1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

[Gilles27]

Exclusive: F1 looking at 1.5 litre 'turbo' formula

14/04/2010

According to highly reliable Pitpass sources, F1's powers that be are seriously considering a switch to 1.5 litre powerplants in 2013 together with the return of turbochargers.

For many, the turbocharged era (1977 - 1988) was one of the greatest in the history of the sport, the ultra-fast machines, widely considered the most powerful open-wheel circuit racing cars in the history of motorsport, truly helping the sport to live up to its 'pinnacle of motorsport' tag.

However, as the 1,100 bhp monsters looked set to raise lap speeds ever higher, assisted by the increasing influence of aerodynamics, the FIA first sought to limit the power before finally banning the turbochargers for 1989.

Twenty-one years later, however, with an eye on environmental issues, the teams and engine manufacturers have been discussing the possibility of returning to the 1.5 litre formula complete with turbos, or "boosters" as some would have them known.

It's believed that such a move would not only bring a number of (currently hesitant) sponsors on board, but could also lead to manufacturers entering the series, Audi being the first name that spring to mind.

When Virgin was linked with a buy-out of the Honda F1 team at the end of 2008, it was the sport's failure to genuinely deal with green issues, especially biofuels, that caused Richard Branson to get cold feet, though he subsequently bought into the Manor Grand Prix team. Nonetheless, the Englishman has said that the sport must genuinely address environmental issues.

Our sources claim that one of the ideas currently on the table for 2013 is for 1.5 litre, straight-four, turbocharged engines, using half as much fuel as at present, but with as many KERS variables as possible. Indeed, our source says that the current talk of the return of KERS in 2011 - initially rejected by the teams before a 180 degree turnaround - is "only half the story".

However, while most are supporting of the idea, including manufacturers not currently in F1, some, mainly Ferrari are not.

Contacted by Pitpass, one insider admitted: "A number of possible engine configurations are being looked at but all at a sensitive stage. (There is a) big push for current units to remain (for cost reasons) but the FIA is keen on a step change in technology."

First introduced by Renault in 1977, initially the systems were highly unreliable, the French manufacturer having to endure a year of failures before finally finishing a race. In the years that followed, more and more teams tried the devices but it was in 1983 when, in the eyes of many, the turbo era truly began.

Article from Pitpass (http://www.pitpass.com):

Published: 14/04/2010

I can see why Ferrari would resist this as they don't make any turbo cars. Will it happen?

[Jordan]

1.5 L turbos? What will the new rev limit be? Astronomical?

[Phoenix]

Hmmm, this is interesting. It would make cars less predictable and more challenging! Apart from the effect of being more eco-friendly...Now we only need the return of ground effects to have the perfect combination. However, I'm not sure if this would make costs increase, because I think turbos got outlawed partly because the costs were getting high.

[Jordan192]

1.5 L turbos? What will the new rev limit be? Astronomical?

Nah, they''ll rev lower. At its most basic, forced induction means more power per ignition, so you don't need as many of them for the same overall power output.

Also, their banning was purely about power output, cost reduction wasn't really a consideration in the late 80s.

[mario]

It is extremely likely that F1 will switch from normally aspirated to forced induction engines, given that the FIA wants to promote environmentally friendly technology, and advances in turbo engine technology have made turbo engines (relatively) more efficient then the equivalent normally aspirated engine. I would be slightly surprised if they go for a 1.5l engine, given that talk had originally centred about a 2.0l engine, and inevitably comparisons will be drawn with the original turbo era, although the FIA will be keeping the boost pressure low, and banning any exotic fuel mixes, so I doubt that they'd be as powerful as they were then.

I would hazard a guess that they'd probably keep the power below 750bhp (the current V8's have about 750-780bhp), and since the FIA will almost certainly restrict the number of engines that the teams can use, in order to keep the costs down, I think that would act as a very effective rev cap (and on another note, I believe that you'd struggle to get above 21,000rpm anyway, since you start having major problems due to the airflow through the engines approaching the trans-sonic region). We will probably get some more variability as a result, but the cars are probably going to be quite reliable compared to the turbo days, and given how far compound turbo charging has come along, along with anti-lag technology in the WRC, and I doubt that turbo lag would be anywhere as noticeable as it used to be.
It won't exactly be cheap to change the engine format, but since the current engines are due to be changed at the end of 2012, the teams would be racking up a large bill anyway. The question is how to make the engines cheaper to develop, but giving the engine manufacturers room to make tweaks (especially since the FIA is pushing for road relevance).

