FIA client engine
#1
Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:22
Advertisement
#2
Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:42
Cosworth have the "engine" bit, but they don't have the "hybrid" bit, and it's the "hybrid" parts that are expensive, and seemingly difficult to design.
#3
Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:47
Who is going to want to supply the engine. If its been tendered as they have said that will drive the price down and no one will want to spend more than there tender value. Also if its classed as an unbranded engine there will be no publicity for the company supply the engine. Cant see this working
#4
Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:47
this is very confusing because its been talked about in 3 different topics. I believe it should have its own topic???
#5
Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:51
It totally should have its own topic, way too important to be discussed as a side note in the RedBull engine saga thread. Also slightly more important than Lewis and Rosberg throwing a cap at each other.
Edit: does it really needs to be a hybrid? Do people really buy it makes F1 "relevant"? Even "cheap" F1 engines are ridiculously expensive, seems like a good place to reduce costs.
Edited by wingwalker, 27 October 2015 - 10:53.
#6
Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:59
Cosworth have the "engine" bit, but they don't have the "hybrid" bit, and it's the "hybrid" parts that are expensive, and seemingly difficult to design.
With Mercedes GP, Apple, Tesla and Google putting golden-handcuffs on top engineers in electric propulsion, I don't think Cosworth is able to build a new team from scratch. Either the engines will need to be simplified or Bernie would push Merc to supply the parts or software to cosworth.
#7
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:02
I mentioned it in the other thread, this in my view is why Renault has not yet gone through with the Lotus buy out.... They want to be the maker of this client engine.... They have the skill to do it and the capacity I feel to provide it to a large number of teams. If it leads to a spec series (two tiers in the same race) with their name on a spec championship title, they may see that as better then owning a F1 team for their brand purposes. What could be better than being able to say your the official F1 engine supplier to boot?
I just don't see it being ethically correct for them to be a team racing and the maker of such an engine at the same time. Its also something that would keep RedBull in F1, sadly though it may be the and of Lotus for 2016 unless someone else buys it.
Edited by Razoola, 27 October 2015 - 11:22.
#8
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:15
Cosworth have the "engine" bit, but they don't have the "hybrid" bit, and it's the "hybrid" parts that are expensive, and seemingly difficult to design.
Who said it has to be an hybrid?
#9
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:15
Cosworth have the "engine" bit, but they don't have the "hybrid" bit, and it's the "hybrid" parts that are expensive, and seemingly difficult to design.
Not according to Renault....
#11
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:23
Yes, it should be at least a basic V6T Hybrid!Who said it has to be an hybrid?
Other wise you'll end with multiple chassis/regulations...
Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 27 October 2015 - 11:24.
#12
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:23
#13
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:26
There will be no benefit to the sport in having two possible engine specs.
They will not perform equally - no matter how much you attempt to limit one or the other, one will always have an advantage.
Since it is the "cheap" option, the FIA will almost certainly choose to make it the slower option. So any team that chooses to run the cheap engine is essentially confirming that they do not intend to compete.
The other possibility (which would be unthinkable) would be for the FIA to allow the "cheap" engine to be faster, in which case the hybrid development, the only thing that F1 is doing that is of any relevance to car development as a whole, will be dropped.
And if the "cheap" option is anything other than a single supplier, you can guarantee that all the manufacturers will have a cheap engine in development in parallel with the hybrid engine - this hardly cuts costs!
It's a dead end.
F1 will only solve its problems when it acknowledges that it is bl**dy expensive and that 90% of the racing is boring. Stop the gimmicks, and stop the development caps that have only served to lock in an advantage. Lets make it about pure racing between the best cars and the best drivers.
#14
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:29
I find it very surprising James Allen does not mention Renault at all there, it fits like a glove into this situation.
#15
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:31
Who said it has to be an hybrid?
Hybrid technology has been the main objective of the FIA over the last few years. It's almost inconceivable for it to be anything else.
#16
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:32
My guess for the client engine configuration is it will feature a max fuel flow of 120-125kg/h, a maximum race fuel consumption of 120-125kg and the cars that use this engine will be allowed to run at a minimum weight of ~690kg. Not hybrid tech present!
Edited by thegforcemaybewithyou, 27 October 2015 - 11:32.
