Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 2 votes

FIA client engine


  • Please log in to reply
794 replies to this topic

#1 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 27 October 2015 - 10:22

Apologies if this is being discussed elsewhere, but this rule change is so seismic I feel it deserves its own thread. A series of questions exist; what configuration of PU will be suggested? Ecclestone sounds as though he pulled the 2.2l Bi turbos V6 out of thin air. Indicative of the presumptive reasoning that has plagued his brain for decades. Who is going to foot the bill? FOM? FIA? Potential teams? If Cosworth already have an engine on the books and simply need investment, why don't the FIA take that design as the client PU. That avoids the sheer nonsense of "equivalency", which is simply a euphemism for Queen the pitch according to who is flavour of the day. Apologies for mixing my metaphors as well. Perhaps some of the lurking engineers could shed some light on my darkness.

Advertisement

#2 johnwilliamdavies

johnwilliamdavies
  • Member

  • 968 posts
  • Joined: January 05

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 Rickyf1

Rickyf1
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: November 13

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 Rickyf1

Rickyf1
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: November 13

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 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 7,238 posts
  • Joined: September 06

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 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: November 10

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 Razoola

Razoola
  • Member

  • 544 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:02

This really needed its own topic... Sure the Ferrari veto is the catalyst but this is bigger than Ferrari.

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 GVera

GVera
  • Member

  • 555 posts
  • Joined: March 02

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 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: March 15

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....



#10 Hamm

Hamm
  • Member

  • 559 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:18

http://www.jamesalle...-engine-battle/



#11 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 6,968 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:23

Who said it has to be an hybrid?

Yes, it should be at least a basic V6T Hybrid!
 
Other wise you'll end with multiple chassis/regulations...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 27 October 2015 - 11:24.


#12 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:23

It'll never happen. It's just more posturing.

#13 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,741 posts
  • Joined: April 10

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 Razoola

Razoola
  • Member

  • 544 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:29

http://www.jamesalle...-engine-battle/


I find it very surprising James Allen does not mention Renault at all there, it fits like a glove into this situation.

#15 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

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 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

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 rodlamas

rodlamas
  • Member

  • 11,292 posts
  • Joined: February 04

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 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

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 Razoola

Razoola
  • Member

  • 544 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 27 October 2015 - 11:50

To be honest while I don't like the idea of a 2 tier engine championship, the reality is that is what he have had for the last 2 years so I think I could live with it. If it ends up with more teams in the 2nd tier (one engine maker) it will only take a few years at most for the top tier to die and it becoming a single tier again like it is now but with more control.

Edited by Razoola, 27 October 2015 - 11:54.


Advertisement

#20 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

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 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

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 Knot

Knot
  • Member

  • 666 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:23

... and add nothing to the racing.

 

They add millions of people not watching the sport anymore.



#23 onewingedangel

onewingedangel
  • Member

  • 1,591 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:25

The whole cost thing is a red herring. Mercedes have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and will price their engines accordingly to supply the small teams. The problem is when a big budget team can't obtain an engine supply. If the engine manufacturers were obligated to supply 3 teams each if requested, they would all have their works team, and a lower grid team to ensure their works team aren't at a disadvantage, but the remaining teams would be guaranteed an engine supply.

#24 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 7,238 posts
  • Joined: September 06

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 Fisico54

Fisico54
  • Member

  • 1,008 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:29

They add millions of people not watching the sport anymore.

Is there anybody who stopped watching F1 because they changed to hybrid engines?

#26 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

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 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:33

Folks, it's an Ilmor Indycar "Chevrolet" engine which is being rumoured. :)



#28 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:46

can the porsche V4 (WEC) be used ??? does it conform to the specifications of F1???



#29 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:49

Folks, it's an Ilmor Indycar "Chevrolet" engine  motor which is being rumoured. :)

 

Indycar doesn't use Engines .... they use 'Motors' 



#30 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:49

The easiest fix is for Cosworth to offer their hybrid V6 turbo and allow an increased fuel flow of 10% over the standard to equalise the performance. AFAIK Cosworth did much of the combustion work for MHPE before everything was taken in house. Zytek would have to combine with them on the hybrid side. The other advantage is the chassis rules would not need to be adapted thus putting more cost constraints on cash strapped teams. There would need to be a guaranteed market for Cosworth for them to consider it worth the outlay

#31 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

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 Dalin80

Dalin80
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: July 10

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 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

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 RainyAfterlifeDaylight

RainyAfterlifeDaylight
  • Member

  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 27 October 2015 - 13:43

Can Ferrari veto this too?  ;)

Edited by RYARLE, 27 October 2015 - 13:44.


#35 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 17,317 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 27 October 2015 - 14:20

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.

#36 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 27 October 2015 - 14:33

Can Ferrari veto this too?  ;)


According to JA, yes. Which is why this whole discussion is pointless.

#37 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

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

 

wec-porsche-919-hybrid-unveil-2014-techn

 

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 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

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 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

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

546b37139d20c_-_chevy-2014-indy-v6tt-pru

 

http://www.roadandtr...r-engines-2014/



Advertisement

#40 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

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 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

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 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

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

546b37139d20c_-_chevy-2014-indy-v6tt-pru

 

http://www.roadandtr...r-engines-2014/

 

haha, try to colkebottle that



#43 foxyracer

foxyracer
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: October 10

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 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 17,317 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 27 October 2015 - 15:46

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

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.

#45 foxyracer

foxyracer
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: October 10

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 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

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 quaint

quaint
  • Member

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: June 13

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 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 1,011 posts
  • Joined: October 01

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 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

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 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 17,317 posts
  • Joined: April 09

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.