Bringing in forms of KERS and HERS could interest major manufacturers - BMW had been pushing for HERS in F1, as they have been developing HERS within their road going division (although they failed in that respect, they are still developing the road going variant, which they hope to bring to market in the next 3-5 years). However, whether they would enter will depend heavily on how much energy they would be allowed to harvest - and this is where some teams within FOTA come into play.
Ferrari are certainly not that enthusiastic about this change. They trade on their F1 image when it comes to their cars, boasting about the technology that they transfer into their road cars, and on the high revving naturally aspirated engines they produce. They produced a concept car which was a hybrid (a hybrid 599), which they said used technology from their F1 KERS program - but it will not enter production (it was merely to see what people would think of a hybrid Ferrari).
To switch from normally aspirated to forced induction engines would mark quite a shift from Ferrari - I can't actually think of a single engine which Ferrari have made for their road going division which used forced induction (although the V6 in the 246 Dino was later converted to a turbo form for the Lancia Stratos, it was never used by Ferrari in house). It would force them to change their marketing strategy quite a bit, and change their engine division markedly - something which they aren't that keen to do.

In this case, they are to a certain extent at odds with the other teams - Mercedes touted their KERS system (although in reality most of the hard work was conducted by Zytek), and are promoting hybrid and even fully electric versions of the new SLS. Mclaren are promoting their first car as being the most fuel efficient high performance car ever, whilst Williams is currently marketing it's flywheel system (and are currently co-operating with Porsche's racing division - see the hybrid GT3 that Porsche is racing at the Nurburgring 24h this year).
I can see Ferrari fighting this quite hard - they were rumoured to have fought the introduction of KERS quite a bit, and were said to have been behind the stringent limit on the use of KERS that effectively killed it off in the end. I would not be surprised if they threaten to leave F1 and go elsewhere - Domenicali made a few suggestions towards heading over to the LMES last year, during the bickering between FOTA and the FIA - but I expect that with Howett and Toyota gone (who were allies of Ferrari), and Whitmarsh - who has taken a softer line towards the FIA - in charge of FOTA, Ferrari might find themselves on their own in this argument.

[CarlosFerreira]

I believe that you'd struggle to get above 21,000rpm anyway, since you start having major problems due to the airflow through the engines approaching the trans-sonic region).

Whoaaa! Is that how near the limit we were getting before the rev cap came into play? Surprising.

To switch from normally aspirated to forced induction engines would mark quite a shift from Ferrari - I can't actually think of a single engine which Ferrari have made for their road going division which used forced induction (although the V6 in the 246 Dino was later converted to a turbo form for the Lancia Stratos, it was never used by Ferrari in house). It would force them to change their marketing strategy quite a bit, and change their engine division markedly - something which they aren't that keen to do.

Well, there was the 288GTO and it's derivative, the F40, both overseen by the Commendatore-man himself. That would do. And that ugly California could probably do with a lower-revving, boosted motor to pep its road-going credentials. It may not be that bad.

[Gilles27]

To switch from normally aspirated to forced induction engines would mark quite a shift from Ferrari - I can't actually think of a single engine which Ferrari have made for their road going division which used forced induction (although the V6 in the 246 Dino was later converted to a turbo form for the Lancia Stratos, it was never used by Ferrari in house). It would force them to change their marketing strategy quite a bit, and change their engine division markedly - something which they aren't that keen to do.

Wasn't the F40 a turbo?

[mario]

I believe that you'd struggle to get above 21,000rpm anyway, since you start having major problems due to the airflow through the engines approaching the trans-sonic region).

Whoaaa! Is that how near the limit we were getting before the rev cap came into play? Surprising.

