F1’s new V6 engines for 2014 in numbers

F1 technology

Posted on

| Written by

Formula One engine technology is about to take a great leap forward.

This is the final season with 2.4-litre V8 engines and fairly low-powered KERS. In their place next year will come 1.6-litre V6 units with turbochargers, direct injection and energy recovery systems that are more sophisticated and powerful.

If F1 gets it right, this will provide an absorbing technical challenge, improve the sport’s credentials as a test bed for environmentally-friendly technology, and enhance both the strategic dimension and spectacle of the races.

Details have begun to emerge of how the new engines will run, look and – of course – sound. Here’s what we can expect from them and how they will change the sport.

V6 engine and turbo

1.6l Engine capacity, down from 2.4l
6 Number of cylinders, down from 8
100kg Maximum amount of fuel teams can use per race from 2014 (around 140 litres). They currently use around 160kg
100kg per hour Maximum fuel flow rate
500bar Fuel injection pressure limit
15,000 Maximum rpm, down from 18,000

Formula One is following the lead of the road car industry by downsizing its internal combustion engines. In addition to lopping off two cylinders, the capacity of each has been slightly reduced.

The loss of power from this reduction in capacity will be recouped in part by the addition of a turbocharger. In this sense, the configuration is not dissimilar to the 1.5-litre turbos used by many teams from 1977 to 1988.

But most significant in terms of racing is the introduction of a fuel rate limit. This links power output to fuel consumption meaning drivers and strategists will have another variable to juggle to make sure they don’t empty their tanks too quickly.

Energy Recovery Units

161bhp Power boost from ERS, up from 80bhp
33.3s Duration of boost available, up from 6.7s
2MJ Maximum energy that can be harvested from ERS, up from 400kJ
4MJ Maximum energy that can be used from ERS, up from 400kJ

The most radical changes are in the realm of Energy Recovery Systems. The change of name reflects the fact that heat as well as kinetic energy may now be recovered.

The regulations refer to the two devices as the ‘Motor Generator Unit – Kinetic’ and ‘Motor Generator Unit – Heat’. The latter uses heat energy from the turbo to generate electrical energy.

With two sources of recovered energy to use the limit on the amount of power they can generate has been raised. Drivers will now get a bigger boost for longer, which in addition to the thrust from the turbo engines should make for quite a spectacle.

The maximum amount of power that can be drawn from the ERS is in excess of the 500kJ currently permitted in the World Endurance Championship, where Audi and Toyota race hybrid cars. However by the time F1’s new engines are introduced they will also have had a power boost – to 8MJ – keeping endurance racing ahead of F1 in this respect.

Complete units

5 Maximum units per season, down from 8
145kg Minimum weight of engine and ERS, down from 95kg excluding KERS

Producing a competitive engine in this specification will be enough of a challenge, but the teams will also have to cope with more demanding reliability requirements.

At present each engine has to last three race distances with some units needing to do four. From next year most if not all engines will have to last four race distances, assuming the calendar remains at around 19 or 20 races.

How powerful will they be?

The one thing everyone wants to know about the new engines is whether they will be as powerful as the current ones.

F1 engine manufacturers stopped issuing details of their power outputs during the 1990s. But since F1 engine technology was frozen with the introduction of the current V8s in 2006, the consensus view is today’s cars have around 750bhp.

Their replacements are expected to produce the same – before the addition of further power from ERS is taken into account.

But drivers have become used to a degree of refinement in the current V8 engines they will not enjoy with the new ones – at least, not at first.

The ‘drive-ability’ and power delivery of the new units should prove a challenge. And how well the drivers and cars handle that extra power will be fascinating.

F1 technology

Browse all F1 technology articles

Images © Mercedes, Toyota

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.

139 comments on “F1’s new V6 engines for 2014 in numbers”

  1. Exiting, but im a little worried they might have to manage fuel even more. Slower races.

    1. Not necessarily. The ERS will be a lot more powerful than the current KERS, and drivers will be able to use it for much longer per lap. The engines will use less revs and fire on six cylinders rather than eight, so that should also aid fuel efficiency

      I’m looking forward to the changes, although all the same, I do miss the scream of a V10. Silverstone 2008 was immense, in qualifying at least, where you could hear the engines right on the limit.

