Formula 1 Engines

[Tallgeese]

Ferrari 056

Scuderia Ferrari[/*:m:30oh47tx]
Scuderia Toro Rosso[/*:m:30oh47tx]Mercedes FO108W

McLaren (flagship)[/*:m:30oh47tx]
Brawn GP[/*:m:30oh47tx]
Force India[/*:m:30oh47tx]BMW P86/9

BMW Sauber[/*:m:30oh47tx]Toyota RVX09

Toyota[/*:m:30oh47tx]
Williams[/*:m:30oh47tx]Renault RS07-09

Renault[/*:m:30oh47tx]
Red Bull Racing[/*:m:30oh47tx]

I wonder how they all compare to each other. Some musings seem to suggest that the Mercedes units are the most powerful & reliable. One big question is, would the BGP001 (in its RA109 guise under Honda) have performance as well with the Honda engine? Rubens Barrichello has given mixed signals. In terms of overall performance (reliability, power, responsiveness etc) there may be little to choose form & every chassis is optimised for its engine. Still the pecking order appears to be:
Mercedes FO108W
Ferrari 056
Toyota RVX09
BMW P86/9
Renault RS07-09

So far with the cut to 18,000 RPM the only engine failures have been one BMW (in Malaysia for Robert Kubica).

[V12]

Sadly there doesn't appear to be much difference at all between engines these days, which I guess is inevitable when you have the number of cylinders, vee-angle, rev limit and all sorts of other crap mandated to you. And that's before I get to the damn engine freeze. Gone are the days when a car that wasn't the best, but had a powerful engine could mix things up and make it interesting, e.g. Ferrari at Hockenheim in 1994 or Williams-BMW in 2001.

For what it's worth, Honda and Renault probably were a bit weaker than the others for the bulk of last year, although of course Honda have now gone, while Renault were given a NASCAResque "performance break" to bring them up to the performance of other frozen engines at some point last year (probably when Alonso started winning) and perhaps during the off season as well.

[maximilian]

One thing I was wondering, with the engine rules staying the same, why wasn't it possible for "someone" to take all the 08 Honda engines, re-badge them, and use them in 2009 (i.e. Brawn, instead of using Mercedes) - is the tuning and service effort so great that this isn't possible? Same question for the BMW engines next season...

[ioan]

One thing I was wondering, with the engine rules staying the same, why wasn't it possible for "someone" to take all the 08 Honda engines, re-badge them, and use them in 2009 (i.e. Brawn, instead of using Mercedes) - is the tuning and service effort so great that this isn't possible? Same question for the BMW engines next season...

What if the engines break and than the factory isn't willing to make new ones?!

[I am evil Homer]

Yep you'd need the entire tech specs and blueprints that legally would be the IP of another company.

[maximilian]

Was this any different when Mechachrome took over the Renault engines? Just seems like this had been done in the past, so why not now?

[ioan]

Was this any different when Mechachrome took over the Renault engines? Just seems like this had been done in the past, so why not now?

Maybe the manufacturers do not want to give away the knowledge this time. There can be plenty of reasons for this.

[call_me_andrew]

For what it's worth, Honda and Renault probably were a bit weaker than the others for the bulk of last year, although of course Honda have now gone, while Renault were given a NASCAResque "performance break" to bring them up to the performance of other frozen engines at some point last year (probably when Alonso started winning) and perhaps during the off season as well.

I wouldn't call it NASCAResque. NASCAR would have just restricted all other engines until they're down to Renault's level. It's all in Harrison Bergeron.

[Jag_Warrior]

Was this any different when Mechachrome took over the Renault engines? Just seems like this had been done in the past, so why not now?

Well, they could. But at that time, the Renault engine was very desirable. Who would want a supply of Honda engines?

[DexDexter]

Was this any different when Mechachrome took over the Renault engines? Just seems like this had been done in the past, so why not now?

I would love to see that with Honda, they could easily bring back Mugen-Honda which serviced Honda's customer engines in the past. That would give F1 teams another choice of engine.

[Mark]

Was this any different when Mechachrome took over the Renault engines? Just seems like this had been done in the past, so why not now?

Slightly different as Mechachrome are the company that actually manufacture the engines, and still do to this day. i.e. Renault provides the R&D and Mechachrome builds them. So with the designs in hand Mechachrome could churn out as many engines as they liked.

The situation was not the same with Honda.

[leopard]

I would want to see different world class championship like F1 using street sport car. Let's see whether Mugen is enough temptation for Nismo to take part in the championship on the powerful skyline RB26DETT

[Rollo]

I would want to see different world class championship like F1 using street sport car. Let's see whether Mugen is enough temptation for Nismo to take part in the championship on the powerful skyline RB26DETT

Something like the JGTC then? Where NSX regularly do battle with the GTR? Except that RB26 is old old material. They use the VK45DE which is a 4.5L V8 derived from the engine out of the Infiniti Q45.

