Source
splidgeOP•

At first glance this proposal seems to offer the worst of both worlds - there is still the need to develop a new engine, and it also won't be all that road relevant since relatively few road cars use V6's (e.g. VW switching away from the V6 for the Golf R line).

2
harvey_entKobayashi•

worst compromise .... in the world.

i was so happy for the i4 turbo... :(

2
MulsanneMika Häkkinen•

Eh. I am not worried (seems like I'm the only one), people are bound to bitch no matter what the working group decides and, also no matter what they decide, F1 will continue to be awesome.

So, no care from me. I still miss the V10s, and I still miss the V12s actually...but F1 is still awesome.

2
stikeymoMaldonado•

Yeah, despite the concerns of many it'll still be F1 no matter what lump they throw in the back, and in my opinion F1 engines have been "boring" for some time now (mandated V10s and then V8s were bad enough, then a total freeze on development...euch). I still enjoy watching the sport in spite of this, and many of things I whinge and bitch about...only the Schumacher era could suppress my passion for the sport :)

As I've said plenty of times before, I still don't understand why they don't just allow any engine configuration then just specify a maximum displacement and fuel tank size/fuel flow rate. Teams are going to have to spend money developing engines anyway, why not allow a bit of variety? I may be a foaming at the mouth fan of sports cars since going to Le Mans this year, but there really is something to be said for a form of motorsport being made more interesting by a lack of homogeneity and a wide range of approaches for attacking a problem....Still, I doubt I'll ever see that in F1 in my lifetime, so it'll remain a fantasy!

3
miritek•

Well from what I've seen they'll be limited to 12,000 revs. That will make a very obvious and audible difference. Not good. Still better than 4 cylinder though.

3
splidgeOP•

I understand the purity of saying anything goes, but here's a limit on fuel tank size to make you "green". Unfortunately, I also want there to be close racing. There's a delicate balance between the team developing the best car getting their just reward, and it being pointless anyone else turning up - I think we're just about on the right side of this equation in the current season, but if RB had much more of an advantage it would become a bit of a farce.

With open engine regulations, you would have massive expenditure on engines from all the teams trying to outdo each other, and ultimately one of them would come up with the best design and it would probably make a real and noticeable difference on track. It's possible to copy an aero gadget over the course of a season, but redesigning an engine is just not plausible. So one team would have the best engine and that would probably be enough to win them the championship. Since F1 relies on fan appeal to survive, this would probably kill it off (if it didn't already cause all the manufacturers to leave due to the astronomical engine costs).

Plus I suspect the most powerful engine for a given fuel consumption would probably turn out to be a highly turbocharged inline-4 anyway, which would upset all the fans who are obsessed with big engines.

TLDR: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/06/your-f1-engine-questions-answered-why-define-the-number-of-cylinders/

1
fireinthesky7Valtteri Bottas•

I wonder if the FIA would consider synchronizing at least part of the engine regulations with those of Indycar, given that they're moving to turbo V6's next year as well. It would be a good way to bring new manufacturers into the sport, and could provide a good link for any American racing companies aspiring to F1.

2