to lead the way. Its doing so in this manner. People care about the environment now and like it or not F1 is not immune from it. Turbos back - great. Booom bang a bang.

Grim.

barp, barp, barp

something different so i welcome it although the horsepower isn't quiet where id like it to be but I'm interested to see how they deal with turbo lag etc

Ghost Train

Well I'd look forward to each engine builder getting a fresh start and seeing who can get the most from the regulations. Seems like a small engine size but I guess it's similar to the turbos they used to use in the eighties

Myrddin

losthorizon wrote: »

I think its good. f1 is supposed to lead the way. Its doing so in this manner. People care about the environment now and like it or not F1 is not immune from it. Turbos back - great. Booom bang a bang.

That whole F1 having to become greener thing is complete bs. It's just a tag, as most people consider the 2 hour action on track the only contribution F1 makes to climate change. Let me just say, the on track action is the least of F1's worries if the FIA are concerned about emissions etc. Of course nothing is mentioned about the carbon footprint of what it takes to actually move F1 from country to country every few weeks. 10k rpm? Eugh, almost half of todays stamdard. Sure they may as well go the whole hog and throw a few speed bumps down, a few sets of traffic lights, cycle lanes & lolly-pop ladies to complete the image.

F1 - Racing climate change to the podium.

Myrddin

It will also make the 2012 season identical to the 2011 season, with very little going into engine development for 2012 I'd imagine. Even Bernie was opposed to it...

We have a very good engine formula. Why should we change it to something that is going to cost millions of pounds and that nobody wants and that could end up with one manufacturer getting a big advantage?

Ghost Train

EnterNow wrote: »

It will also make the 2012 season identical to the 2011 season, with very little going into engine development for 2012 I'd imagine. Even Bernie was opposed to it...

engine development is for the most part frozen so hasn't been much going on for a while now

Dempsey

EnterNow wrote: »

That whole F1 having to become greener thing is complete bs. It's just a tag, as most people consider the 2 hour action on track the only contribution F1 makes to climate change. Let me just say, the on track action is the least of F1's worries if the FIA are concerned about emissions etc. Of course nothing is mentioned about the carbon footprint of what it takes to actually move F1 from country to country every few weeks. 10k rpm? Eugh, almost half of todays stamdard. Sure they may as well go the whole hog and throw a few speed bumps down, a few sets of traffic lights, cycle lanes & lolly-pop ladies to complete the image.

F1 - Racing climate change to the podium.

Or the carbon footprint of manufacturing all the parts for the cars.

Basically they think they can get more commercial revenue by giving the perception that they care about the environment.

Ghost Train

I think the idea would be that the methods they use to make the cars greener will feed into production road cars. To be honest the car are still pretty fast would be surprised if they get slowed down by any great amount

EvilMonkey

I think the idea is to attract more sponsorship money, "green" is where the money is going, if F1 can make its self seem more green focused it can attract some of that money.

I will be happy to see the engine development freeze gone.

Bobby04

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Then watch as they blow engines at every practice session! Unlimited boost would result in much higher number of failures and hence cost issues!

I presume though there could/would still be a restrictive number of fresh engines allowed per season, thus requiring a delicate balance between outright performance and longevity? Not withstanding that, the option to turn up boost would surely allow for some grid "upsets" with teams deciding to go for a kamakazie lap to secure pole.

Myrddin

Agreed re all of the above, but F1 is far from green under the skin, & trying to portray that image just annoys me. I'm not aware of the exact statistics, but isn't one single transatlantic jet flight equivelent to about six to eight years of avaerage driving in terms of carbon emissions? Imagine the amount of flights alone that the whole F1 entourage utilizes, it's decades worth over a whole season surely.

I don't think the cars will be slower as such, as the power output is to remain at todays levels, but surely they're going to sound completely different? 1.6L 4Cyl turbo @ 10k rpm...surely thats more akin to a road car, something high revving like a vtec nsx or something? The shape obviously has to change somewhat too, small engines/smaller bodies.

