FIA rubber-stamps 2014 engine rules

2014 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Honda V6 turbo F1 engine, 1984

The FIA has formally approved the change in engine regulations for the 2014 season.

In a statement issued on Wednesday the sport’s governing body said: “Following a fax vote by its members, the World Motor Sport Council has ratified the engine regulations recently drawn up in consultation with the main stakeholders in Formula 1.

“The new power plant will be a V6 1.6 turbo unit with energy recovery systems. This new formula will come into effect as from the start of the 2014 FIA Formula 1 world championship season.”

The current normally-aspirated 2.4-litre V8 engines with Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems will remain in use in 2012 and 2013.

Turbocharged engines were last used in F1 in 1988.

2011 F1 season

Browse all 2011 F1 season articles

Image © Honda

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

151 comments on “FIA rubber-stamps 2014 engine rules”

  1. So we will have Turbo’s!

    Hooray to having more scope for technical development. Lets hope the rules get implemented in a way to allow yearly engine spec homologation, but new things coming in on a year to year basis.

    1. I’m wondering if any team will take the risk of building a 179 degree V6, and if they do what will the FIA do about it.

      1. i think the degrees of the V will be specified, IIRC i think its 90 degrees? ill look for the link…

        1. Yep, spect your right.

          1. Remember Renault came up with the 110 Degree V a couple years ago? It significantly improved their traction I remember due to the lower centre of gravity.

            Doing a flat 6 would be pretty awesome! The flat 4s on Subarus sound awesome in my book, I wonder how a flat 6 will sound?

          2. @Jay Ever heard of a car named Porsche 911?

      2. I’m wondering if any team will take the risk of building a 179 degree V6, and if they do what will the FIA do about it.

        Why on earth would any manufacturer develop an engine with an incredibly risky and untried concept just to spite the rules?

        1. To gain an advantage over the competitors and ultimately beat them over the course of a season.

          1. To gain an advantage over the competitors and ultimately beat them over the course of a season.

            But there’s no proof that a 179-degree engine will even work. I know that a manufacturer’s first priority is to make the most reliable and compeititve engine they can, but that’s not what HoHum is suggesting. He’s been a very vocal critic of the 2014 engine regulations because he thinks they are only making Formula 1 a spec series. So I know exactly what he’s doing by suggesting a 179-degree engine – he’s not encouraging teams to try and make something competitive, he’s encouraging them to spite the FIA first.

            A 179-degree engine is a stupid idea because the engine itself will be wider than if it were 90-degrees or modelled on Renault’s 110-degree design. This will force the bodywork of the car to be wider to accomodate it, and will spread the weight out across the rear instead of concentrating it in one place to form the optimal centre of gravity. 179 degrees will also make parts of the engine harder for mechanics to access, meaning that if the car is in trouble, it will take them longer to make repairs.

            Is all of that really worth the trouble of manufacturers raising their middle finger at the FIA?

          2. flat, boxer or 180 degree engines have a poor form factor for f1 cars, as well as having poor load-bearing performance.

            a v6 is properly balanced at 60, 120 or 180 degrees, although the mp4/4 had an 80 degree honda v6.

          3. Prisoner Monkey, I will leave the spite to you, my concern is only to allow the engineers to develop the best engine they can for a given capacity and to see a car be able to overtake another car because its power output is superior at that point, whether it is better low-down torque for accelerating out of a corner or better top-end power for top-speed on the straights.Bring back different engine concepts and cars will have different strengths and weakness’ on the track.

          4. F1 YANKEE, you may be right about the structural rigidity of a flat-boxer engine but for sure the center of gravity will be lower than a 90 deg. V6 and as for width at 1.6 L. and 6 cyl the stroke will be very short and the engine much narrower than the sidepods. Didn’t we discuss this before?

          5. actually, the overall center of gravity would be higher with a flat engine. the lower the clutch, the lower everything else is. a v always provides the lowest clutch.

            packaging the external components would be a performance downgrade for f1, especially the exhaust manifolds which would be super wide and end up raising the motor to get clearance on the floor anyway. with a v, the whole thing fits into the smallest, tidiest package.