You might want to do the clicky here:
http://supergt.net/en/

[scaliwag]

Sadly there doesn't appear to be much difference at all between engines these days, which I guess is inevitable when you have the number of cylinders, vee-angle, rev limit and all sorts of other crap mandated to you. And that's before I get to the damn engine freeze. Gone are the days when a car that wasn't the best, but had a powerful engine could mix things up and make it interesting, e.g. Ferrari at Hockenheim in 1994 or Williams-BMW in 2001.

For what it's worth, Honda and Renault probably were a bit weaker than the others for the bulk of last year, although of course Honda have now gone, while Renault were given a NASCAResque "performance break" to bring them up to the performance of other frozen engines at some point last year (probably when Alonso started winning) and perhaps during the off season as well.


Couldn't agree more V12, engineering excellence is being systematically destroyed by standardization, in my humble opinion the engine rules should be thus, engine 2.4 litre's, configuration anything the team want, cylinders anything the team want, in short the gut's of the power plant should be what the team deem best for them, and that goes for all the other parts of an F1 car, the FIA should give the parameters', and the teams should do the rest.

And for those who will argue, what about the inclusion of turbo engines, I say the rules should state the amount of fuel allowed per car,irrespective of turbo or non turbo, let the engineers work out the best solution.

[ioan]

And for those who will argue, what about the inclusion of turbo engines, I say the rules should state the amount of fuel allowed per car,irrespective of turbo or non turbo, let the engineers work out the best solution.

I think that you're pretty much right.
Amount of fuel should be the only engine rule in F1, the rest is free.

[schmenke]

Sadly there doesn't appear to be much difference at all between engines these days, which I guess is inevitable when you have the number of cylinders, vee-angle, ...

Is the vee angle mandated? I thought the regs stipulated simply that the cylinders must be arranged in a "V" configuration?

[ioan]

Is the vee angle mandated?

I think now it is mandated, together with number of cylinders and engine displacement.

[ClarkFan]

Couldn't agree more V12, engineering excellence is being systematically destroyed by standardization, in my humble opinion the engine rules should be thus, engine 2.4 litre's, configuration anything the team want, cylinders anything the team want, in short the gut's of the power plant should be what the team deem best for them, and that goes for all the other parts of an F1 car, the FIA should give the parameters', and the teams should do the rest.

And for those who will argue, what about the inclusion of turbo engines, I say the rules should state the amount of fuel allowed per car,irrespective of turbo or non turbo, let the engineers work out the best solution.
I think with a fuel-based limit, you could even do away with the displacement specification. And by switching to a BTU-driven limit, bring in diesels, turbines, or cars powered by methane brewed from fermented cow manure. :eek:

And the technical problem becomes more interesting - how can an engine get the most useful power from a limited amount of fuel/energy. Much more challenging than the current engines that do generate remarkable specific displacement, but do so through a fuel flow delivery similar to Niagara Falls. :eek: :eek:

ClarkFan

[Knock-on]

Is the vee angle mandated? I thought the regs stipulated simply that the cylinders must be arranged in a "V" configuration?

Has been for many years. You could go wide V but not flat (although depending on the crank position in a flat you could argue wide V)

[ioan]

Has been for many years. You could go wide V but not flat (although depending on the crank position in a flat you could argue wide V)

Now you can only go with a 90 degrees V.

From the 2008 regulations (I doubt they made it any bit less limited since than, in fact they went for a 18000rpm limitation in 2009):



5.1 Engine specification :

5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.
5.1.2 Engine capacity must not exceed 2400 cc.
5.1.3 Crankshaft rotational speed must not exceed 19,000rpm [This figure may be increased to 20,000rpm in
consultation with the competing teams].
5.1.4 Supercharging is forbidden.
5.1.5 All engines must have 8 cylinders arranged in a 90º &#8220]
5.1.6 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine component must be
circular.
5.2 Other means of propulsion :
5.2.1 [b]The use of any device, other than the 2.4 litre, four stroke engine described in 5.1 above, to power the car, is not permitted.


http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/119845428__21_12_2005_F1_regs_2008_fnl.pdf

looks to me tht it's a miracle that the engines are not yet 100% identical given the limitations imposed by the rules + engine development freeze. Damn, there is almost no freedom at all as far as engine goes.

[Mark]

All kers teams are in violation of 5.2.1

[ioan]

All kers teams are in violation of 5.2.1

Those were the 2008 regulations! ;)

[DexDexter]

Couldn't agree more V12, engineering excellence is being systematically destroyed by standardization, in my humble opinion the engine rules should be thus, engine 2.4 litre's, configuration anything the team want, cylinders anything the team want, in short the gut's of the power plant should be what the team deem best for them, and that goes for all the other parts of an F1 car, the FIA should give the parameters', and the teams should do the rest.

And for those who will argue, what about the inclusion of turbo engines, I say the rules should state the amount of fuel allowed per car,irrespective of turbo or non turbo, let the engineers work out the best solution.