To switch from normally aspirated to forced induction engines would mark quite a shift from Ferrari - I can't actually think of a single engine which Ferrari have made for their road going division which used forced induction (although the V6 in the 246 Dino was later converted to a turbo form for the Lancia Stratos, it was never used by Ferrari in house). It would force them to change their marketing strategy quite a bit, and change their engine division markedly - something which they aren't that keen to do.

Well, there was the 288GTO and it's derivative, the F40, both overseen by the Commendatore-man himself. That would do. And that ugly California could probably do with a lower-revving, boosted motor to pep its road-going credentials. It may not be that bad.

You've got me on the F40 and 288GTO (I forgot about the turbo version, although wasn't that mainly produced because they wanted to homologate the 288 for racing?). Still, it is notable that both of those cars came out a number of years ago - taking a quick look, it's been nearly two decades since the F40 came out. I'll agree with you that the California could work well with a forced induction engine, though.
[On a side note, having seen a California in the flesh (and it looks a lot better in real life - it's actually much more compact then you'd think from the photos), it does sit a bit oddly with the rest of the Ferrari range. There have been rumours that the California was originally supposed to be a Maserati, but the project was transferred to Ferrari due to issues with the cost of the finished car - and to be honest, it looks quite similar to a Maserati Gran Turismo (the front grill, in particular, seems to have been taken directly from Maserati).]

As for the revs, yes, we were getting pretty close to the limit of what could be achieved before the rev caps came into play - apart from the airflow problems, there are the issues with wear rates, lubrication of moving parts and so forth. Cosworth were pushing the rev limits pretty hard in 2006 with the CA2006 series engine, and I believe that they could get the engine to run at 20,000rpm for a full race distance at the very end of the season - but that was about as far as they could push it (there were unsubstantiated rumours that they pushed it up to nearly 21,000rpm on the dyno - but I would take them with a pinch of salt, as naturally there have never been any official announcements).

[CarlosFerreira]

If memory serves (I could look it up on Wikipedia or something) the 288 GTO was an Omologazione special, based on the 308, for Group B racing. Unlike MG, Ferrari noticed that Turbo was the way; further down the line, they used the same engine on the F40.

BTW, Ferrari did join the Turbo party in F1 in the 1980's, as is well well documented. All these usages of Turbo were during Enzo's life, so they could trumpet a return to tradition, as usual.

[WeirdKerr]

I for 1 would welcome a return to 1.5 l turbo engines.... but did i not read that the fia was looking to intruduce a single size (say a 1.5 turbo) of engine to cover all formula 1, gt, touring cars and rally so that manufacturers would develop engines to suit all forms of racing albeit in different tuning to suit the intended category, and thus cutting costs?

[AndreaModa]

Best piece of news I've read in a while this, definately what F1 needs. The idea of a turbo, no matter what the bhp of the engines will be, speaks of power and speed at the extreme, and I think it's something that F1 needs, it needs to demonstrate it's the pinnacle of motorsport, not a restricted, regulated, effectively one make series. If they bring back 1.5l or 2l turbos, we'll have the manufacturers back again, and a lot of customer engine deals I imagine too, so the smaller privateer teams are still going to be about, as they always have been.

Plus they will sound so much better! If there's one thing I dislike about modern F1 cars, its all the screaming.

Really hope this gets given the go ahead, Ferrari will try and fight it, but sports cars are no match for F1, they've got everything to loose by leaving so I reckon they'll have to sit tight and accept it.

[Nessafox]

i hope to see the return of turbo days manufactureres as motori moderni, zakspeed and hart

[watka]

i hope to see the return of turbo days manufactureres as motori moderni, zakspeed and hart

And Osella!

[Captain Hammer]

According to highly reliable Pitpass sources

Okay, that's where you should have stopped reading. They're called Spitpass for a reason.

[karsten]

if ferrari is against it... -------> that is the door

No really i'd love to get back turbos in f1! and if turbo is out of the way, please at least give more chances to build engines in different ways... The good old V12 had a REAL badass sound

[K-RON]

It's an easy answere to the lack of overtaking, say they were a 2.0L with a turbo running 1BAR boost for all teams but allow an overboost in small bursts for overtaking.
Having driven both high performance n/a and turbo engines, i'd much rather an n/a screaming it's nuts off that being boosted. BTCC are going with a 2.0 Turbo for the NGTC, interesting to see how well that works out.