      1. They were V8s by 2008.

      2. Bring Back The Awesome V10 s

        We Don’t Want your boring environmental agendas We Want Thunder We want POOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWEEEEERRRRRRRR !!!

        We Want Real Engines , No Puny 1.6 L Hatchback Engines , No Fake Or simulated Noises ,


    2. yap… slower in the sense of too tactical… back in the day, drivers just pushed hard on the pedal, having none of the tire conservation worries, like in the recent years… :( hope new pirellis will change that for this year :)

      1. Pirelli expects higher thermal degradation rates and more pit-stops for this year

        “The tyres will have stiffer shoulders but stronger sidewalls. This will increase thermal degradation meaning teams will need to make more pit stops – Pirelli expect at least two per race.”

      2. the thing is, they still push hard on the pedal, and lap times are still fast. having more management of the car should be part of f1, it has the best drivers and they should be able to cope with it. the cars have always had tyre wear issues, in the 80s they couldnt push 100% like in qualifying laps… the only time they maybe did was when the cars were fully automatic and full traction control, like the early 2000’s and that produced the most boring racing ever.

    3. Well, remember that the cars will also be lighter even before we get to carrying around 60kg less fuel in race trim. It’s certainly true that drivers are going to have to manage fuel carefully – but then they already do, and in the previous 1977-88 turbo era fuel limits existed (and if you look at season reviews or scan the results of races from around 1983 onwards you’ll see plenty of drivers who ran out of fuel in the closing laps). Overall, I think it’s probably a good change.

      1. @ilanin, I hesitate to correct you but I believe that the minimum weight of the car (dry) has actually increased for 2014. (to 680kg if I remember rightly)
        I also notice that at full throttle the tank will be empty after 1 hour so I also am afraid we might see more laps being run at a delta time to ensure finishing the race.

        1. @hohum

          I also notice that at full throttle the tank will be empty after 1 hour so I also am afraid we might see more laps being run at a delta time to ensure finishing the race.

          There isn’t a circuit on the calendar where the drivers run at 100% full throttle constantly, so the question becomes which are the tracks with the highest percentage of full throttle running where this might be a concern.

          There’s only one track on the calendar where the drivers use full throttle for more than three-quarters of a lap, which is Monza. They’re at full throttle 83% of the time, but this is already one of the shortest races in terms of duration anyway: last year’s Grand Prix took less than 80 minutes.

          So I suspect there will be some tracks where it is a factor and others where it isn’t: much as is already the case. No designer wants to put a car on the grid that can hold more fuel than it needs to, and several times last year we heard drivers being told to back off and save fuel to ensure they had enough to get to the end of the race: Massa in India, for example.

          1. Thanks for that analysis @keithcollantine.

          2. Or Webber in Turkey 2010

          3. I also notice that at full throttle the tank will be empty after 1 hour so I also am afraid we might see more laps being run at a delta time to ensure finishing the race.

            If I’m not mistaken, maximum fuel flow rate does not necessarily equal fuel flow rate at full throttle.

          4. @answert1223, you might want to take a second to think that through.

          5. @answert1223, that is right they can run what ever fuel flow they want under 100, but why would a team out to win races do that. A side effect of the max rate is to prevent ridiculous qualifying fuel maps that would run higher then 100

          6. @MemorableC and @HoHum -I think @aswert1223 may be on to something, maybe not. If a team is able to tune their engine and entire package to produce peak performance at less than the maximum fuel rate, they would be silly to use more fuel than necessary.

            Alternatively, if they are able to extract say 97% performance at 90% fuel rate—as an example, they may find it beneficial to do so rather than running at 100% fuel rate for 2/3 of the race and then cutting it back. We’ve seen many races where drivers have to go into fuel saving mode and it hurts them.

    4. @nordseth78 considering how LAME I find IndyCar racing with the fuel managing, and people trying to stretch it as far as possible, yeah.

      But we’ve seen people having to switch to a lower fuel mixture because of the fuel not long ago in F1.

    5. I think reintroduction of refueling to F1 would be interesting.

    6. The driver that uses less fuel, runs slow, quiet, and steady wins the race. Pay $1,500 for a close enough seat or you won’t hear the race! F1 took the Tortus and the Hare too seriously! Who wants to watch someone like Michael Schumacher run anything except flat out?