#17
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:36
Basically it would be an engine that has the same basics of the Indycars current engines (though a much better one) attached to an MGU-K. That's "easy" and "cheap" to do.
#18
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:48
My guess for the client engine configuration is it will feature a max fuel flow of 120-125kg/h, a maximum race fuel consumption of 120-125kg and the cars that use this engine will be allowed to run at a minimum weight of ~690kg. Not hybrid tech present!
For reference, in WEC LMP1 non-hybrids get about 5% more fuel flow than 4MJ hybrids.
#19
Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:50
Edited by Razoola, 27 October 2015 - 11:54.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:06
For reference, in WEC LMP1 non-hybrids get about 5% more fuel flow than 4MJ hybrids.
It's actually more than 5%. Non-hybrid petrol cars are at 101,4kg/h, the 4MJ at 92,4 and the 8MJ at 89. 101,4/92,4 = 109,7%
I simply calculated 810hp/(810hp-160hp) = 124,6% to arrive at the 120-125kg/h and 120-125kg per race ranges. Provided no hybrid stuff is onboard!
#21
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:21
Cosworth have the "engine" bit, but they don't have the "hybrid" bit, and it's the "hybrid" parts that are expensive, and seemingly difficult to design.
... and add nothing to the racing.
#22
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:23
... and add nothing to the racing.
They add millions of people not watching the sport anymore.
#23
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:25
#24
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:27
I can't imagine having two separate sets of engine regulations at the same time working at all. Just imaging the constant accusation, shitstorms and whatnots, F1 is in crisis already and rules are the same for everyone.
#25
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:29
Is there anybody who stopped watching F1 because they changed to hybrid engines?They add millions of people not watching the sport anymore.
#26
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:32
This is insane.
Is the concept here "racing cars" or some absurd guilt-complex genuflection to conservation?
Mercedes and Ferrari can just stop making large displacement road car engines if they are really THAT concerned about the environment. And spend all of their money directly on their fuel-saving road car engines.
I loved F1 when the manufacturers were all about building the engine to be as fast as possible. Big displacement and high rpms. Hybrid fuel saving cannot be seen or heard. This is like making football players where shoes that don't impact the turf as much, or banning wood baseball bats. Complete insanity, nothing to do with car racing and nothing to do with making things entertaining. It's all about making a spec series ala IRL, with Ferrari and Merc spec engines.
Someone somewhere is saying "look, it will still be F1, there's Ferrari, and another manufacturer... that's all we need, just more manageable".
#27
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:33
Folks, it's an Ilmor Indycar "Chevrolet" engine which is being rumoured.
#28
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:46
can the porsche V4 (WEC) be used ??? does it conform to the specifications of F1???
#29
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:49
Folks, it's an Ilmor Indycar "Chevrolet"
enginemotor which is being rumoured.
Indycar doesn't use Engines .... they use 'Motors'
#30
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:49
#31
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:51
F1 should be a distraction for people driving boring hybrids to work everyday, a "retro", luxury sort of thing, not "hey look at those highly paid test drivers trying to improve the technology for cars we drive"...
#32
Posted 27 October 2015 - 13:15
can the porsche V4 (WEC) be used ??? does it conform to the specifications of F1???
Couple it with the WEC hybrid pack and 1100bhp sounds pretty good, except we will still have Horner moaning about the lack of power!
#33
Posted 27 October 2015 - 13:42
Folks, it's an Ilmor Indycar "Chevrolet" engine which is being rumoured.
Bernie suggested an engine that happened to be similar to the current Indycar one, but his word is notoriously unreliable. There is no indication it will be an Indycar engine, nor one of a similar specification, nor who will build and fund it.
#34
Posted 27 October 2015 - 13:43
Edited by RYARLE, 27 October 2015 - 13:44.
#35
Posted 27 October 2015 - 14:20
#36
Posted 27 October 2015 - 14:33
Can Ferrari veto this too?
According to JA, yes. Which is why this whole discussion is pointless.
