2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[PlatinumZealot]

Mercedes: Brackley Brixworth
Ferrari: Maranello
Williams: Grove
Redbull: Milton Keyes
Torro Rosso: Faenza
Force India: Silverstone
Lotus: Enstone
McLaren: Woking
Sauber: Hinwill
Manor: Dinnington
Haas: Kannapolis NC (USA) Banbury UK (Chassis designed @ Dallara Parma)
Renault (engines): Viry Chatilllon (France)
Honda: Milton Keyes & Tochigi (Japan)

What about Sakura for Honda? What happens in Sakura?

[Brian Coat]

You are right.

As far as I know ...

Engine programme is at Sakura (Tochigi Prefecture)

Test track is at Tochigi

[Joseki]

The most easy way is to ban the hybrid turbocharger. Altough it's a brilliant piece of engineering, i believe F1, the fans and smaller teams are better of with a conventional twin turbo setup, while keeping the flow limiter and the mgu-k. A conventional turbo will always be road relevant for street cars, both sporty and daily drivers.

MGU H is fine they should keep it.

But till everyone are on the same power levels the MGU H power should be classed. 1 MJ, 2 MJ, 3 MJ and unlimited. Unlimited engine alone should be limited to 100kg/hr while the others should have increased fuel allowances according to the MJ class.

Merc would have still won the last 2 years but at least it wouldn't have been a white wash.

This kind of balance didn't work in WEC and I highly doubt it will ever work in F1.

[Joseki]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-co ... ason-plan/

- 3 engines for 21 races
- Frozen parts
- Standard parts



That's a joke.

[Facts Only]

having one engine for seven races will force the use of less sophisticated materials longer term to drastically cut costs

What a load of BS and a completely ass-backwards logic. No way did anyone at any of the engine suppliers say that or even suggest it.

If you need peak performance AND increased longevity you need better materials, they are nt going to revert to a cast iron engine blocks are they.

Even if the materials were simplified and the number of engines decreased from 4 to 3 the cost saving would be pitiful as the build BOM cost of an engine is tiny fraction of the engine manufacturers costs and the actual race engines are only a small percentage of the total engine pool.

I've read some real guff in my time but that story is just utter rubbish.

[NL_Fer]

I believe these rules, because the manufacturers are unable to agree on other idea's. Honda want's to keep the mgu-h, because they just invested a few M to catch up Mercedes. For instance and maybe Ferrari needs the hybrid technology for their supercars. They will probably be harmed by emission rules in the future.

But the result proposal is worthless imo. Three power units a season, blow one early and the season is over. Standard mgu's, aren't those interesting to develop? Frozen parts is very interesting for Mercedes and Ferrari, since the other two are far from ready to decide what has been fully developed.

[djos]

Wow, yet again F1 descends into farce!

Or did it ever leave.....

Facts only you nailed exactly my thoughts and I'm not even an engineer! To maintain performance and meet higher durability targets has ALWAYS in the history of engineering required new more advanced materials or processes.

You only need to look at historic touring car racing here in Aus to see what a difference more advanced components makes. Even the simple ohv V8 engines they are running in the 70's era cars are putting out significantly more horsepower just using new pistons and valves etc with no change to the engine architecture.

[Abarth]

Unfortunately, too few seem to have a clear idea about how costs of a product have to be determinded. As Facts Only already stated, the BOM in this case is not the main cost factor.
If 10 Engines are built in total, the total cost of development, molds, toolings, whatever, .... plus workforce plus BOM are divided by 10 and the cost of one engine is 1/10th of that. Which is as misleading as it can be.
Assuming the cost is halved (or even reduced by say 25%) by only needing (and building) 5 is close to insane.

You add (or subtract) only the marginal costs. Which in this case are low compared to the fixed costs.
Additional development and other fixed and prop. costs for more durability may even overweigh the savings when building fewer units...crazy.

I even would go so far to say that the durability in this engine formula should not be given.
There are the 100kg/s requirement, the 100kg / race requirement, there is the minimum weight requirement together with COG, those restrictions alone will not allow substantial performance increases if the engine had to last only 1 race. A qualy engine could not be produced, the restrictions are already here.

[ojlopez]

Having only 3 engines will mean that drivers will focus less on driving and more on saving the engine, conserving tires, saving fuel, etc.

[djos]

Ffs FiA, it's supposed to be sprint racing, not endurance racing!

Not happy!

[ME4ME]

Ffs FiA, it's supposed to be spent racing, not endurance racing!

Not happy!

There suggestions are not made by the FIA though, it's the manufacturers that have to come up with ideas before the 15th.

[djos]

Ffs FiA, it's supposed to be spent racing, not endurance racing!

Not happy!

There suggestions are not made by the FIA though, it's the manufacturers that have to come up with ideas before the 15th.

Ok, but ultimately the FiA set the rules right?

[ME4ME]

If you believe Mark Hughes it's more complicated than that

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/sh ... archionne/

Pretty interesting article for sure.
Personally I fully expect the manufacturers to fail to unite and come up with suitable solutions, but Jean Todt to back down when push comes to shove; so all in all nothing happens. Also I think Honda and Renault will reduce their deficit (or rather Mercedes and Ferrari fail to keep it thanks to diminishing returns). I actually start to think that keeping the current PU's and regulations and let time do it's thing is the best solution. Inevitably all manufacturers will converge to the same "best design" solution and performance level.

[lio007]

I don't know if it's been already discussed here (at least I couldn't find it now), but I'd really like to know, if you think any of the manufacturers would have opted for a VR6 engine? (if the angle of 90degrees would have not been given by the regulations)

I'm interested in the advantages and disadvantages, maybe anybody can point out them.

[PlatinumZealot]

Some implications..

All the exhaust pipes would come out on one side. They would have unequal length runners up to the exhaust flange.

All intake runners come out on the other. There would be unequal length runners up to the intake flange. So unequal length throttle bodies would have to be used to compensate.

Three intake runners will be side by side with three exhaust runners. So a lot of heat transfer there.

There may or not be a packaging advantage. Anyone knows?