I'm sure it will still be brilliant, but F1 is about the pinnacle of motor racing technology fused with speed, adrenaline & determination. It should not be about encouraging people to hypermile. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly all for efficiency, but this is a step in the wrong direction under the facade of envionmentalism, it's frankly ridiculous. If anything, they should be making the engines bigger to combat global cooling :pac:

GaryMunster

Those engineers will still find a way to make the cars go,look and sound amazing regardless of what engine they have to work with

Myrddin

GaryMunster wrote: »

Those engineers will still find a way to make the cars go,look and sound amazing regardless of what engine they have to work with

Fingers crossed

frostie500

EnterNow wrote: »

I don't think the cars will be slower as such, as the power output is to remain at todays levels, but surely they're going to sound completely different? 1.6L 4Cyl turbo @ 10k rpm...surely thats more akin to a road car, something high revving like a vtec nsx or something? The shape obviously has to change somewhat too, small engines/smaller bodies.

The turbo engines of the eighties were, if i recall correctly, 1.5 V6 that revved to somewhere between 11 and 13,000 rpm and that era is remembered very fondly by fans for the cars. I dont think there will be anything amiss with the new engines and while they will sound different that isnt such a bad thing, the diesels in sportscar racing rev to only a few thousand and most definitely do not sound like a race car but they were unbelievable to hear for the first time.

Its worth remembering that we have had essentially the same engines for 20-high capacity, high revving, normally aspirated units-which by my reckoning is probably the longest stretch in F1 history

Tea 1000

EnterNow wrote: »

I don't think the cars will be slower as such, as the power output is to remain at todays levels, but surely they're going to sound completely different? 1.6L 4Cyl turbo @ 10k rpm...surely thats more akin to a road car, something high revving like a vtec nsx or something? The shape obviously has to change somewhat too, small engines/smaller bodies.

Gasp! Don't insult the NSX! 3.2 V6, not a sh!tty 4 pot turbo!
I agree in general though, this is a crap idea. It proves the point that climate change is mostly about perception, and the real changes that could make the difference are largely ignored. It's the perceived benefits that they pedal.
I think they should take away all engine restrictions and tell the teams that they have x amount of fuel for the race. Let them use 12 cyliner 3.5 litre or 4 cylinder turbo or whatever they like, any bhp they like, but that's all the fuel they can use. Then you'll see real inginuity at work. When they eventually have 1200bhp cars using that amount of fuel you could regulate it by reducing the fuel allowance.
F1 is supposed to be about driving forward new ideas while getting the maximum benefit for speed!

Tea 1000

GaryMunster wrote: »

Those engineers will still find a way to make the cars go,look and sound amazing regardless of what engine they have to work with

I dunno. The new 2.4 V8's don't sound near as good as the old 3 litre V10's. I've never been lucky enough to hear a V12 F1 car, but I bet those sounded even better!

Jordan 199

frostie500 wrote: »

The turbo engines of the eighties were, if i recall correctly, 1.5 V6 that revved to somewhere between 11 and 13,000 rpm and that era is remembered very fondly by fans for the cars.

Yup, most of the turbo engines in the 80's had the V6 configuration with a few exceptions.

BMW used 4 cylinders, I think Brian Harts engines had 4 cylinders. Alfa Romeo used V8's

Honda, Ferrari, Ford Cosworth, Porsche, Renault and Motori Moderni all used V6's.

Myrddin

frostie500 wrote: »

The turbo engines of the eighties were, if i recall correctly, 1.5 V6 that revved to somewhere between 11 and 13,000 rpm and that era is remembered very fondly by fans for the cars. I dont think there will be anything amiss with the new engines and while they will sound different that isnt such a bad thing, the diesels in sportscar racing rev to only a few thousand and most definitely do not sound like a race car but they were unbelievable to hear for the first time.

