next years engines

[Guest]

the 2.4L V8 engines of next year will of course be less powerful, somewhere in the 700'sbhp area, but will also help them with manuevering the vehicle, with two cylinders gone the cars will be much lighter. but the cars will still run as fast i suspect, with the balance of weight and power being distributed for each team's engine.

[Smeerak]

Apparently Olivier Panis is reporting ~200 BHP lower ...

click the link!

[uzael]

Give it time. Another 20,000km of testing and I'll bet those V8s are pushing 800-820BHP.

[MRE]

Oliver Panis had test V8 engine mounted on Toyota TF105 hybrid car. First to second gear is amazing but next gear is totally different he said. For me, V8, 2.4 l engine is lighter, smaller and shorter engine rather than V10 engine whice 5 cylinder each side. That's mean the car will have shorter wheel base hence to good handling in twisty circuit and weight reduction also less vibrations. Or they have larger fuel balast. I think, V8 can be contribute new technology in racing engine development and takes 3-5 years to be same level as V10 engine today. Hopefully, more discussion about this will be held and I'm really-really ethusiast to discuss about the new formula one V 8 2.4L engine development.

[manchild]

Anyone with idea about possible consumption? Will there be no more 2 or 3 refueling pit-stops at all…perhaps no refueling at all?

[DaveKillens]

I don't expect to see any major change in the car's dimensions, in weight, track, or wheelbase. But with the assumed more compact engine package, achieving more efficient airflow over the rear end will probably improve drag and downforce. Also there will probably be more latitude in moving ballast around to optimize CG, polar moment.
I do wonder, whether all the major engine manufacturers will achieve similar levels of performance from this first generation. I would not be surprised to see one, maybe two engines not reach the levels of power from their competitors.
If the engine has a 90 degree bank angle, vibration will be minimized. But if weird angles are used, who knows what gremlins will raise their heads. So I expect to see a 90 degree angle between the cylinders, because as we all know now, engine reliability is paramount.
Fuel usage is roughly determined by how much power is generated. If the engine generates 20 % less power, then it should use 20% less fuel. But that is a very gross oversimplification. But the numbers should be close to that assumption.

[Steven]

...If the engine has a 90 degree bank angle, vibration will be minimized. But if weird angles are used, who knows what gremlins will raise their heads. So I expect to see a 90 degree angle between the cylinders, because as we all know now, engine reliability is paramount. ...

As far as I'm informed about the 2006 engine regulations is that there is no more choice in cilynder bank angle such that it is fixed to 90° by the FIA technical regulations.

Unfortunately I must say, as we see at the moment with Renault's 72° and their previous 111° designs. All very interesting to study but it will come to an end

[DaveKillens]

Bummer, one more avenue of technical innovation closed off. I don't like that, where true innovation is being strangled, with the emphasis on just refinement. That's what happens in NASCAR..

[DaveKillens]

Here is a good discussion with a lot of pertinent information we have been discussing.
http://www.planetf1.com/news/story_20345.shtml
Apparently many of the assumptions we have made are correct, but I missed the mark on vibration. According to Toyota, the V-8 has more vibration issues than the V-10.
And since the distance between the bore sizes is fixed, as well as the minimum weight of the engine, maybe the differences between the engines won't be much. I'd like to see how the FIA will define the engine weight, whether is has to be assessed with ancillaries and fluids.

[Reca]

FIA mandates for the V8 a minimum weight of 95 kg (without liquids, exhausts and lot of things specified in the rules), so that’s going to be heavier than a V10 (best engines should be all under 90), hence in term of longitudinal CG position there’s a good chance that what the few cm they gain from the shorter engine cg they lose because of the higher weight (that obviously also has an influence on the ballast), possibly a small difference overall. That about the engine itself. Then there are reports that there will be some issues about installation of accessories, no more possible inside the V due to the vibrations.
The wheelbase depends mainly by tyres characteristics (that should change little) and weight distribution, hence I don’t expect big variations.
Fuel tank is an interesting point. With a lower fuel consumption there are two possibilities : reduce fuel tank size and keep same strategy or keep the same tank size and increase stint length. A predominant role in this decision will be, again, related to the tyre. Surely 2006 tyres will have lower degradation than 2005 tyres but the point is, by how much ? And how much they will suffer the higher fuel load ? The answer to these two, and similar questions will guide the tank size choice. Hopefully, at least judging by the qual proposal for next year, the BS of qualifying with fuel load will soon be just an insane parenthesis I will be happy to forget.
What I expect to change considerably, as others said, will be the aero of the rear end and of sidepods, for at least three reasons, two directly related with the engine, size (of both engine and radiators) and reduced power (hence the “fit a wing wherever you can, we don’t care about drag” approach will no longer work), the third with aero rules. It will be the second year with the new aero rules and traditionally it’s the period with the most interesting designs because now teams know better where to play and correct the mistakes they made this year when it was mainly about “experimentation”. Then in 2007 they will know better about the advantages that the V8 gives in aero leading to even more interesting designs. The next two years should be very exciting in term of aero design.

First to second gear is amazing but next gear is totally different he said.

Unsurprisingly I would say, under 160-170 km/h (just an indication, real numbers depends by many things, especially aero setup), a F1 car acceleration is limited by tyre grip, with both V8 and V10 there’s enough force at the wheels to overcome the grip at low speed so the driver doesn’t feel difference in the first couple of gears simply because there isn’t.

I don't like that, where true innovation is being strangled, with the emphasis on just refinement. That's what happens in NASCAR..

if it was just the v angle... there’s lot more than that in the 2006 rules... maximum bore, fixed cylinder spacing, fixed cg height, minimum weight and so on... it almost hurts when you read them.