[mario]

I for 1 would welcome a return to 1.5 l turbo engines.... but did i not read that the fia was looking to intruduce a single size (say a 1.5 turbo) of engine to cover all formula 1, gt, touring cars and rally so that manufacturers would develop engines to suit all forms of racing albeit in different tuning to suit the intended category, and thus cutting costs?

The Global Race Engine initiative, which the FIA is pushing quite hard for, although it would be a 1.6l engine, and would be designed to cover the WRC, Touring Cars and some of the open wheeled divisions (although which ones are currently unspecified). Even Indy Cars are said to be interested, despite not being regulated by the FIA, since they want a cheap and reliable engine supply for the next generation of Indy Cars. As for the GT cars, I think that they will remain outside of the regulations for now as they have to be based on the engine used in the road car (so, for example, the DBR9 used the 6.0L V12 from the road car).

Here are the specification for the variant which would run in the World Rally Championship

* Four cylinder in line 1.6 L turbo engine
* smaller air restrictor than current
* direct fuel injection
* throttle diameter max. 50 mm
* ban of exotic materials like beryllium and magnesium
* no variable valve drives
* min weight 82 kg (without inertial fly wheel, intake, outlets, electric generator)
* min crank shaft weight 12 kg
* min fly wheel weight 3 kg
* min connecting rod weight 450 g
* min piston weight 400 g
* min piston center distance 92.9 mm
* mandatory cylinder diameter 84 mm
* max intake valve diameter 35 mm
* max outlet valve diameter 31 mm

So, for now it looks like the FIA is also following on the process of standardising the layout to make it easier to switch engine suppliers. Now, we know that a number of manufacturers are interested in the GRE (the VW group, as we know, has voiced it's support in the past), so it is worth keeping an eye on.

[JeanDenisAlcatraz]

Why don't we just do away with F1 and have a fortnightly parade down the main streets of world cities? That's where we're heading. Ye gods, man! Engine homologation across series?!!!?

[mario]

Why don't we just do away with F1 and have a fortnightly parade down the main streets of world cities? That's where we're heading. Ye gods, man! Engine homologation across series?!!!?

The problem is, with all of the development restrictions, a bespoke engine for a single race series does not come cheap, hence the push for standardised components which can be mass produced. And at the moment, the proposal is winning far more support from the manufacturers then previous suggestions - virtually every major European automotive manufacturer is either looking at the proposal, or has already committed to design an engine based on the GRE format. The trick will be seeing how much freedom the FIA gives the manufacturers to alter the designs of the engines - as long as they don't continue to proscribe the engine design, then we could have a fairly healthy amount of competition. Unfortunately, they have had a tendency in the past for the FIA to either strangle a series by over regulation (e.g. Group C), or being too lax and letting one team drive the others out (e.g. GT Racing in the 1990's, when Mercedes was able to abuse the rules so much with the CLK GTR that everybody withdrew).
After all, if we consider F1, we are in the situation where we have only Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Cosworth left, and there are concerns that the Renault engine division may eventually be sold off if Ghosn looks to cut costs further. The problems is, we might end up in a situation where we either end up with effectively the same engine under a different badge, or an oligarchy of two or three engine manufacturers who control engine supplies (effectively a spec engine series by another name).

There would be some differences between the series; differences in boost pressure, tweaks to the internals (since different parts would be subject to restrictions), longevity requirements and so forth. It would be a standardised engine format - fixed capacity, engine configuration and piston size - but the internals of the engine itself would not necessarily be the same.

[JeanDenisAlcatraz]

Why don't we just do away with F1 and have a fortnightly parade down the main streets of world cities? That's where we're heading. Ye gods, man! Engine homologation across series?!!!?