Its worth remembering that we have had essentially the same engines for 20-high capacity, high revving, normally aspirated units-which by my reckoning is probably the longest stretch in F1 history

Great points, gives me hope I guess Lets face it, it's not going to be cr@p, it's F1...

Lightning - epic video, the sense of power being unleashed is incredible. Thanks for that!

Cookie_Monster

5L V12's please, its supposed to be the apex of motorsport, not driving around power by some hobbled lawn mower engine :mad:

frostie500

I was thinking about this for the last few days and put a post up about it. I can understand the skepticism of fans to see the change but it is an oppurtunity for F1 to make yet another valid contribution to the future of road cars. Like it or not the motor industry is moving towards low capacity turbo charged engines that give power and efficiency by developing a similar engine for F1 the rate of development is much higher than if manufacturers were developing for road use.

Click here to read my post

Cookie_Monster

frostie500 wrote: »

I was thinking about this for the last few days and put a post up about it. I can understand the skepticism of fans to see the change but it is an oppurtunity for F1 to make yet another valid contribution to the future of road cars. Like it or not the motor industry is moving towards low capacity turbo charged engines that give power and efficiency by developing a similar engine for F1 the rate of development is much higher than if manufacturers were developing for road use.

Click here to read my post

well how about moving to huge hydrogen engines sustainably produced from boi sources like algae

bigboy123

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Then watch as they blow engines at every practice session! Unlimited boost would result in much higher number of failures and hence cost issues!

You have to say this would make for mighty entertainment though, then limit the number of engines to 10, making them think whether they want to crank the boost up and shorten the life, or dumb it down and risk being lower in the field.

Or Make them lock down the pressure in parc firme, meaning they couldn't just turn it up for quail and then down for the race.

zeris

From World Motor Sport Council Press Release:

Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the 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.

The engines will deliver a 35% reduction in fuel consumption and will feature extensive energy management and energy recovery systems, while maintaining current levels of performance. In 2013, five engines will be permitted per driver, but each year after that the limit will be four.

Ghost Train

5 engines per driver, that will be interesting

will development be aloud during the season I wonder

vincenzolorenzo

Even more interesting in that press release is that they've finally seen the light and removed the current rule on team orders:

"The article forbidding team orders (39.1) is deleted. Teams will be reminded that any actions liable to bring the sport into disrepute are dealt with under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code and any other relevant provisions"

Also, does anyone know if "high pressure gasoline injection" means direct injection into the cylinder or the current indirect injection setup?

Ghost Train

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

Also, does anyone know if "high pressure gasoline injection" means direct injection into the cylinder or the current indirect injection setup?

I would imagine that's what it means

timt

The ban on testing has to be lifted now. How can they expect to make 'contributions' to road technology if they cant test the equipment properly.

It was always a stupid idea anyway. The can afford the xxxMillions to design and manufacture a car and run the massive faciitys and employ a whole team, but they couldnt pay for the extra time running the car? Drops in an ocean.

Ghost Train

timt wrote: »

The ban on testing has to be lifted now. How can they expect to make 'contributions' to road technology if they cant test the equipment properly.

It was always a stupid idea anyway. The can afford the xxxMillions to design and manufacture a car and run the massive faciitys and employ a whole team, but they couldnt pay for the extra time running the car? Drops in an ocean.

I think its good that you can see everything being developed and tested during the race weekends though. For HRT to have no pre season testing and bring a car to the first race it kind of amazing

all the teams are in the same situation so it is fairer to smaller teams with tighter budgets

with new engines a bit more testing might be useful

Frank Bullitt

The main thing is that they still sound epic and go like the clappers, the 12,000 rpm limit might be an issue but then the turbo could at another nice sound to it, here is hoping.

Wasn't there also discussion of introducing ground effect aero again as well?

Cookie_Monster

1.6L, 4cyl and 12k limit. what a load of ****e, my car has a bigger engine that that ffs.