#37
Posted 27 October 2015 - 14:43
I may be wrong but I thought the V4 route had been abandoned last time round because it was too short to use as a stressed member.
well looking at the schematics, it does look like the V4 is a stressed member
and this is the spec (which maybe undermining the actual data by some factors ... from Porsche official)
Engine Engine V4 engine with turbocharging Engine management Bosch MS5.6 Engine lubrication Dry-sump lubrication Displacement 2.000 ccm Power > 370 kW (> 500 hp) Hybrid system Accumulator type Lithium-ion battery EGU on front axle Engine Generator Unit (EGU), Power > 400 hp
#38
Posted 27 October 2015 - 14:47
Can Ferrari veto this too?
Yes, but they might not if it's guaranteed to be worse than their own engine.
#39
Posted 27 October 2015 - 14:47
and this is the indycar 2014 spec (approx)
2014 Chevrolet IndyCar V6
- Stated HP Rating (Speedway / 1.5-mile Oval / Road Course): 575 HP / 625 HP / 675 HP
- Oil System: Dry-sump lubrication
- Camshaft: Double overhead camshafts
- Valve Actuation: Finger follower
- Cylinder Head: 4 Valves (Titanium) per Cylinder
- Fuel Injection: 6 x Direct in-cylinder fuel injectors, 6 x high-pressure port injectors
- Block & Head: Aluminum
- Crankshaft: Billet steel
- Connecting Rods: Billet steel
- Pistons: Billet aluminum
- Throttle System: Electronic throttle control
http://www.roadandtr...r-engines-2014/
Advertisement
#40
Posted 27 October 2015 - 15:14
This is insane.
Is the concept here "racing cars" or some absurd guilt-complex genuflection to conservation?
Mercedes and Ferrari can just stop making large displacement road car engines if they are really THAT concerned about the environment. And spend all of their money directly on their fuel-saving road car engines.
I loved F1 when the manufacturers were all about building the engine to be as fast as possible. Big displacement and high rpms. Hybrid fuel saving cannot be seen or heard. This is like making football players where shoes that don't impact the turf as much, or banning wood baseball bats. Complete insanity, nothing to do with car racing and nothing to do with making things entertaining. It's all about making a spec series ala IRL, with Ferrari and Merc spec engines.
Someone somewhere is saying "look, it will still be F1, there's Ferrari, and another manufacturer... that's all we need, just more manageable".
Haha, now you've stepped into it. The fun thing about baseball is that WOODEN baseball-bats were not banned, ALLOY bats were banned because they made hitting too easy and the Baseball League feared (quite justly) that all old homerun and hitting-average records would be made obsolete by the space-ace-technology. The same happened in ping-pong were certain materials on the bats were prohibited because the Chinese were creating spins that even Adrian Newey could not have thought up.
I wished they would have done the same in tennis. So in F1, and in other sports, SOME bans can be quite useful...
#41
Posted 27 October 2015 - 15:14
This is insane.
Is the concept here "racing cars" or some absurd guilt-complex genuflection to conservation?
Mercedes and Ferrari can just stop making large displacement road car engines if they are really THAT concerned about the environment. And spend all of their money directly on their fuel-saving road car engines.
I loved F1 when the manufacturers were all about building the engine to be as fast as possible. Big displacement and high rpms. Hybrid fuel saving cannot be seen or heard. This is like making football players where shoes that don't impact the turf as much, or banning wood baseball bats. Complete insanity, nothing to do with car racing and nothing to do with making things entertaining. It's all about making a spec series ala IRL, with Ferrari and Merc spec engines.
Someone somewhere is saying "look, it will still be F1, there's Ferrari, and another manufacturer... that's all we need, just more manageable".
The fans want racing. Maybe the teams want racing too. But F1 is soley about making money - the racing is a side-effect of promption, marketing and advertising. Bernie would have 125cc two-stroke engines in the back if he thought it would make a shed load of money.
#42
Posted 27 October 2015 - 15:15
and this is the indycar 2014 spec (approx)
2014 Chevrolet IndyCar V6
- Stated HP Rating (Speedway / 1.5-mile Oval / Road Course): 575 HP / 625 HP / 675 HP
- Oil System: Dry-sump lubrication
- Camshaft: Double overhead camshafts
- Valve Actuation: Finger follower
- Cylinder Head: 4 Valves (Titanium) per Cylinder
- Fuel Injection: 6 x Direct in-cylinder fuel injectors, 6 x high-pressure port injectors
- Block & Head: Aluminum
- Crankshaft: Billet steel
- Connecting Rods: Billet steel
- Pistons: Billet aluminum
- Throttle System: Electronic throttle control
haha, try to colkebottle that
#43
Posted 27 October 2015 - 15:44
F1 should be a distraction for people driving boring hybrids to work everyday, a "retro", luxury sort of thing, not "hey look at those highly paid test drivers trying to improve the technology for cars we drive"...