There would be some differences between the series; differences in boost pressure, tweaks to the internals (since different parts would be subject to restrictions), longevity requirements and so forth. It would be a standardised engine format - fixed capacity, engine configuration and piston size - but the internals of the engine itself would not necessarily be the same.

Yes, of course. But every top-level sport would lose its essence if they were all too closely linked. Rallying, F1 and WTCC are different beasts and should be treated as such.

Imagine a 'Global Football Initiative' whereby football, American football, Aussie Rules, rugby union, rugby league, 5-a-side, beach soccer etc. were required to use the same ball with slightly different characteristics. It's bullcrap.

[Pedestrian]

Why don't we just do away with F1 and have a fortnightly parade down the main streets of world cities? That's where we're heading. Ye gods, man! Engine homologation across series?!!!?

The problem is, with all of the development restrictions, a bespoke engine for a single race series does not come cheap, hence the push for standardised components which can be mass produced. And at the moment, the proposal is winning far more support from the manufacturers then previous suggestions - virtually every major European automotive manufacturer is either looking at the proposal, or has already committed to design an engine based on the GRE format.

Does this mean that manufacturers who currently compete in WRC, Fia GT, etc. will be able to supply engines to F1?
That could actually be a very good thing, given the scarcity of manufacturers in F1 nowdays.

[Phoenix]

Why don't we just do away with F1 and have a fortnightly parade down the main streets of world cities? That's where we're heading. Ye gods, man! Engine homologation across series?!!!?

There would be some differences between the series; differences in boost pressure, tweaks to the internals (since different parts would be subject to restrictions), longevity requirements and so forth. It would be a standardised engine format - fixed capacity, engine configuration and piston size - but the internals of the engine itself would not necessarily be the same.

Yes, of course. But every top-level sport would lose its essence if they were all too closely linked. Rallying, F1 and WTCC are different beasts and should be treated as such.

Imagine a 'Global Football Initiative' whereby football, American football, Aussie Rules, rugby union, rugby league, 5-a-side, beach soccer etc. were required to use the same ball with slightly different characteristics. It's bullcrap.

I agree. They're all different categories and, in a time where the differences between teams are scarce, we don't need more unification. They're different kinds of racing, with different kinds of vehicles.

[mario]

Why don't we just do away with F1 and have a fortnightly parade down the main streets of world cities? That's where we're heading. Ye gods, man! Engine homologation across series?!!!?

The problem is, with all of the development restrictions, a bespoke engine for a single race series does not come cheap, hence the push for standardised components which can be mass produced. And at the moment, the proposal is winning far more support from the manufacturers then previous suggestions - virtually every major European automotive manufacturer is either looking at the proposal, or has already committed to design an engine based on the GRE format.

Does this mean that manufacturers who currently compete in WRC, Fia GT, etc. will be able to supply engines to F1?
That could actually be a very good thing, given the scarcity of manufacturers in F1 nowdays.

If they wanted to, and agreed to the specifications, then yes. In fact, quite a few manufacturers from the WTCC and WRC have already agreed to the proposals for their relevant field (the signatories are said to include Audi, BMW, Citroen, Ford, Mitsubishi, Renault, Subaru and Skoda/Seat/VW (I've lumped them together, as they are part of the same company)).

[Phoenix]

Gosh, now a team powered by Citroen would, at least, sound really rejectful. McLaren-Citroen? HRT-Seat? Or perhaps BMW Sauber-Audi?

[Nessafox]

i hope to see the return of turbo days manufactureres as motori moderni, zakspeed and hart

And Osella!

they weren't really manufacturers as it just were alfa's, but the same way we could take - for example - the ferrari's in the back of the toro rosso's and call them osella's

we also need bwm to come back to give us the sauber-megatron! (as opposed to megatron, mercedes could give us a Force India-Optimus Prime )

[DonTirri]

they weren't really manufacturers as it just were alfa's, but the same way we could take - for example - the ferrari's in the back of the toro rosso's and call them osella's

we also need bwm to come back to give us the sauber-megatron! (as opposed to megatron, mercedes could give us a Force India-Optimus Prime )

LOL.

[Reverie Planetarian]

Not without my Brabham and at least one engine detonating in qualifying.