4 cyl and limited that low will sound ****e too. ****ing greens & environmentalists :mad:

frostie500

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

1.6L, 4cyl and 12k limit. what a load of ****e, my car has a bigger engine that that ffs.:

I really don't understand the amount of people with a view like this, how does keeping the status quo of engines benefit the sport? We have had high capacity normally aspirated units since 1989-the longest period without a philosophy change in engines. This is a sign of progress and gives engineers a new challenge. In relation to the engine size, at present they are only 2.4l which means that quite a lot of cars have a larger engine already.

vectra

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

my car has a bigger engine that that ffs.

So has my car and it is a turbo BUT it doesnt produce 600 odd horsepower :mad:

zeris

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

Also, does anyone know if "high pressure gasoline injection" means direct injection into the cylinder or the current indirect injection setup?

Yeah, Gasoline direct injection. Common rail injection for diesels operate in the 1000 to 2000 bar range. A quick Google has Delphi selling a GDI running at 200 bar.

zeris

Gintonious wrote: »

Wasn't there also discussion of introducing ground effect aero again as well?

Yep, there was a lot of talk of ground effect and turbos to return in 2013.

Last months MotorSport Magazine Podcast had Pat Symonds on who reckoned that ground effect won't improve overtaking due to the air flow coming off the car. This was work done when he was still part of the OWG.

Interesting podcast regarding OWG and also KERS. No talk of Singapore though.

Cookie_Monster

frostie500 wrote: »

I really don't understand the amount of people with a view like this, how does keeping the status quo of engines benefit the sport? We have had high capacity normally aspirated units since 1989-the longest period without a philosophy change in engines. This is a sign of progress and gives engineers a new challenge. In relation to the engine size, at present they are only 2.4l which means that quite a lot of cars have a larger engine already.

small limited engines (even if 12k) means slower cars, slower accel, slower racing. it meant to be the best, the fastest, the pinnacle of motorsport. thats hardly going to be the case now is it?

And if its actually about the environment this will have so little impact its irrelevant, better off trying to reduce the travelling with all the staff and gear all over the world, will have far more impact

frostie500

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

small limited engines (even if 12k) means slower cars, slower accel, slower racing. it meant to be the best, the fastest, the pinnacle of motorsport. thats hardly going to be the case now is it?

But engines have been consistently downsized in recent years-3.5 litre to 2.4 litre engines, at least this time there is a significant change in the philosophy of the technology. When the current engines were brought in everyone was up in arms about narrow power bands and that so much would be lost to the "show" by having a smaller capacity engine. If you judge a series merits as being the best in the world solely on the size of their engines do you hold NASCAR and Aussie V8's at a higher regard to Formula 1?

Cookie_Monster

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Not really, the teams will overcome the smaller displacement over time.

there's only so small you can go and still keep speeds and accel curves up though. 2.4 is still reasonably big to allow this, especially with so little weight. But at only 1.6 and severe rev limited in comparison to now, weight will become a huge issue. this will have knock on effects everywhere to save weight and will also result in a situation similar to the last few years where there is extreme pressure on drivers to loose weight.

I just really don't see the point of smaller, more stressed engines, it won't end well. Even in normal roadcars small engines are not as brilliant as some make them out to be. they invariably have to rev higher and cope with much more stress than larger engines in the same car. Of course in Ireland we have a biased view as smaller is seen as better for tax reasons.

zeris

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

weight will become a huge issue. this will have knock on effects everywhere to save weight and will also result in a situation similar to the last few years where there is extreme pressure on drivers to loose weight.

The WMSC haven't reduced the weights in 2013 so with a lighter engine and potentially reduced fuel requirements the teams will need to run more ballast than this year to bring the weight up to 620kg including driver. I don't see any increased pressure for a driver to loose weight.

Crasp

zeris wrote: »

The WMSC haven't reduced the weights in 2013 so with a lighter engine and potentially reduced fuel requirements the teams will need to run more ballast than this year to bring the weight up to 620kg including driver. I don't see any increased pressure for a driver to loose weight.