I don't think F.1 is doing the hybrid cause any good at all. People I speak to say they wouldn't buy a hybrid because they are expensive, unreliable and too complicated for ordinary people to drive. Not what the manufacturers intended I think. Is there any reason why F.1 hybrids have to be more complicated to drive than their road-going counterparts?
#44
Posted 27 October 2015 - 15:46
Thanks for the schematic. I knew that the Porsche is being used as a stressed member in the 919 but that the same situation did not apply in an F1 application. From memory, albeit I am more than capable of senior moments, this was why it was vetoed when this formula was being considered.well looking at the schematics, it does look like the V4 is a stressed member
and this is the spec (which maybe undermining the actual data by some factors ... from Porsche official)
Engine
Engine
V4 engine with turbocharging
Engine management
Bosch MS5.6
Engine lubrication
Dry-sump lubrication
Displacement
2.000 ccm
Power
> 370 kW (> 500 hp)
Hybrid system
Accumulator type
Lithium-ion battery
EGU on front axle
Engine Generator Unit (EGU), Power > 400 hp
#45
Posted 27 October 2015 - 15:53
Is there anybody who stopped watching F1 because they changed to hybrid engines?
Yes. Hate the things and have only watched a few races this year. I would much rather watch GP2. But I've got to go to an F.1 GP to watch that so there is no opportunity to watch the up and coming drivers in their feeder formula without spending F.1 money. GP2 should have its own meetings like F.2 used to do.
No wonder I now spend my Sundays at HSCC and VSCC meetings watching real racing cars having real races.
#46
Posted 27 October 2015 - 16:02
haha, try to colkebottle that
Killing two flies with one stone: Severe aero restrictions not made mandatory by rule but being a result of another rule change. That's clever!
Henri
#47
Posted 27 October 2015 - 16:09
There will be no benefit to the sport in having two possible engine specs.
They will not perform equally - no matter how much you attempt to limit one or the other, one will always have an advantage.
Since it is the "cheap" option, the FIA will almost certainly choose to make it the slower option. So any team that chooses to run the cheap engine is essentially confirming that they do not intend to compete.
The other possibility (which would be unthinkable) would be for the FIA to allow the "cheap" engine to be faster, in which case the hybrid development, the only thing that F1 is doing that is of any relevance to car development as a whole, will be dropped.
And if the "cheap" option is anything other than a single supplier, you can guarantee that all the manufacturers will have a cheap engine in development in parallel with the hybrid engine - this hardly cuts costs!
It's a dead end.
F1 will only solve its problems when it acknowledges that it is bl**dy expensive and that 90% of the racing is boring. Stop the gimmicks, and stop the development caps that have only served to lock in an advantage. Lets make it about pure racing between the best cars and the best drivers.
The most unnecessary gimmick is the need for “road relevancy”. Just drop the hybrids, they add nothing to racing.
Perhaps we can reintroduce expensive gimmicks when there is once again a will from multiple parties to spend billions in F1 (i.e. probably never).
#48
Posted 27 October 2015 - 16:09
I may be wrong but I thought the V4 route had been abandoned last time round because it was too short to use as a stressed member.
IIRC, first they were talking about in-line 4 - which would necessitate a subframe. Only after realising that, they went into V6 direction.
#49
Posted 27 October 2015 - 16:16
V6 was chosen mainly because Ferrari wanted something more sporty they could possibly put in their road cars.
Frame for I4 was meant to be standard size, so that any engine (minus piping) would fit into any chassis.
#50
Posted 27 October 2015 - 16:18
IIRC, first they were talking about in-line 4 - which would necessitate a subframe. Only after realising that, they went into V6 direction.
Yep, you got it in one. Remember now, thanks.