    2. this is ridiculous, f1 has slowly degenerated into this giant exploitation scheme where fia dont give 2 craps about what the fans think. we want v10. remember the cars of 2004

      1. we want v10

        No, you want V10s. There are some fans out there – myself included – who do not. You do not speak for the majority (and if you did, this is not the place to be doing that because the FIA don’t visit the blog).

        remember the cars of 2004

        I do. I also remmeber than 2004 was one of the most boring seasons in the sport’s history. Remember 2010? That was one of the best seasons in Formula 1. I’d happily sacrifice big, bruiser engines if it means that the racing was closer and the emphasis was on driver skill.

        1. the FIA don’t visit the blog

          Says you.

          1. Keith, how many times has your name (and the name of the blog) come up in FIA statements? When was the last time Jean Todt said “That keith Collantine guy knows his stuff, so from now on, we’re just going to listen to him.

            My point is that if the FIA do visit, they don’t make their presence known.

          2. @PM contradictions at it’s best :)

          3. My point is that I’m far better placed to know who reads this site than you are.

        2. PM if you want the racing to be closer and the emphasis is on driver skill there are any number of one-design series out there for you to watch and follow eg,GP2.F2,F Atlantic, Indycar. If that is what you want go to sites that follows those formulae and leave F1 to the fans who want to see their team build the best possible car and engine.

        3. I do. I also remmeber than 2004 was one of the most boring seasons in the sport’s history. Remember 2010? That was one of the best seasons in Formula 1.

          I don’t really care whether we have V10ss or V8s, but swap “2004” for “2003” and “2010 for “2009” and you’ll suddenly find the V10s looking as if they produce better racing.

      2. I do not want V10.
        I’d prefer a nice, efficient, compact and powerful V6 turbo please.

        1. Me too…though it might be a squeeze getting it into my little VW Polo..!!

          OH! You meant in F1. Yes please to that as well!!

          1. I’d love a V10 in my car. Preferably the one from the Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4. I’d quite like the outside of the car to be a Lambo too.

        2. Douglas 62500
          30th June 2011, 13:30

          Me too, but what I do not really understand is that people are saying that the current NA engines inefficient. How !?!? 750hp+ from a 2.4L inefficient ? Yes it does only 4mpg but 4mpg for that kind of speed should mean that it is incredibly efficient. What’s more encouraging the engine manufacturers to make the engines rev higher mean that they could develop ways of making them withstand stress better, which could be used to good effect on road car engines. Anyway I guess things would settle if the 1.6 V6T develop at least equivalent performances to the current 2.4L V8.

  2. to celebrate, i’m bringing something else back from the 80’s:

    1. @ F1Yankee

      Dude….some things should be left in the 80’s,like that music video :)

      …but not turbooooooos!!

      1. @ AndrewTanner

        mocking the “Never gonna give you up” tune that you posted:

        ‘Never gonna rev so high’
        ‘Never gonna pass this guy’
        ‘With juuuust a V6 tuuuurbo’

        ‘never gonna pass,never gonna pass’
        ‘Till’ I hit the KERS’
        ‘Never gonna pass,never gonna pass’
        ‘Till’ I hit the KERS’

        1. Far East Movement:

          Fly like a V6, like a V6! ;)

        2. That’s brilliant. Disturbing, but brilliant. :D

    2. Think the FIA beat you too it, they still use Fax’s, jeeze.

      1. Oh I was going to make that point but I forgot!

        I bet they still have pagers on their belts.

      2. They should have held a video-conference.

  3. Do we know if rev limits were included? I’d have expect that they’d have to be for the regulations to be ratified.

    14000, 16000?

    1. no word on revs yet. what you see is what you get.

    2. The short FIA statement does not say, but I’d be very surprised if this is not agreed. There isn’t an appetite for engines to become a development battleground and money pit.

    3. I read from several bloggers who are often well informed, that it is agreed to be set at 15.000 rpm.
      But nothing officially announced yet.

      1. I thought it was much lower, like around 12,000rpm…

        1. That was the original with the 4s proposal. They loosened it up quite a bit, not just postponed it and had V6s in.

          1. Thank you Audi for backing out?…

    4. What did the old V6 turbos used to rev at?

      1. spanky the wonder monkey
        30th June 2011, 12:54

        20k+ iirc.

          1. Wikipedia suggests that in race trim the BMW 1.5 turbo produced 1000 HP at 11,200 rpm. As it was using the standard BMW 4 pot road engine block I doubt it would have handled many more rpm.