No four-digit horsepower qualifying trim = not interested.
*long, wet raspberry*

[mario]

i hope to see the return of turbo days manufactureres as motori moderni, zakspeed and hart

And Osella!

they weren't really manufacturers as it just were alfa's, but the same way we could take - for example - the ferrari's in the back of the toro rosso's and call them osella's

we also need bwm to come back to give us the sauber-megatron! (as opposed to megatron, mercedes could give us a Force India-Optimus Prime )

True - the only reason that the Alfa V8 was branded an Osella V8 was down to the fact that Alfa Romeo were so embarrassed by the repeated engine problems Osella had that they asked them to remove their name from the engine (instead of, say, actually producing a better engine...).

Not without my Brabham and at least one engine detonating in qualifying.

No four-digit horsepower qualifying trim = not interested.
*long, wet raspberry*

I'm more impressed that they can get at least 750bhp from a normally aspirated V8, which runs on standard octane fuels, that can do at least 3 race distances (or over 2000km), then getting 1,300bhp from an engine which only lasts five minutes (and technically the Brabham BMW only managed to get the mythical 1,500bhp once with a "Monza special" engine - which exploded on Berger's in lap), and the fuel (toluene) was very difficult to handle (since it was extremely toxic - in fact, the fact that the fuel was so harmful to the pit crews was one of the reasons why it was banned).
Besides, all BMW did was bolt a massive turbo charger onto the engine - far more clever were the Renault and Honda engines which used sequential turbo charging. BMW might have offered more power, but Honda walked all over them in 1986, with a much leaner and lighter engine.
Besides, in race trim, the turbo engines were only really as powerful as the engines today (Honda could get 800bhp in race trim in the Williams, but most of the engines were around 750-780bhp at most), whilst being a lot heavier (140-160kg compared to a 95kg regulated minimum today).

But I can tell that I'm fighting an uphill battle here - people are obsessed with power. I've heard the complaint before about a technological lock in - we become obsessed with more power, even though we could get the same amount of power, yet use less. And in the future, that is what we're going to have to do, like it or not.

[Reverie Planetarian]

Oh all right, all right. Still though, anything for me that puts in a bit of drama that stays on the track (at least until it blows a cylinder. ...OK, I'm done)

[mario]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so cross in that last post - it's just that I'm tired of people clamouring for huge amounts of power and for grenade engines, when going through an engine a session is just not affordable these days.
Coupled to that, I do sometimes wonder whether the races in the 1980's were always as exciting as people claim they were, given that Murrary Walker voiced his opposition to the refueling ban quite vigrously (saying that he thought that, comparing the early 1980's when refuelling was allowed with the period afterwards when it was banned, that the races would often turn into processional affairs - the complaint about processional races is hardly new).

[Enforcer]

I dunno Mario, even though it probably involves less engineering than making a 750hp engine last 3 races, I have a certain affinity for the attitude that sees an engine manufacturer shoehorn the biggest, hottest turbocharger they can onto a 1.5l 4 cylinder block, and if the engine is unusable afterwards - so what? There's something more "exciting" about the concept of extracting every last percent of performance from every piece of the car rather than winding it back in to save it.

Of course it's completely unsustainable financially and ultimately wouldn't do the sport any favours at this stage, so the engine limit has to stay. Be interesting to see what they could squeeze out of a turbo having to make it last though.

[AndreaModa]

I know this is going off topic here, but I don't think the issue is with processional races, once each car has got itself into the best position it can, no regulation change or rule will ever put it further up the field. The issue is with overtaking when a clearly faster car cannot get by a slower car in front we have a problem. F1 races throughout history have probably been quite processional affairs after perhaps the first half an hour of racing upon which point as I emntioned above, all the cars would be in the best position they could acheive, barring mechanical failures or other hinderances.

