F1 to switch back to 4 cylinder power in 2013

[Fusion]

Canadian I understand don't.

[u3b3rg33k]

This is stupid. I'm sure these engines are light years ahead of the efficiency of a normal oem engine. Why the hell would you go green. Maybe they should win by average MPG.

The first team that figures out a rule loophole and pushes the car to a finish with a full tank wins!
:dot:

[lga714]

F1 has officially enacted new rules that require all teams to run a new turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine design by 2013. In addition, the maximum engine speed will be reduced from the current 18,000 rpm to a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

:hitler:

[Fusion]

The sound is going to be that of an 80's yamaha 2 stroke atv.

[gwb72tii]

i pine for the old days of unlimited design (6 wheels) and big motors
personally i'd like the sport to go to a spec 12cyl weber carbed car
that would be more fun

[HarryPotter]

They really should just let em do whatever engine setup they want with a hp restriction.

Fuck all this go green shit it really pisses me off. This is why I enjoy watching Lemans type racing, the ALMS is fun to watch and see the different cars and teams compete, granted one team usually shits on everyone else, but it is still interesting. You gotta love the prototypes too, that new audi r18 is sex on wheels. I love closed cockpits.

[gstuning]

HP restriction is the dumbest of restrictions for F1.

This decision is being made to force development from F1 to get to production vehicles faster.
These engines will rely later heavily on all kinds of waste energy recovery systems or WERS to boost power and mileage, something that will then be transferable to production cars to lower emissions and mileage.

I don´t know about you guys, but I´ll be designing one of those turbo F1 engines if they become a reality, so I´m looking forward to it.

;)

[e30s50dan]

just a quick link to some pic's and a short vid of Arrows A9 BMW Megatron F1 turbo!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abFsKeNKMMc

[Ryann]

I'm tired of the all the engineering restrictions in F1. They need to go to a "salary cap" type system. Give a few basic restrictions such as overall size and the tires to be supplied and say..........GO!

That way if a team wants to spend its money on Aerodynamics, it can. Wants to build a big hp motor, it can. Active suspension, sure.

That's really the only way F1 will return to the pinnacle of engineering like it used to be.

Agreed. More regs= cookie cutter cars= less advancement for automotive engineering and less interest from fans.

[5Toes]

turbos don't use more fuel because they're turbo, they use more fuel because they make more power

more power = more fuel

the size of the engine has little to do with it, they're basically going to end up restricting HP, that's the only way to reduce fuel useage.

So a 1.5l making 500hp uses less fuel though than a 5.0l making the same power right?

[Jand3rson]

To be fair, F1 was never supposed to have anything to do with road going cars.

Are you nuts? One of the principle aspects of F1 is developing engine/suspension/braking systems and components that will be further developed and used on street cars. Those components are engineered to their maximum potential for use on the track so that the technology can be adapted and used for street cars.

[u3b3rg33k]

Are you nuts? One of the principle aspects of F1 is developing engine/suspension/braking systems and components that will be further developed and used on street cars. Those components are engineered to their maximum potential for use on the track so that the technology can be adapted and used for street cars.

Seems like they ban some of the cool stuff that has a high development cost. eg: active suspension.

Another one that I like is mass dampers.

[mrsleeve]

So a 1.5l making 500hp uses less fuel though than a 5.0l making the same power right?

A 1.5l spining at 12k RPM with 60lbs od boost making 500hp, Will use just same amount of fuel as a 5l spinning at 6500 No boost to make the same amount of power.

An engine in nothing more than and Air pump, you move a given amount of Air with a Given amount of fuel you get power.

thats why Displacement is king for naturally aspirated engines, the only replacement is BOOST when you go to 15lbs positive pressure you have effectively Doubled the HP of the engine as you are moving twice the amount of air as you would if it was N/A.

You move 2 times the air, you need to add fuel or you run way too lean and burn shit down in seconds.

Again POWER IS MADE BY FUEL, to get xxx power you need YYY amount of fuel

[HarryPotter]

Makes sense to me. I am pretty damn stupid too.

But if I was making 180 crank with my m20b25 and my friend in his 1.8t is making 180 crank but he's getting 2x my gas mileage that would just be poor fuel management? Or would that be while both motors are at peak performance making both 180 crank they would both be using the same amount of fuel in a perfect fuel/air ratio.

[Fusion]

And the lifespan of those two engines compared (1.5t vs 5.0)? If it wasn't the extremly high level of engineering in F1, I bet they'd be changing those lawnmowers more often than tires.

Mrsleeve is correct, but still I fail to understand how all those diesel chipsters keep claiming that their power goes up (allegedly +20-30% HP and Tq on a 100hp engine ie.) but fuel consumption is equal or less than before the chip. It makes no logic, especially when most of those 1.6-1.9-2.5-3.0 etc. liter engines smoke black like fukn volcanoes, which to me means terrible effieciency.

Potter: you're comapring M20B25 (Jetronic) and probably 1.8T VW engines? If so, way different generations of fuel management.
Precise fuel management (system as a whole) is a huge factor for modern engines to have the same consumption at higher displacement and power/tq output, compared to 25yo technology. Though you could object that the newer systems rely on fragile expensive parts like MAFs, which is true. And when Lambda/crank/MAF sensors poop, consumption usually goes to hell for insufficient information to the ECU.