      2. Hondas RA 168E of 1988 (last year of the previous turbo era) produced @900 hp at 12k rpm. Max rpm was 13.5k. This was at 2.5 bar after boost restrictions had been introduced. I’ve seen torque listed close to 500 ft/lbs but I’m not sure at what rpm, although turbo engines often make maximum torque lower in the rev range. Even with boost and fuel limits these new engines should definitely have more low end grunt!

    5. You don’t need revs when you have a turbo. A simple increase in the boostcut limit can give you more power.

  4. Approximately how much horsepower will these newely agreed engines have?

    1. Overall power is 750 bhp, but I think that includes KERS power so you have to subtract the power of the KERS units which will have double power, so I believe that is 750 bhp – 160 bhp meaning the engine will have about 590 bhp.

      1. exactly.

      2. that’s not very much is it? how much do we have atm?

        1. 750bhp + 80bhp KERS I think.

        2. that’s not very much is it?

          You don’t simply get more power by putting more horsepower in. The trick is in how effectively you get that horsepower into the wheels. You can have a 500bhp engine out-strip a 750-bhp one simply because it has a better power-to-weight ratio and more torque.

          1. Utter nonsense

          2. It’s only a vague illustration. The point is that more horsepower does not automatically mean more speed. It’s like the suggestion that Formula 1 should go back to V12s because they are noisier and more powerful … well, sure they are, but they’re also twice as big and twice as heavy as a V6.

          3. Utter nonsense

            Not entirely. A V6 will by it’s very nature be smaller and hence lighter than the current V8’s, so won’t need as much power to perform equally.

            For example, the Aston Martin Vantage is available with either a V8 or a V12. The V8 has 425bhp (some models do have less) and gives a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds. The V12 has 510bhp and gives a 0-60 time of 4.1 seconds. The top speed of the V12 is 190mph, a whopping 1mph faster than the V8. Not a huge gain for nearly 100bhp extra.

          4. Well at last PM you are beginning to understand what I am talking about although your example is way to simplistic.

    2. People still measure engine power in terms of horsepower?

  5. Looking forward to turbos.

  6. Sorry to be a Cassandra but the FIA are just taking us back to the policy that forced Max M out in 2008 albeit in a round about way. For those of you who do not remember, the FIA wanted all teams to use a Cosworth engine of FIA approved design and power output (modest), if teams wanted to they could build and badge the engine from the cosworth design but could not improve its power output, max revs etc,By limiting the rpm and power output to about half that of 30 years ago they are effectively making the engine irrelevant, and if they were really concerned with being green they could switch to Ethanol fuel a renewable resource used for racing in the USA. Or they could limit engine size to 750cc turbos with hybrid powertrains, using the standard of 30 years ago a 750cc turbo should produce a reliable 500 hp with additional kers power in a smaller lighter package than that being proposed and which will be limited to 500 hp with additional Kers power.
    Once the engine has been standardised the front and rear wings will be next.

    1. Try selling a 750cc F1 engine to ‘the fans’.

      Even MotoGP is going up from 800 to 1000cc for next season.

      In order to have something that ‘fans’ can relate to, I’m afraid that its going to get limited in some way.

      1. Yes but you have to admit it would give the green angle a bit of cred and 500hp is still 500hp.

        1. And personally I think I would love to see each team building 200 mph cars with its own unique 750cc engine doing around 25000 rpm and putting out 650 to 750 hp, a lot more than I am going to love watching them use virtually identical strangled 1600cc engines with restricted revs and less power.

          1. Gee, how F1 has become a play thing for the FIA. Too bad there can’t be a series of F1 made for the fans! lol.

    2. Sorry to be a Cassandra but the FIA are just taking us back to the policy that forced Max M out in 2008 albeit in a round about way.

      No, the standardised engine is not what forced Mosley out. In fact, standardised engines were never a part of the proposed 2009 rules.

      There are two things that sent Mosley packing: 1) he wanted to implement a strict budget cap, one that would limit the teams in how much they could spend in a season; this was designed to dramatically cut down costs, since Honda at Toyota were spending $400 million each in a single season at the height of the worst recession since the Great Depression. And 2) Mosley wanted to encourage teams to run under the budget cap by allowing them greater technical and design freedom (includng, bizzarely, four-wheel drive …), and intended to do this by writing a second set of rules for teams that nominated to run under this scheme; the teams didn’t like this because it created what they called a “two-tier” championship.

