New Engine Cost

[bhall]

Cost-cutting is a farce. No team is serious about it. If they were, they wouldn't drag opulent motor homes all over Europe, much less buy them in the first place.

And they shouldn't be serious about cost-cutting, either; F1 revenues are on the upswing. The only reason why this is an issue is because Delta Topco (CVC) is still servicing the mountain of debt it assumed upon the acquisition of F1's commercial rights from Ecclestone, and the teams aren't getting their fair share from the product they alone provide.

When Bernie cynically says F1 needs to cut costs, he's basically saying, "I've pretty much bled everyone dry, and I'm never going to reduce my share."

[grano123]

The amount of criticism these days around here is astounding. You guys should all be happy and looking forward to different engines, considering there was so much opposition against the engine freeze to cut costs. That meant only small steps in engine progress were possible, while now we could see some real developments again, albeit of course in a restricted environment.

I also think that anyone who thought that these engines would cost less than the previous ones were simply naive. The engine manufacturers will try to produce the best engines for huge potential marketing benefit, but on the other hand will try to get back as much cash as possible from the customer teams.

And finally, on the logistics, we all know about it (that was actually one of the arguments of Ferrari to hold back on the new engine formula), but that doesn't mean we should keep on burning fuel with 7 year old engines. F1 would never be able to hold the same level of credibility when running with a de-tuned engine from 2006. We all know engine development progress is not being made in F1 anymore, but at least they can make an effort to produce engines that are relevant to this time and day.

Bottom line, we can hope for more cost-cutting measures agreed by all teams, so that each can free up a few millions to buy the engines.

I have to say this seems a little naive to put it like that. It's not "A FEW MILLIONS....... if the fugures been shown here are correct, it's a 100% cost increase over the current engines.....for what? Because someone in the FIA thinks it's a good idea?

Will the people in the stands understand or even care about the engines?.......I doubt it. Will the people in the stands care if a few teams drop out because of the cost increases?......I would think YES!

[xpensive]

The problem in F1 is of course the politics,

I think he most political of all in F1 is the introduction of these new "green" engines, which Jean Todt inherited from MrM,
which nobody really wanted. A spending frenzy for something which will be new and interesting for one season only.

Then, of course your point of tuning and modifying the current V8's. Cutting another 2000rpm would help, but it would also greatly decrease power, the sound that many are complaining of already, and the lack of technical development.

Power will of course be proportional to the fuel flow regardless of engine and I don't believe the sound of a low boost 1.6 turbo V6 will set the world on fire either. As for the lack of technical development, the new engines will be homologated as well.

So, what is the gain here?

[RickRick]

why not scrap the engine rules build what ever they like, just keep to the 8 engines per year, and only allow a small fuel tank say 25% smaller than they run now, with no refueling

[Stradivarius]

I agree with those who say that a racing engine in it's nature is not "green" as long as it is designed to burn fuel at the highest possible rate. However, that doesn't mean f1 engine developers can't improve the engines in this respect. A simple way to do this is, as suggested here already, to put restrictions on the amount of fuel that can be used during a race. This would force engine development in the direction of higher efficiency, because this would be the only way to obtain more power. It would also add another strategical aspect to the races, as the drivers would always have to consider their fuel consumption during a race.

From 1994 to to 2006 we saw a massive development of the engines. They went from having around 700 hp (I guess it varied a lot from the different engines) from 3.5 liter engines with either 8, 10 or 12 cylinders, to having close to 1000 hp from 3.0 liter engines in 2005, and 800 hp from 2.4 liter engines in 2006. And at the same time the engines were made more durable, and could last for several grand prix weekends, rather than just one race. Under the 1994 engine regulations, today's technology would probably allow for power outputs of up to 1200 hp from an f1 engine, which is quite an improvement from the 700 hp they used to have. If the same effort is instead now directed at improving the fuel efficiency, I am sure there will be significant improvement on that area as well.

The cost argument is faulty and always has been. An f1team either spends whatever money they have on development, or they decide exactly how much money they want to spend on development. Changing the engine regulations will never change that. If the teams have to spend more money on engine development, they will have to spend less on aerodynamics, and each team would definitely distribute the resourses the way they felt was most efficient. But there is no one who forces the teams to spend money on this kind of development at all. Any team could just stop spending anything on aerodynamics and engines and they would save alot of money. They would of course also loose a lot of performance compared to the other teams, but that is how competition will always be.

[Cold Fussion]

The first reason for FIA engine restrictions seems to always be to restrict power. Even with a very F1-ish 500cc engine - composite block, unobtainium components, direct injection, VVT, the myriad things my meager mind cannot comprehend - how much power is available, and wouldn't teams need to complement that with compressors, turbos, KERS, TERS, etc., to be competitive anyway? To me, that just screams real world relevance.

I fail to see how a 500c engine spinning at ~13000 rpm running ~6 bar of boost is at all road relevant.

[beelsebob]

The first reason for FIA engine restrictions seems to always be to restrict power. Even with a very F1-ish 500cc engine - composite block, unobtainium components, direct injection, VVT, the myriad things my meager mind cannot comprehend - how much power is available, and wouldn't teams need to complement that with compressors, turbos, KERS, TERS, etc., to be competitive anyway? To me, that just screams real world relevance.

I fail to see how a 500c engine spinning at ~13000 rpm running ~6 bar of boost is at all road relevant.

Because the techniques found to make such engines work well will often be applicable to engines that don't spin that fast or run that high pressure.