That would be interesting, but people should realise that if they free up the engine regulations, the cars will not be as evenly matched as they are today. So one must decide, a lots of competitive cars and dull engines or engine variety and cars that lap 5 seconds slower than some others. IMO the former is better.

[ioan]

That would be interesting, but people should realise that if they free up the engine regulations, the cars will not be as evenly matched as they are today. So one must decide, a lots of competitive cars and dull engines or engine variety and cars that lap 5 seconds slower than some others. IMO the former is better.

But it's dull! And dull isn't exciting, not one lil' bit.

[philipbain]

The current restrictions on F1 engines are as follows - they are have to be a 2.4 litre V8 with a 90 degree vee angle, 98mm maximum clylinder bore, 4 circular valves (2 inlet, 2 exhaust) per cylinder, a minimum weight of 95kg, maximum revs of 18,000rpm and you can use 8 engines per season per car before you occur grid drop penalties. Also in 2010 in line with the introduction of the "standard" Cosworth F1 engine the FIA will ensure that no engine produces more power than these Cosworth engines, though how they aim to achieve this is currently a mystery.

As for the original question posed by this thread, it seems that the differences in the current crop of F1 engines with the restrictions in design and development are largely to do with drivability. For example, it is said that the Mercedes isnt thought to have any more power than it's opposition, it's just that the way in which power & torque are delivered throughout the rev range are said to be superior. This is where I see the downfall in trying to "equalise" the engines against the benchmark of the Cossie engine in 2010, as you could just look at peak power and adjust the mapping accordingly but to try and match the power curve is going to be more tricky, particularly because in my opinion that Cossie V8 is possibly inherently better than some of it's opposition in terms of design and power delivery.

Also in terms of engine failures this season, whilst it's true that Robert Kubica is the only driver to have had a failure during a race there have been a number of failures during practice. This may be down to teams wringing the last drops of life from old engines during practice sessions to save new engines or possibly due to genuine reliability problems, I know for example that its reckoned that Robert Kubica has burned through 6 of his allocation of 8 for the season to this point (with 7 rounds to go).

[Brown, Jon Brow]

But it's dull! And dull isn't exciting, not one lil' bit.

But in modern F1 all engines are made by major manufacturers. If one manufacturer is made to look stupid by having an engine 5 seconds a lap slower they would just pull out, like BMW have.

The FIA WTCC thinks that equalisation is one way of keeping manufacturers (well, 3 of them at least) interested.

Maybe the FIA could be proved wrong.

[Saint Devote]

The significance of the misdirection that f1 engines are in and continue to entrench is the withdrawal, lack of interest and criticism from the engine genius, Mario Ilien.

Further, the current regulations had Adrian Newey not particularly interested in continuing beyond his Red Bull Racing contract.

For formula 1 to restrict engines cylinders to v8 is one of the most disgusting actions to take. Enzo Ferrari WOULD have withdrwn the team.

The current rules and regulations have begun in a good direction - reducing the aero and eliminating those ugly attachments - but they also weaken the essence of f1, engines.

[DexDexter]

I have a habit of reading my old Autosport magazines when I'm bored and yesterday I read a magazine from 28th September 1995, a time when they had 3-litre engines and free engine regulations, they could build V8, V10 or V12 engines. I read a report about the Portuguese GP at Estoril (which Coulthard won) and the thing that stroke me was the difference between the cars in quali . If I discount Deletraz (remember him lads?) the difference between pole and last was 7,3 seconds. That's not just due to engine regulations but those slowest people had a Ford ED V8 which had at least 100 bhp less than the top guys. I certainly don't want to see that kind of F1 ever again, but that could happen if there were no limits and some people had customer engines.

[Knock-on]

Now you can only go with a 90 degrees V.

From the 2008 regulations (I doubt they made it any bit less limited since than, in fact they went for a 18000rpm limitation in 2009):



http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/119845428__21_12_2005_F1_regs_2008_fnl.pdf

looks to me tht it's a miracle that the engines are not yet 100% identical given the limitations imposed by the rules + engine development freeze. Damn, there is almost no freedom at all as far as engine goes.

Blimey, when did that change? It wasn't that long ago that Renault were wider?

[ArrowsFA1]

Enzo Ferrari WOULD have withdrwn the team.
Dread to think what Colin Chapman (http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00266.html) would have made of F1 regulations today :crazy:


Chapman sensed a new thinking in Formula 1: a need to control the development of the cars so that no one team dominated in a given year, which would spoil the "show" for the emerging TV audiences. And that was in 1981!!

[ioan]

Blimey, when did that change? It wasn't that long ago that Renault were wider?

I'm afraid that last time Renault used the 110 (or 111) degree V angle was in 2003 or maximum 2004.

[Knock-on]

I'm afraid that last time Renault used the 110 (or 111) degree V angle was in 2003 or maximum 2004.

It doesn't seem that long ago to me. Must be getting old.

I hadn't realised that they changed the rules after that. Usually pick up on most new rule changes.

Been drinking too much of Race Directors Moonshine :)