      Standardised engines were never a part of the FIA agenda. It’s true, Mosley did propose a “world engine” that all cars competing in FIA-sancitioned championships would use, but the idea never took and it was dropped well before the 2008 maelstrom.

      I get that you don’t like the 2014 engine regulations, but if you are going to persist in arguing your case, please make sure you get your basic facts straight before you post. All you’re going to do is make yourself look silly and reduce the credibility of your argument.

      1. ” it’s true Mosley did propose a ” world engine” that all cars competing in FIA-sanctioned championships would use,”
        Well here’s some news for you PM, F1 is a FIA-sanctioned series. My facts are straight.

  7. I see the FIA has agreed to parrot Indycar a year later. Way to stay on the cutting edge!

    1. Yes but Indy is so cheap to race, think how much money Bernie, the FIA and the team boss’ will be able to trouser when we have to design only 1 car every 10 years.

      1. New cars, new engines, new constructors, and new tracks for Indycar in 2012. Advantage Indycar.

        1. But the same drivers.

          Game, Set, Match F1.

    2. By 2014 F1 and Indy cars should look the same…

      1. Perfect time to talk global unification. East vs. West, winner takes all.

        I’m kidding, folks. Relax.

        1. you might be kidding but the people who see motorsport as a business arn’t.

  8. Nice!

    I don’t like the idea of having 6 years old engines by 2013, though.

      1. Agree also. What’s the big holdup? Indycar’s new engine rules were first proposed about a year ago and Honda is saying theirs will be testing in August if the new chassis is ready. Lotus(Judd) and Chevrolet probably are on a similar schedule. Come on FIA, you flip-flop all the time on rules, could you please shave at least one year off the introduction date?

  9. I don’t see why everyone is liking this V6 engine idea,..?!
    Ferrari should step out of F1, this is ridiculous,..
    Imagine a V6 Enzo Ferrari, or a V4 Ferrari Scuderia,…just plain stupid,..
    And also turbos?! This is for 15 y.o. kids who have a Golf GTI,..give me a break,..
    Whats next?! They are probably going to introduce an Electric Engine F1 car,…this is destroying the concept of F1,..
    i thought that F1 was the king of Motorsport,…

    1. With your technical knowledge I think you should run for FIA presidency.

      Someone intrinsically ignorant would give advantage to atmospherically aspirated engine over a turbo.

      1. Frustrating, isn’t it?!

      2. OK Boomer, thems fighting words,.Do you not realise that to get the best “turbo” engine you have to start with the best atmo engine, then if the bottom end is strong enough and you can dissipate the heat you can virtually have any horsepower you want simply by increasing the boost and fuel flow. Forced induction is crude bolt-on hp effective,yes,
        adjustable, yes, the pinnacle of motor engineering,no.

        1. Efficiency defines what is or what isn’t pinnacle of motor engineering. If you can build normally aspirated engine with better efficiency then turbo I’ll kiss you wherever you wont me to :-)

    2. Honestly, I think that by now over 60% of European motorists have an engine with Turbo in it.

      From the powerfull Audi’s and Nissans down to the tiny turbo Fiats, Citroens and Cevrolets with 0.8 l turbo’s to get solid power from lightweight engines.

      1. Hear, hear! Cheers mate!

    3. And also turbos?! This is for 15 y.o. kids who have a Golf GTI,..give me a break,..


      My car has a turbo. I’m nearly 30, and it is a car chosen for reliability, practicality and economy (FYI VW Bora 1.9TDi PD130, lovely car).

      There is nothing wrong with a V6, I4, V4, V2, or W16 engine. All have their pros and cons. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with turbos. There is nothing wrong with KERS (except it’s regulated limitations in F1, IMHO). What matters is is how the teams choose to implement them.

      Whats next?! They are probably going to introduce an Electric Engine F1 car,…this is destroying the concept of F1,..

      The concept of F1, in my oppinion, is to be the most technically advanced motor racing formula in the world (others may have different ideas, each to their own). On this matter, a V8 engine is a very old concept. F1 should be pushing the boundaries. A KERS system, for instance, is a very advanced peice of kit offering significant advantages. Running a smaller, lighter engine putting out similar power has very significant advantages.

      Personally, the only thing I don’t like about the new regs is that they have specified a V6. I would have set a 6-cylinder limit, and a 2.4l displacement limit, then left them to design the best engine possible.

      Ferrari should step out of F1, this is ridiculous,..