Refuelling, compulsory stops, reversed grids, etc they all do one thing and that is mix up the order to give more racing, but if the cars following each other can't get by, then there's no point in implementing any of those ideas because it is skirting the main issue. The same goes for the engines in the cars (staying on topic ), if they're n/a or turbo, 1500bhp or 750bhp, it won't make a blind bit of difference if the cars cannot get past each other. The only exception to that being obviously boost pressure with the turbos, which if implemented, we can all readily assume will be significantly lower than what they had during their peak in the mid-80s, and also KERS with it's 'push to pass' ability. As Enforcer has put it, it would be great to see the biggest and best engines the manufacturers could come up with powering the cars round, but it's not sustainable and won't achieve much either.

The same problem occurs here though in that it doesn't deal with the fundamental issue with F1 and that is the aerodynamic wake of the cars which, despite the attempts of the OWG with the new regulations introduced in 2009, is at its highest and most disturbing level in the history of the sport. You get rid of that, you get the close wheel-to-wheel racing, and you don't end up with a great long train of cars that can't pass each other, because if the wake is small enough, even a medium speed straight with a slowish corner following it will offer an overtaking opportunity, especially if KERS boosts are involved - look at bike racing for evidence of that, okay they're more nimble and manouverable, but if two cars are side by side into a corner, either one gives way or they crash, so the paying public get what they want - its a win win situation.

There never will be a solution that will provide overtaking throughout the field for the duration of a race. To try and achieve that is madness and impossible. Overtaking takes place when a faster car is able to pass a slower car in order to improve its position in the race. As I said, once the cars are in this theoretical 'order' little action will take place. The issue of course over the past two decades of racing has been that these faster cars have found it increasingly difficult to pass the slower cars, as effects such as slipstreaming and outbraking have been harder and harder to achieve due to the wake coming off the rear of the car in front. This has led to some, in essence, unfair results take for example Lewis Hamilton and Adrain Sutil in Malaysia. Hamilton cruised up to the back of the Force India in the latter part of the race, and would have passed it had he been able to get close enough to get a tow on one of the enormous straights that characterise the circuit. Give Hamilton KERS and he may well have passed Sutil but get rid of the wake, or the majority of it and suddenly the entire process becomes a whole lot easier. Combine it with KERS and the whole thing becomes very interesting indeed. The OWG probably know what needs to be done, but I don't think they or the FIA have the balls to give the sport the radical overhaul it desperately needs. Because lets be honest, the cars look different now, and new engines might change the performance, especially if turbos come in, but we all know it won't solve the real problem.

And breathe...

Carry on!

[mario]

I dunno Mario, even though it probably involves less engineering than making a 750hp engine last 3 races, I have a certain affinity for the attitude that sees an engine manufacturer shoehorn the biggest, hottest turbocharger they can onto a 1.5l 4 cylinder block, and if the engine is unusable afterwards - so what? There's something more "exciting" about the concept of extracting every last percent of performance from every piece of the car rather than winding it back in to save it.

Of course it's completely unsustainable financially and ultimately wouldn't do the sport any favours at this stage, so the engine limit has to stay. Be interesting to see what they could squeeze out of a turbo having to make it last though.

In some ways, it could be more interesting - the problem of balancing reliability against power and fuel consumption could potentially shake the grid up radically again, especially if the driver could adjust the boost pressure on board (like the turbo days). It would lead to more tactical racing, and reward the smarter driver - do you risk turning the boost pressure up earlier in the race, and ease off at the end, or do you take it easier earlier on, and leave yourself with more fuel, so you can turn the wick up at the end of the race? Would you risk the engine and turn up the boost to go for a win? We've seen that drivers like Alonso and Hamilton (particularly the latter) are quite aggressive in that regard, and probably would go for it, so it could lead to more action on the track.

Yes, the one use only engines were impressive, but realistically nobody wants to go back to that, simply because it would be too expensive - even big teams, like Mercedes, are throwing their weight behind cost capping measures (only the wealthiest teams are dragging their heels, because it reduces their advantage).

[Reverie Planetarian]

I do like the onboard boost pressure adjustment idea. Something for the drivers and teams to think about, as you said.

[dr-baker]

VW to join in the fun with a 1.5 l turbo engine?

Volkswagen has confirmed it is eyeing a role in Formula One as an engine supplier, not as a team owner, if it enters the sport as expected from 2013.