You say they haven't changed the weights for this year, but then you say the weight is 620KG? It's 605KG!

amacachi

Crasp wrote: »

You say they haven't changed the weights for this year, but then you say the weight is 620KG? It's 605KG!

It was 620 this year.

zeris

Crasp wrote: »

You say they haven't changed the weights for this year, but then you say the weight is 620KG? It's 605KG!

No, I said the WMSC haven't reduced the weights in 2013. It was changed for 2010 to 620kg.

2010 Technical Regulations

1.9 Weight : Is the weight of the car with the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the Event.

4.1 Minimum weight : The weight of the car must not be less than 620kg at all times during the Event.

I just checked the 2011 Technical Regulations and it increases the minimum weight to 640 kg.

frostie500

zeris wrote: »

I just checked the 2011 Technical Regulations and it increases the minimum weight to 640 kg.

Yeah they changed the weights for next year to take into account the return of KERS next season

Iron Hide

Ficus wrote: »

And to allow for Rubens on the pies over christmas

And schumi on the piss over christmas

muckwarrior

I still think limiting manufacturers to X capacity, Y cylinders, Z revs etc. etc. is no way to to encourage innovation. Give them a fuel/hp/emmissions limit and then let them do whatever the hell they want. Mazda won le Mans with their rotary engine mainly due to the fact that it was smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient. Then they banned it

timt

muckwarrior wrote: »

Mazda won le Mans with their rotary engine mainly due to the fact that it was smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient. Then they banned it

I thought it was banned because it wasnt fuel efficent?

Crasp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

1.6L, 4cyl and 12k limit. what a load of ****e, my car has a bigger engine that that ffs.

4 cyl and limited that low will sound ****e too. ****ing greens & environmentalists :mad:

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

small limited engines (even if 12k) means slower cars, slower accel, slower racing. it meant to be the best, the fastest, the pinnacle of motorsport. thats hardly going to be the case now is it?

And if its actually about the environment this will have so little impact its irrelevant, better off trying to reduce the travelling with all the staff and gear all over the world, will have far more impact

I agree with you cookie monster. I'll be happy as long as the cars are still fast and they sound good and the racing is close.

amacachi wrote: »

It was 620 this year.

zeris wrote: »

No, I said the WMSC haven't reduced the weights in 2013. It was changed for 2010 to 620kg.

2010 Technical Regulations

1.9 Weight : Is the weight of the car with the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the Event.

4.1 Minimum weight : The weight of the car must not be less than 620kg at all times during the Event.

I just checked the 2011 Technical Regulations and it increases the minimum weight to 640 kg.

frostie500 wrote: »

Yeah they changed the weights for next year to take into account the return of KERS next season

Well by God, I did not know this. I guess I've been watching too many re-runs, I thought it was still 605KG.






tbh I'll be happy as long as diesel stays the **** out of F1! great in a road car, will stop watching F1 if diesel comes in.

muckwarrior

LIGHTNING wrote: »

But that hampers the smaller teams with less money. Ferrari could walk in with a jet powered,ground effect, six wheeled, active suspension monster and walk away with it. You need some rules to allow it to be (somewhat) fair.

But we're not really talking about teams, we're talking about the engine manufacturers. HRT et al would still be supplied by one of the major manufacturers.

timt wrote: »

I thought it was banned because it wasnt fuel efficent?

Nope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_787B#24_Hours_of_Le_Mans

muckwarrior

LIGHTNING wrote: »

The rotary engines are terrible on juice and they are banned from most chamiponships as they have high power out puts for their cc.

Which in itself isnt really fair as they cant be rated based on cubic capacity in the same that the "normal" engines are.

That's my point though. Why have to have a specific capacity? If their goal is to reduce fuel consumption and/or emissions then set those as the restrictions and let manufacturers meet those goals however they please.

Road car rotarys may be harder on juice than their piston equivalents but I think the Le Mans win proves that may not necessarily be the case in a racing application. In any case it was just an example of an alternative engine technology that could be explored.