F1's New Engine in 2014 - V6 Turbos!

Looks like they are doing 1.6 Turbo V6s...

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. Reuters

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/22062011/58/f1-switch-v6-engines-2014.html

Much better than an I4.

However, I think they should just limit rev's on the V8s and twin turbo those. Say knock em down to the 10-12k limit, and still allow 5 bar of boost on a 2.4L V8.

I want 1000hp F1 cars back and so do the drivers!

Make then run on 87 octane gasoline with 10% ethanol.

No rev limits... No power limits... No tire size limits...

I want 1970 Can Am style rules for 2012 Formula 1

Nitromethane, considering they'll have to refuel every other lap, and the refuel process would be 'highly energetic' it would make for 'exciting' reactions...

Sound wise, does anyone have a problem with 4 cyl sport bikes? They sound pretty cool, too. (IMHO, bogus problem- the real "issue" is that Ferrari does not see a 4cyl as a good thing for them. So once again, we side with Ferrari. yay)

^I love the way sportbikes sound!

I just don't understand this big push to make racing green.

z31maniac wrote: ^I love the way sportbikes sound! I just don't understand this big push to make racing green.

Money.

DEEP pockets come from OEM's. Or oil. It's hard to argue that F1 makes any sense at all as an investment. Technologically, there is nothing that translates from an F1 car to a road car. Well, you could make a case for the ever so hated KERS.

Renault has had a foot out the door for a few years now, Mercedes- not sure where they are going, but BMW and Toyota are out. Ferrari is Ferrari- so they will be there, regardless. Lotus doesn't count. Other than that, nobody who has deep pockets related to cars are involved. Toyota, GM, and Ford spend their money in NASCAR, Honda in endurance racing/ Indy, Citroen- Rally. Ford- Rally, too.

If F1 can actually add value to an OEM, they will be more inclined to spend their money and technology ability there.

Reading the rules that Indy car was proposing, that's much more palatable to OEM's, since it's a lot closer to what you see in cars- DI, turbos, etc. F1 tried that path, some.

z31maniac wrote: I just don't understand this big push to make racing green.

It's a thin coating of relevance and mass appeal, like a cheap shellac job.

In reply to Duke:

There aren't enough pure, frothing, racing nuts to support F1, so it may be a necessary veneer.

More to the point, though it may be an impurity in the notion of pinnacle class with rules consisting of "he who gets to the line first wins", alfadriver's point about some fragment of useful technology coming from it applies.

Personally, at that level of engineering, I believe we'll still see the most amazing cars on earth, have a chance to sell it to more people who might otherwise be put off, and have a better chance of retaining/adding manufacturers. I would also prefer to see that level of engineering feed back into production cars.

I'd also love to see some rules-less racing, but I think places like the UTCC make more sense for that. Let folks with less $$$ throw whatever's fast at the problem, but when you've got teams of engineers working in shifts around the clock, why not try to get some real-world benefit out of them?

people didn't seem to mind the bmw F1's 1200hp 4cyl turbo motors back in the day did they? seems like they wouldn't sound much different than the v8s do now or the v10s did before, high strung motor screaming at 17k rpm is going to sound like, well, a screaming 17k rpm motor, regardless of how many cylinders are in it.