[pgfpro]

I though about putting this in the engine section, buts its not 100% to do with the engine

There is an article on the James Allen website which talks about solar panel in F1, but in it it talks about the new engines costing three to four times the amount of the current engines i.e £15-20M due to new technology. Teams are starting to question is it worth it and would it not be better to adjust the current engines in use less fuel etc. Apparently the new engines aren't that much greener than the current.

Seems a bit of a mess

I've seen this question ("and would it not be better to adjust the current engines in use less fuel etc") come up a few different times now in this thread.

Do you think that today's engines can be made more fuel efficient without sacrificing power. If yes then why aren't they already doing it? Or do the engineers have today's engines maxed out already when it comes to fuel efficiency? Being fuel efficient wins races even in today's F1.

So if we can agree that today's engines are running the most fuel efficient they can based on the current rules then how do we increase fuel efficiency without the use of fuel efficient power adders while keeping cost down?

[Dragonfly]

You miss the fact that the engineers cannot work on current engines and bring new technological achievements.
The same will happen to the new ones after several manufacturers independently bury a lot of money to produce what is in fact a spec engine where the differences are mainly in the name on the valve cover.

[tathan]

Limiting fuel will not increase efficiency... You'll just reduce fuel and reduce power, efficiency will (for the sake of argument) stay the same, cos it's one of them there percentages. Like some people have said, if they could make the same power with less fuel (and longevity I suppose if they're running lean), they would.

A more efficient (petrol in/power out) engine is one that loses less to e.g. to friction, such as a lower revving forced induction engine with higher BMEP. So, wholly relevant to road cars as OEMs replace their bigger NA engines with small turbo'd ones e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine

I don't really know about outside of Europe but here the non-exotic OEMs have indicated that they see the future as smaller, technologically advanced forced induction engines using technologies like VVT, DI and stratified charge to improve fuel economy without losing power.... which would make a V8 with none of these and which hasn't been developed for approaching a decade seem very out of touch.

i'm quite happy with the direction the F1 engines are going, although it would be disingenuous to say they will be pushing technology and we will see a trickle down to road cars - the big car manufacturers are miles ahead of them already so it's about time they became a little more relevant.

[Steven]

I am aware that this type of engine is hardly going to make F1 green. If they want the racing to be green, we'd be looking at a completely different set of regulations.

What I'm referring to though is that there will be a turbo and a displacement figure that even regular road driving people look down upon. 3 years ago, people just smiled when I made a testdrive with a 1.6l diesel car, even when I mentioned it was a twin turbo with 136hp.

People need to get rid of the idea that displacement is everything, and while engine makers are now rapidly decreasing engine sizes for efficiency, I feel many still believe it's not the way to go. I do believe that smaller racing engines can make people realise that it's possible to extract a good amount of power out of a small engine.

Of course, I'm not sure how marketing specialists at Renault or Ferrari will try to extract from the new engines, but I'm sure they'll find a way. With the current engines, I don't see many opportunities anymore.

And back on topic (sorry), the cost should indeed be lower, but they could have only reached that with a serious cost cutting agreement before starting the development of the engines. Personally, I'd like to see the opening of the rules combined with a strict yearly budget, but unfortunately that is not going to happen any time soon, I think.

[Pierce89]

Keep current engines. Homologation still on. Free up pistons, intake and exhaust. Allow hybrid turbos(turbine spins generator to power compressor rather than putting them on the same shaft) and a bigger KERS. Same fuel limit as 2014 rule. All the 2014 benefits at a reduced cost.

[Slife]

People need to get rid of the idea that displacement is everything, and while engine makers are now rapidly decreasing engine sizes for efficiency, I feel many still believe it's not the way to go. I do believe that smaller racing engines can make people realise that it's possible to extract a good amount of power out of a small engine.

I'm pretty sure those people with a 1000hp hatchbacks/small sedasn realize you can get alot of power (albeit delayed due to turbo lag) from small engines.

[tathan]

I am aware that this type of engine is hardly going to make F1 green. If they want the racing to be green, we'd be looking at a completely different set of regulations.

What I'm referring to though is that there will be a turbo and a displacement figure that even regular road driving people look down upon. 3 years ago, people just smiled when I made a testdrive with a 1.6l diesel car, even when I mentioned it was a twin turbo with 136hp.

People need to get rid of the idea that displacement is everything, and while engine makers are now rapidly decreasing engine sizes for efficiency, I feel many still believe it's not the way to go. I do believe that smaller racing engines can make people realise that it's possible to extract a good amount of power out of a small engine.

Agree with bits.

The amount of fuel/energy that a season of F1 uses is probably less than an average random factory consumes in the same time, one out of millions. It isn't what it actually uses in the course of a weekend, it's the image and technology it promotes that will make a far bigger difference. If it can change what is 'cool' and accepted in the 750 MILLION CARS in the world, it will make FAR more difference than any amount of fuel limiting in 24 weird cars that run for a hundred hours a year.

So, forcing teams with the budget of a small country to invest in promoting this seems cheap to me tbh.

[Cold Fussion]

The first reason for FIA engine restrictions seems to always be to restrict power. Even with a very F1-ish 500cc engine - composite block, unobtainium components, direct injection, VVT, the myriad things my meager mind cannot comprehend - how much power is available, and wouldn't teams need to complement that with compressors, turbos, KERS, TERS, etc., to be competitive anyway? To me, that just screams real world relevance.

I fail to see how a 500c engine spinning at ~13000 rpm running ~6 bar of boost is at all road relevant.

Because the techniques found to make such engines work well will often be applicable to engines that don't spin that fast or run that high pressure.

You can make that argument for any engine development, I don't see why this specific set of circumstances is any more applicable to the road than a 1.6L turbo or 2.4L v8.