  2. So it revs less, will propably sound worse, nobody knows will it be as powerful as engines of today, whines as it is turbocharged.

    All that because they want to be greener.

    Yeah, I’m gonna enjoy that so much, I just cannot wait, you know.

    1. Feel free to hit the standby button on your remote in 2014 then =)

    2. People made the same arguments when switching from V10s. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

      1. I really hope these V10’s will sound in your ears forever when you’ll find yourself stuck listening to lawnmower engines in the future, mate.

        1. Paula Pinky Takington
          24th January 2013, 16:48

          I think they will sound amazing. If anything is to go from the old 1.5 turbo units. were in for a retro run next i think. stunning V6 sound blowing ur ears back. anyone that wanted the older f1 car with the 1.5 units will know what im talking about.

      2. I don’t know if you had the opportunity to attend live to a race with V10s and then one with the V8s… But if you did, you would know that they did TOTALLY WRONG in switching from V8s to V10s..

        1. But it’s the racing that’s important, not the noise or the pretty colours. It’s the racing.
          And yes, I’ve seen/heard both V8s and V10s, and WEC Audis and DTM howler monkeys.

        2. Agree. When they dropped from 3.5L to 3.0L V10s wasn’t great either. Or when Ferrari dropped their V12.

          However, the change from the V10s to the angry mosquito V8s was sadder than the change from V8 to V6 Turbos. At least the V6 Turbo-Electrics have massive low-end torque than any of the gutless V8s. Was fun watching the early 2014 races where the cars had way more power than grip catching out many drivers.

    3. @xivizmath

      whines as it is turbocharged.

      Ummmm, you are aware that Turbo engines don´t whine right??? Supercharged engines produce the whining… at best, turbo engines whistle…..

      1. Arguably the best example of superchrger whining is on the VXR8 Bathurst S from vauxhall:

        1. @xjr15jaaag
          An even better example of what we might expect for this season…. this is obviously a twin turbo but it still doesn´t sound half as bad…. i kinda like it!


        2. @xjr15jaaag – I actually love the sound of the supercharger on that car: there’s a brutal growl from the V8 coupled with the high-pitch whine of the supercharger, it sounds like a combination between a grisly and a mini gun! I wouldn’t mind at all if the new cars sounded like that although I expect an element of the shriek characteristic of formula 1 will remain, or so I hope.

          1. I think it’s brilliant

          2. Guys, please don’t mix turbo with supercharger. Totally different concepts to give a boost to the engine. First one compress air to the cylinders with a turbine which is drive by the exhaust gases, and the supercharger is mechanical compressor that gets the power to compress the air in to the cylinders by the crankshaft. Supercharger start to work from 0 revs while turbo needs exhaust gas to start means it work at higher revs. Supercharger will spend more fuel than turbo. And they sound different. Was this helpfull or boring as hell? :))

    4. I wouldn’t be too worried about the sound, the first time I watched the TTXGP I found it really strange watching racing bikes going past with hardly any noise at all but after a while I didn’t even notice it.

    5. @nidzovski – I think we’re all well aware of this! ;)

      Ummmm, you are aware that Turbo engines don´t whine right??? Supercharged engines produce the whining… at best, turbo engines whistle…..

      That comment just spurred a discussion on the VXR8 Bathurst S to highlight the differences. Turbo’s aren’t quite as predominant in terms of noise of course.

    6. Bob (@bobthevulcan)
      25th January 2013, 4:31

      The last time F1 had turbocharged engines, they sounded viciously powerful. If we get more of that beefy audio, I honestly wouldn’t mind the change that much.

