V6 Turbo engines from 2014

Chris Jenkins · Jun 23, 2011

From Reuters:

Formula One will delay the introduction of a new engine until 2014 with 1.6 litre V6 turbos to replace the current V8s instead of a proposed four cylinder unit, the governing FIA said on Wednesday.
The decision was agreed unanimously at a meeting of the International Automobile Federation's Formula One commission in London but must still be approved formally by the FIA World Motor Sport Council.

"We are very happy with the solution," said an FIA spokesman.
"We have had fruitful discussions with all the stakeholders following the last World Motor Sport Council meeting in Barcelona."
The original plans were for 1.6 litre four-cylinder hybrid turbocharged engines to be introduced from 2013 as part of measures aimed at making the sport more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient.

Formula One's commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone, who took part in the F1 commission meeting, has been a firm critic of the four cylinder engine and expressed fears that it would sound very different and alienate fans.
The new V6s will still feature the 'hybrid' systems the FIA wants to come to the fore but will be more acceptable to those manufacturers baulking at the cost of developing the new engine.

Renault, who supply three teams including champions Red Bull, had been the biggest backers of the four cylinder concept while Ferrari had called for a rethink on ditching the V8s that are used in most of their luxury sportscars.
Mercedes and privately-owned Cosworth also supply three teams each with engines.
Renault Sport managing director Jean-Francois Caubet told the autosport.com website last week that his company's Formula One future was in "the red zone" because of uncertainty about the engine rules.

"We have told (FIA president) Jean Todt and Bernie that we are pushing for the new engine because when we decided not to stop in F1, the three conditions were very clear for the Board," he said.
"The first one was to change the technology of the engine to make it more relevant, to find a link between Formula One and the product. Secondly to reduce the costs, and thirdly to perform.

"We have halved the costs, we have performed with Red Bull Racing and with Renault, but the problem of the road relevance is a key point for us," said Caubet, whose company agreed the new compromise deal on Wednesday.

Luke McVicar · Jun 23, 2011

Better, however they should really increase the 10k RPM limit, atleast to 14k.

I still find the gimmick of trying to be green in F1 highly ironic though, if anything just change the fuels but the engines isn't going to do **** anyway.

Chris Jenkins · Jun 23, 2011

I agree. A few tweaks to the F1 calander would drastically reduce the fuel consumption of F1 a whole.
Instead of going back and forth from Asia/Europe/North America 2-3 times each a year.

Diego Lopez · Jun 24, 2011

lol F1 are becoming tree hugers...thats alright, i guess il just have to watch teh 50, 60s, 70s, 80s 90s and early 2000 seasons starting 2014.

Chris Butcher · Jun 24, 2011

Luke McVicar said:
Better, however they should really increase the 10k RPM limit, atleast to 14k.

I still find the gimmick of trying to be green in F1 highly ironic though, if anything just change the fuels but the engines isn't going to do **** anyway.

IIRC, they are planning to have them at 12k, not 10

Senad Subasic · Jun 24, 2011

As far as fuel consumption goes, here's an interesting "fact". Quotation marks are because I can't find the quote online, but I seem to recall one of the V8 Supercar commentators mentioning that the total fuel consumption of all the cars (and possibly even the trucks, and anything else) throughout the whole season of racing is less than a single transatlantic Boeing 747 flight.

Ross Balfour · Jun 25, 2011

Diego Lopez said:
lol F1 are becoming tree hugers...thats alright, i guess il just have to watch teh 50, 60s, 70s, 80s 90s and early 2000 seasons starting 2014.

You seriously post some stupid comments Diego - the environment is the most important thing to everyone, destroying it because of a sport is simply stupid - I'm no tree hugger, but I'm all for using less emissions as long as the quality of racing is not affected.

Luke McVicar · Jun 25, 2011

what impact will it have in the scheme of everything?

Considering there still is no road relevence its still a completely pointless move and made to be just a gimmick at best.

Diego Lopez · Jun 25, 2011

Ross Balfour said:
You seriously post some stupid comments Diego - the environment is the most important thing to everyone, destroying it because of a sport is simply stupid - I'm no tree hugger, but I'm all for using less emissions as long as the quality of racing is not affected.

Lol then why reduce the power, they arent trying hard at all. Is not astupid comment, F1 means fast and precise. not lowering the standards but improving them.
Anyways if im not mistaken there are manufacturers out there using "green" technology that are really powerful and fast when it comes to the track, I hope thats what the FIA is thinking about or else lets go watch Indy cars go round and round.

Chris Butcher · Jun 26, 2011

Diego Lopez said:
Lol then why reduce the power, they arent trying hard at all. Is not astupid comment, F1 means fast and precise. not lowering the standards but improving them.
Anyways if im not mistaken there are manufacturers out there using "green" technology that are really powerful and fast when it comes to the track, I hope thats what the FIA is thinking about or else lets go watch Indy cars go round and round.

Diego, you really should look into these things before you make stupid comments. They spoke to engineers from the current engine manufacturers - Ferrari, Mercedes, Cosworth and Renault - and they said they think they can deliever what they want from the engines, whilst maintaining current power levels.

Henry Muller · Jun 26, 2011

I think the internal combustion engine will have less power, but KERS will have a more aggressive implementation (more power, for longer), and will compensate...
I thought 4 cyl was a good idea.. but yes, for Ferrari and others perhaps is more interesting to have a "V6"

obviously there are more effective ways to make F1 greener, but this is about sending a message to the public...

Xosé Estrada · Jun 26, 2011

The "save fuel / reduce pollution" menthality is not to save the world reducing the pollution that F1 produces, its give an example, like the WTCC "make cars green" or "make roads safe" programs.

Everybody knows F1 is by definition anti-environment, and totally unnecesary from that point of view.

Luke McVicar · Jun 26, 2011

Chris Butcher said:
Diego, you really should look into these things before you make stupid comments. They spoke to engineers from the current engine manufacturers - Ferrari, Mercedes, Cosworth and Renault - and they said they think they can deliever what they want from the engines, whilst maintaining current power levels.

From what i have heard and this is something which i have not seen to be changed yet. Is 600hp 10kRPM limit with an aggressive KERS to make up the power defeict, weither that KERS will be included in the throttle automactily or its a push to pass with more enregy stored its still unclear but either way, naturally they will be noticabley slower.

You said they planned on 12K RPM limit could you send me the link on where you saw this?

From what I've seen I have only heard 10k

Ross Balfour · Jun 26, 2011

Adrian Newey on the BBC F1 Forum said it would be around 14-16k RPM

Chris Jenkins · Jun 28, 2011

14-16k isn't quite so bad

Chris Butcher · Jun 28, 2011

Luke, I think it was BBC but I can't find it again

Dave Wild · Jun 29, 2011

Latest news is 1.6 litre V6 from 2014, max 15,000rpm, overall power to remain around 750bhp. However that is the latest news, I would not be surprised if all that changes well before 2014 because off track things are in play again.
Read this blog for some interesting thoughts.
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/indycars-replacing-f1-the-real-story-behind-the-news/