That is according to former grand prix driver Hans-Joachim Stuck, who is now VW's motorsport representative.

Stuck told German magazine Sport Bild "it is clear that we are looking at Formula One," but that VW is "waiting for the FIA's decision in respect of the use of a world engine”.

Stuck also confirmed that VW would not have "[its] own team like Mercedes".

F1 is expected to switch to turbocharged 1.5-litre four-cylinder engines mated to KERS from 2013, but the sport is also keen on improving the efficiency of the current 2.4-litre V8 units in the mean time.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArtic ... rs/249425/

[Khausen Effect]

Four cylinder inline turbo engines don't appeal to me because of the noise they make, though I've never heard one running at the kind of revs an F1 engine would use.

I would suggust a 180 degree V angle for the engines - ie. a boxer configuration. The Subaru Impreza turbo engine sounds much better than any inline motor and would be amazing at F1 level revs. OK, so this is slightly less relevant to road cars, but not, I think, by much,

Mandating such a wide engine would also reduce the scope for aerodynamic downforce at the rear hopefully making the cars less aero dependant, which should also improve the quality of the racing. It's been too long since we've Boxer engine in F1, though the 1990 Subaru 60 valve unit was one of the great reject engines.

[AndreaModa]

Four cylinder inline turbo engines don't appeal to me because of the noise they make, though I've never heard one running at the kind of revs an F1 engine would use.

What configeration were the old turbos? I thought they were 4 cylinder in-line? Either way whilst we're on the discussion of engine dimensions, imagine the extra room available with the engine being effectively a litre and 4 cylinders smaller - am I not the only one who detests the long narrow F1 cars these days, even more so now they've had to increase the fuel tanks? The extra room will mean a KERS unit will be easier to install without compromising weight, and will hopefully bring the length of the cars down so they look a bit more in proportion with their width.

[baddriving50]

What configeration were the old turbos? I thought they were 4 cylinder in-line?

There were some inline fours from BMW/Megatron, Hart and Zakspeed; some V6's from Ford, Ferrari, Honda, Motori Moderni, Renault and TAG Porsche; and the Alfa Romeo/Osella V8.

[mario]

What configeration were the old turbos? I thought they were 4 cylinder in-line?

There were some inline fours from BMW/Megatron, Hart and Zakspeed; some V6's from Ford, Ferrari, Honda, Motori Moderni, Renault and TAG Porsche; and the Alfa Romeo/Osella V8.

There were also plans for an Alfa Romeo inline four for the Ligier team - however, that fell apart after the Alfa team were criticised very heavily by Arnoux, and in retaliation, they pulled the plug on the project.

Four cylinder inline turbo engines don't appeal to me because of the noise they make, though I've never heard one running at the kind of revs an F1 engine would use.

I would suggust a 180 degree V angle for the engines - ie. a boxer configuration. The Subaru Impreza turbo engine sounds much better than any inline motor and would be amazing at F1 level revs. OK, so this is slightly less relevant to road cars, but not, I think, by much,

Mandating such a wide engine would also reduce the scope for aerodynamic downforce at the rear hopefully making the cars less aero dependant, which should also improve the quality of the racing. It's been too long since we've Boxer engine in F1, though the 1990 Subaru 60 valve unit was one of the great reject engines.

Whilst boxer engines do give a centre of gravity advantage, there are a few problems with a boxer engine. The chief problem came about in the 1970's, after the use of the engine as a load bearing member became widespread. Compared with the torsional rigidity of a V configuration, a boxer engine simply couldn't sustain the sort of lateral loads which would be put on the outer casing, which is why the configuration was generally dropped in favour of V shaped engines. V shaped engines are also more compact, which would reduce the width of the car (and thus the drag of the car) - and bear in mind the maximum width restrictions of the current cars would probably make a boxer engine unattractive these days.

[CarlosFerreira]

and bear in mind the maximum width restrictions of the current cars would probably make a boxer engine unattractive these days.

A 1.5L would be quite smallish, wouldn't it? Do you reckon it would make all that difference? The usage of the engine as load-bearing member as a limitation makes perfect sense, thinking about it.