      We can all hope…
      (joke, in case anyone didn’t realise…)

    4. I don’t see why everyone is liking this V6 engine idea,..?!
      And also turbos?! This is for 15 y.o. kids who have a Golf GTI,..give me a break,..

      I don’t see why anyone is against it either. Turbocharged engines have and always will be the best engine for racing. Atleast, that is, if you know how to use it.

      In all racing the key to success has always been light and powerful cars. A turbocharged engine is exactly that: light and powerful!
      And on top of that it has various other advantages over naturally aspirated engines.

      Yes the sound is different but seriously. Would you have rated last years championship battle any lower, just because the pitch of the engine noise changed down two octaves?
      That argument is IMO useless.

  10. I am rooting for some sort of engine development war to take place. I enjoy the sport being defined by the constructors more than the constraints of the FIA.

  11. Good to see that Fota & Fia are doing work together as they need to.

  12. In my opinion, this engine format seems to stradle the fence. It’s not really innovative and cutting edge, and it’s not big engines. Kind of meh.

    1. What is this fixation with big engines, as if they are automatically better? Back in the 1980s, Peugeot Sport (which was being run by Jean Todt at the time) was experimenting with the Peugeot 205 T16 E2 rally car under Group B rules. They decided to put the biggest and throatiest engine that they could find into the car. Juha Kankkunen said that when they fired it up the first time, they blew the head gaskets off. And it’s not like the head gasket just split – it literally blew up and cracked the chassis. You read that right: the car was unable to handle the first engine they put into it.

      1. Automatically better? Yes.

        1. So you want to see twenty-four cars line up on the grid and twenty four cars blow up because the engine cracked their chassis?

          1. It sounds ridiculously awesome to see at least once, if I’m honest.

          2. Well, yeah – but the engines will be in place for the next few years, so every race would involve twenty-four engines blowing up simultaneously.

      2. This is the beauty of motor sport development, you start with maximum horsepower and then you make it reliable. Of course the engine PM mentions was a Turbocharged engine.

  13. Apparently these are the full parameters for the next generation of engines:

    – 1.6-litre, six-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s.

    – Fuel efficiency to increase by 35%.

    – Maximum revs of 15,000rpm.

    – Power of energy-recovery systems to double.

    – Overall power to remain at approx 750bhp.

    – Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable.

    – Plan for advanced ‘compound’ turbos to be introduced in subsequent years.

    Although I’m not 100% certain of the source; it’s a report from another forum I frequent.

    1. Is that power output with or without KERS? Because the in the proposed 2013 rules the engines had only 600bhp, with a 150bhp KERS unit. I hope this has changed, but I fear the worst.

      1. I don’t know. And once again, raw horsepower figures don’t really mean anything. After all, people have been calling for a return to V12s, and while V12s might produce more power than V6 engines, they’re also twice as big and twice as heavy as V6s – and Formula 1 is a sport where teams are always doing everything they can to reduce the weight of their cars. Raw horsepower is only half the equation.

        1. You’ve made this assertion more than once, but is a “standard” V12 really twice as big and heavy as a V6 with turbocharger and ERS? Batteries (or flywheels) are heavy too, and turbochargers are not trivial.

          1. Can you see the sport abandoning energy recovery systems?

          2. Of course it isnt twice as heavy, but I support PM in this issue. People dont seem to understand that simply adding cylinder does not add infinite amounts of power.

            The goal is to create a high performance engine with low weight and a low centre of gravity.

            Lets start with the current V8 engine:
            You cannot create a lighter engine by adding more cylinders, that is a fact. So if you are to be under a certain weight but want maximum power you try to increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine as much as possible. This is easily done by shaving off some of the cylinders lets say 2, you reinforce the block, the cylinderhead etc. Then you add a turbo, and increase the amount of fuel that can be burnt in each cylinder.

            VOILA, a V6 turbocharged engine.

          3. Lets have a nice juicy V/W10 @20k rpms with Turbo, and for extra boost, swap the KERS for Nitrous Oxide. Now *thats* an engine combination :-)

            Anybody want to argue the Power to Weight Ratio now?

            fine print: probably will need traction control, muuuuuch more downforce and wider rear tires WHEEEEE

        2. I dont know, I think its that more people have been calling for the mandated engine on its own to be able to have a similar power output as the current NA V8’s. I would hope most have realised that the V12’s fell out of use because they were not competitive, as opposed to what happened with the V10’s.

