The FIA and the teams participating in F1 have agreed to shorten the ban on engine development to five years. The FIA, which forms the rules for Formula One, had previously instituted a freeze on the development of every team's engine program for a staggering ten years in an effort to reduce the rapidly escalating costs involved with running an F1 team.
At a meeting called by the FIA in Paris, the principals of each team agreed that a ten year ban was too long, but begun discussions on how costs could be curbed in the sport. Rather than continue imposing half-measures aimed at reducing costs, most of the teams agreed that the FIA should actually reduce costs by instituting an overall budget cap, as many had suggested... Autoblog included. Although Ferrari remains opposed to a budget cap, its former technical chief and now head honcho at Honda, Ross Brawn, has been a vocal proponent of the idea.
With the freeze now cut down to half, the FIA announced it would begin working on a new engine formula for the series. F1 has gone in the past couple of decades from turbo eights to V12s and then to V10s before arriving at the 2.4-liter V8s currently used. Insiders expect the next formula to be unveiled within two years' time and to be both more environmentally-friendly and more cost effective.
[Source: Autosport]
Reader Spy: Chevy Volt caught on set of Transformers 2
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
Rumormill: Lexus LF-A... Stillborn?
Ford reveals 2010 Mustang badge
REPORT: Chrysler may sell Dodge Viper rather than kill it
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Nissan Murano
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Dodge Journey R/T
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Jeep Compass Sport 4x2
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Carrera S
First Drive: 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
rndmnme @ Jan 13th 2008 7:38PM
The way the FIA rolls it will be 3 cylinder 1/10 ltr ethanol powered engines.
Turbofrog @ Jan 13th 2008 7:53PM
No other league even comes close to challenging F1's supremacy in having the quickest cars in the world. If they can maintain that edge, while being environmentally-friendly and (dare I say it?) relevant to the real world, I can't see why anyone would complain.
vdk @ Jan 13th 2008 8:10PM
turbo diesel maybe?
matt @ Jan 13th 2008 8:06PM
environmentally-friendly and cost effective? haha
Jeff Banks @ Jan 13th 2008 8:46PM
All teams should be quired to use a carburated 5.57-liter V8 pushrod engine, nitrogen filled radial tires, sheet metal body, with an aluminum tube-frame.
Brendan @ Jan 13th 2008 9:17PM
I guess they can switch to just ovals too? Start running 43 cars/race and have the governing body curb-stomp any innovation by making it a spec series?
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 13th 2008 9:04PM
F1:
Please allow downforce to be reduced on high speed straights (like the old Chapparal car). This is just a waste of energy/fuel. If this is allowed, the engines could probably be downsized further to 2.0L (keep the V8 though) and maintain similar speeds on straights. The reduction in HP would lengthen the acceleration zones, and rules on brakes could lengthen the braking zones, both of which will allow good drivers to figure out new ways to pass.
Zack @ Jan 13th 2008 9:07PM
environment friendly?
Please dont tell me that for a race that is raced maybe 2 times a month while billions of cars are being driven EVERYDAY that are not environmentally friendly.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 13th 2008 10:47PM
F1 cars use about 100 liters of fuel a race. That's like 22 gallons of fuel. They race each weekend or every other weekend during the summer. I use about 60L every week and a half or so.
So these F1 cars are using as much fuel as I am when they race every other weekend, or twice as much when they race every weekend. And this doesn't count qualification, practice or testing. And they don't have catalytic converters or EGR systems.
So yes, it sounds like F1 is actually pretty bad for the environment.
Yago Bal @ Jan 14th 2008 3:34AM
F1 is Carbon Neutral since 1997, when nobody cared for that.
Their reflorestation program in Mexico absorves more Co2 each year than all the races, tests, transportations, team and promotors activities produce in the year.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 15th 2008 9:21PM
Carbon emissions aren't the only emissions.
And I find it HIGHLY unlikely F1 has been buying carbon offsets since 1997, since the market for them didn't exist 10 years ago. Perhaps they bought carbon offsets to "backdate" their net zero to that date.
Mehul Kamdar @ Jan 13th 2008 9:13PM
Why on earth can't there be displacement limits on the engines involved without any other idiotic restrictions? Even a five year freeze on engine design is a little too much. If F1 wants to be environmentally responsible, then there could be fuel quantity restrictions in addition to reducing the engine displacement.
As things stand, what Max Moseley seems to want to do is to put a freeze on the engineers' brains so that they are in parallel with his own severely limited intelligence. What a clown! The end of F1 is certainly nigh!
AMcA @ Jan 13th 2008 10:49PM
2.4 L V8s.
Don't you wish road cars had those?
Who decreed that when engines got smaller, we had to lose cylinders?
Nico @ Jan 14th 2008 12:57AM
Uh, physics and costs kinda dictate that.
There is no replacement for displacement, so in a racing series, displacement is limited to keep power under control. The only way to make large amounts of power from a low displacement engine is to up the revs.
Keeping the number of cylinders low means less frictional losses, but it's difficult to get the revs up due to the fact that you have to accelerate a large piston up and down.
More cylinders mean more frictional losses, but it's easier to rev, and you can ultimately get more power from it.
However, a high revving engine requires extremely high tolerances, is more susceptible to failure, and requires more expensive exotic materials and manufacturing techniques.
So, if given 2.4 L, a race car designer makes a V8 or V10 to get the revs and the power. A road car designer makes a 4 cylinder to keep the costs down and the reliability up.
So, there is a reason.... but yeah, it'd be cool.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 14th 2008 1:35AM
Displacement is not a measure of engine size, only the amount of air pumped through the engine in two turns of the crank.
You think these engines are very small, well, they're not. They're not huge either, but because they want a LOT of revs, the engines use a very short stroke (like a sport bike). A short stroke reduces the shear forces on the pistons as they reciprocate.
Since displacement is bore^2/4*pi*stroke, reducing the stroke reduces the displacement even though it doesn't make the engine much smaller. Since these engines are comparable in size to a street V8 (albeit a small one) they are also V8s.
Short strokes makes it difficult to meet emissions on a street car.
MikeW @ Jan 14th 2008 12:30PM
Physics does not.
There are 1 liter four cylinder motorcycles.
So how about a 2 liter V8 formula.
Minimum stroke 50mm, maximum rpm (for qualifying) 18,000. 8 forward gears.
So the bore would be just under 80mm. 79.75 bore x 50mm stroke, 1,998.1cc
gary @ Jan 14th 2008 12:33AM
Max & Bernie should run Big Al Gore's PR office with this spin...
pmiddle5 @ Jan 14th 2008 3:12AM
Iam lost when it comes to the idea of short stroke making it hard to pass emissions...
Alex @ Jan 14th 2008 12:15PM
i'm thinking and i could be wrong, that becase its a short stroke there is less compression of the fuel/air mixture. thise reduces the engine's efficiency, thus pumping more unspent fuel through the tailpipe.
pmiddle5 @ Jan 14th 2008 1:42PM
But at lower rpm's there is simply less fuel being used since less energy is required to push the rotating assembly that shorter distance. You could argue "high duration cams designed for the high RPM usage of a short stroke motor would lead to a richened lower rpm state" but that has effectively been taken care of in mass production thanks to Honda in 1990 or whatevs.
so mreh? what?