          I think this is a good compromise, but ultimately, this homologation cannot last for long. Maybe by the time the compound turbos come in, they will be an open component, along with a max fuel restriction?

          1. True, for the same capacity the V12 was to long, pity we never got a chance to see how a W12 would have worked.

        3. A two-litre V12 and two-litre V6 produce exactly the same power for a given volume of fuel and air put into them.

          1. But the rotating mass of each individual cylinder will be less in a V12 allowing higher rpm and thus more air and fuel can flow through.

  14. It should be noted that the new V6 turbo engines will be gifted with far more torque than the current V8 2.4 litre engines could ever dream of.

    The V8 Toyota F1 engine was reputed to develop just over 200 ft/lbs of torque at its peak, very high up in the rpm range. That is just slightly more than a 1.6 turbo petrol engine in a road going car!

    Todays F1 drivers are only complaining about the gutlessness of current F1 engines and not about the total peak power that they produce.

  15. There was also some talk that the cars would only be powered by KERS (engine at idle) when entering and leaving the pit lane.

    1. Well, there’s no passing in the pit lane.

      Not unless you’re Fernando Alonso.

      1. I guess also when there’s a safety car on the track, not unless you’re Lewis Hamilton,…

  16. Remember when the sport moved from V10’s to V8’s, everyone said it was the end of F1?

    2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 are all seasons that would beg to differ…especially 2010.

    Suppose, just suppose, that the introduction of these Turbo charged V6’s actually improves the racing…

    I for one can’t wait!!

    1. That’s the point right there. People come on here spouting off that the engines will lack power.

      For one, I seriously doubt they actually know what they’re talking about, they just see smaller numbers than they’re used to and jump to conclusions. It’s all about the efficiency.

      1. Back in 88 the best turbo engine was used in the McLaren’s, it was Honda’s RA168E turbo 1.5 V6 engine, providing just 685 bhp @ 12,500 rpm in qualifying trim.

        I don’t remember thinking that those cars were slow, even compared to the more powerful turbos from the previous year.

        For comparison. Fords V8 3.5 litre engine of the same year, produced 585 bhp @ 11,000 rpm.

    2. It’s not the noise, it’s not the power, it’s the absolute sameness, the restrictions on power development and technical innovation that will harm the racing, as it already has, only PM thinks he knows which of the current engines is substantially the best.

      1. Why does restriction on power development and innovation harm the racing? The racing has already been harmed? How long have you been watching F1?

        The absolute ‘sameness’ is a safety net to keep what engine manufacturers there are still left in F1, staying in F1.

        Nothing will make an engine manufacturer leave faster than a manufacturer who comes up with the ideal solution to more open engine regulations. The appetite to spend loads of money on catching up, just isn’t there any more.

        1. A couple of manufacturers left because there was no longer a research and development factor for their engineers to gain knowledge from.

          1. Because the limits of power had already been reached some time ago with both naturally aspirated and turbo charged engines. You can only go so far with either. The only recourse left to the FIA was to restrict capacity, turbo boost and rpm limits.

        2. How long have I been watching Formula 1? Since 1964 on and off, how about you?

          1. Conclusion: You’re older than I am.

  17. If these guys can do it….

    Look at the torque figure, the bhp figure, and the rpms.

    1. EXACTLY, there are going to be Honda Civics driving around Los Angeles with the same power as the 2014 F1 car, the biggest problem the engineers are going to have will be keeping the power down to the FIA approved figure and they will never get anywhere near the rev limit at that hp.

      1. There are already a few cars driving around in many places with more power than an F1 car. But that’s not the point.

        The point is to make the engine provide the most amount power for the least amount of fuel used. Remember that the new engines will be subjected to a fuel flow limit.

        The engine revving to 15,000 rpm will mean that not as much boost from the turbo will be required in order to make the required bhp figure. Meaning that a smaller, more efficient turbo could be used to increase the ‘drivabiliy’ of the engine.

        1. That smaller turbo will either lack torque at the bottom end or run out of steam at the top end.

          1. Smaller turbos will take less time to spool up and will therefore provide more boost at lower engine speeds. The extra rpm given to the engines will mean that less turbo boost is needed at the top end of the rev range in order to achieve the required maximum power.

            Remember that the FIA have set a limit to maximum power. It may not be in the best interests of the engine designer to try to achieve that limit in order to have the ideal power plant.

        2. Yes, but to get that efficiency you mention they will need to run the turbo in its most efficient range and the engine also, so while the powerband will be broader than in the atmo engines it will still be concentrated over only a couple of thousand rpm. and less revs equals less friction.

          1. Modern variable vane, hybrid and twin scroll turbos are capable of operating over a very wide range of rpm. Together with 500 bar fuel injection, there should be no problems at all.

  18. Have they said anything about DRS cus if KERS is twice as powerfull wil they really need DRS

    1. Yes, they will probably keep DRS if KERS can be used to cancel out an attack from the driver behind. The use of KERS normally cancels itself out as an overtaking aid, because most will use it at the same time and at the same places on a given circuit.

  19. They wanted Audi with the 4 cylinder turbos, now they must want Porsche and Nissan

    1. If Audi still wants to race an I-4 maybe they should try Indycar. That configuration is legal within their new rules package. I follow both series and would love to see them throw their hat in the ring. The more the Merrier!

  20. Ooops not Porsche those are straight

    1. Flat, you mean but they do have a V6 in their sedan and SUV.

  21. Ooops not Porsche those are straight

    Or flat.

    I don’t think that we’ll be seeing too much interest from other car manufacturers in these new regs. They were not particularly relevant to them in the 4 cylinder, 12,000 rpm format (too many rpms), and they are certainly less relevant to them now.

    1. But as you have shown above no-one will need to rev to 12000 rpm. and virtually any current twin-cam car engine can produce the given Hp. In fact the Malaysian team would probably be able to use the engine out of their local car, whos name I forget.

      1. If the 4 cyl rule had gone through I meant.

      2. You will rev the engine to the rpm limit because revs alone provide the engine with power. Adding turbo boost increases the power throughout the rev range up to that limit.

        Most road going petrol and diesel engines work this way.

        A diesel engine that revs to 4,000 rpm may only make 60 bhp. Add a turbo to it and it may make 120bhp at the same rpms.

        The F1 engine without the turbo may provide, say 300 bhp at the 15,000 rpm limit. With the turbo it may provide 600 bhp at the 15,000 rpm limit.

        1. Naturally aspirated F1 engines rely totally on rpms to gain bhp if a turbo is forbidden. This is why F1 engines peaked at around 20,000 rpm not too long ago.

          1. RPM and engine cubic capacity, I should say.

          2. As you have illustrated, it is the amount of fuel-air mixture burnt multiplied by rpm that creates HP, but by using forced induction a small engine can burn as much fuel-air as a much larger capacity atmo engine for every rpm, more boost equals more power. I really really hope that 1 engine manufacturer can come up with a greatly superior powerband that will nullify the advantage of a greatly superior chassis so the engineers can work on both engine and aero performance. If that happens though the FIA will equalise the engines.

  22. If 1 engine manufacturer comes up with a greatly increased power band, people on here will complain that so and so only won the WDC because he was in a better car. That’s the level that we have F1 at right now. It’s now a sport run by personalities (check out the lengths of threads to do with driver rivalry on here) and the FIA, FOTA and FOM will see to it that it remains that way.

    1. For example: Bernie says Vettel’s title is far more worthy than any of Schumachers. Result: People bite…and Bernies happy that they do. LOL

    2. Does that not sadden you?

      1. Yes. But if you want F1 to remain on TV, then that’s the way it’s got to be.

    1. Yes I just read it, seems they have dropped the max hp and level playing field and embraced technical competition limited mostly by the fuel-flow rate. I am looking forward to more variety and also to seeing if you are right about the rpm, it will produce a great powerband if you are.

  23. V6 is great but i wish the v8 and v6 turbos could be run on the same time

  24. I am not an expert in the area you are talking about but the only thing I have not seen mentioned is the minimum weight a car has to be at the end of the race. If the minimum weight remains the same the only benefit I can see is maybe better fuel economy, no real gains in speed, acceleration or handling so whats the point of all the changes. I know someone is going to say I am an idiot but I am a big F1 fan and I do not see any advantage in it except maybe development of engine technology.

  25. peter coughlan
    6th January 2014, 15:12

    i think the turbos are to blow alot and the cars will be much much slower yes champ cars will now be much faster now thats a fact so lets look at it its not going to work is it it will be f1 again

  26. peter coughlan
    6th January 2014, 15:15

    stay with v8 please

Comments are closed.