    7. They aren’t trying to become greener, they are trying to become more fuel efficient so the technology can be transferred to roadcars, hence locked specification relating to power output but not on the efficiency side of things. I’d much rather have them do this than engine manufacturers pull out of the sport due to it being irrelevant or uneconomic for them (perhaps this could bring the likes of Honda and Toyota back or Audi/VW in?).
      As for the turbos, they will be running from 0 revs due to the ERS powering them so there will be no lag so you can hardly say they will sound rubbish when nothing else runs this configuration. (And turbo sound is a opinion anyways :p )

    8. People complain about the cars going to v6 turbos, and yet i notice lots of f1 fans brag about the great days of 80s turbo f1 (a lot are the same people) :P
      let F1 do what they want, if fans turn off watching because of what engine is in the car, then they are not true fans. you can still hear f1 v10s if you really want in retro series and watching old videos.
      I can predict in 10 years, when another form of engine is introduced, people will then miss the sound of the new v6s
      And anyway, IndyCars moved from v8s, and v8 turbos (running as high as 16,000 rpm in the late 90s, down to v6 turbo also (10 or 12,000 rpm only, if i remember rightly), and the turbos sound great!

    9. I’ve about had enough of this whole greening of motorsport. The idea carbon emissions need to be reduced for ANY REASON is ludicrous. As racing fans. We cannot allow them to get away with the sentiment that we need to green racing. It will soon be banned if they get their foot in the door.This idea needs to be so thoroughly discredited that anyone who mentions such foolishness is laughed out of town because it’s utter nonsense. Racing tech should be about racing performance. Not trying to create some political narrative about emissions.

      1. The following is far closer to reality than what you suggest: “The idea that carbon emissions don’t need to be reduced is so thoroughly discredited that anyone who mentions such foolishness is laughed out of town because it’s utter nonsense.”

        F1 is doing absolutely the right thing by embracing modern automotive technologies that will make it a more relevant exercise for car manufacturers.

        1. Really? Would you care to make a wager on that? I’ll personally prove it to you. The amount of co2 emitted by humans is 6 gigatons a year. Compare that to the hundreds emitted just by bacteria a year. Add to that the thousands from dying vegetation. Then the tons by animals. Then all that combined is nothing compared to to the oceans. There is no evidence that supports the notion that co2 has anything to do with temperature. Co2 levels rise when the temperature goes up. Not the other way around. It’s utter nonsense. I”l give you my prized possession, my Ferrari Scuderia if you can produce one shred of evidence for it. I’ve got 30 years in the field. So I’m in the position to know. I know what the data is. The only reason they’re going to the turbo is this environmental nonsense. If you let them con you into accepting the co2 scare. You can kiss your freedom, your job, your prosperity, everything goodbye.

          1. To simplify things plants absorb CO2 and water and sunlight and make biomass (hydrocarbon) and emit oxygen. Plants get eaten, plants die, the animals/bacteria/fungi etc. that eat the plants get eaten, die etc., and eventually the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere which is basically the part of the cycle that you are describing, gigatonnes of CO2 from bacteria, dying vegetation, animals and the ocean life. Anything that consumes biomass to live, derives energy from it and emits carbon. Almost all of the energy and carbon in the food chain comes from near term absorption by the primary producers, plants, and as such don’t significantly affect CO2 levels near term as long as the volume of carbon in flux doesn’t change significantly. So almost all of the sources you are describing are part of the circle of life and will not, cannot significantly affect CO2 levels. The system is a closed loop except for what humans do with fossil fuels. So even if human activity is only 3% per-year of natural emissions it is the part that is accumulative whereas the rest is not. By the way the statistic of 6.15 gigatonnes of Carbon (not CO2) is a stat from 1990. In 2010 Humans emitted 33.5 gigatonnes of CO2 from burning coal and petroleum. And the oceans by the way are a net CO2 sink not source.

  3. Ugh..
    ERS looks like the only saving grace for 2014 engines.

    Also do not think they need to reduce the no. of allocated engines from 8 to 5… esspeially considering that this is the 1st year they will be running them.

    1. Flying Lobster 27
      24th January 2013, 16:30

      5 engines a year stood out as a shocking demand to me, given that perhaps the biggest unknown of these new engines will be their reliability. I see some logic behind it though: these engines are apparently going to be monumentally expensive, so less engines allowed per year, if the constructors can make them last correctly, will reduce the bill for the smaller teams – if they can’t, I see quite a few teams going bankrupt.

      1. 5 engines a year stood out as a shocking demand to me

        I was a bit surprised when I first read it, but then I realised what actually matters is the number of races each engine is expected to complete. That has increased from three to four, which seems a lot more reasonable.

        1. add lower rpm, a couple of years testing on the dyno and it should not be difficult. Honda USA used to advertise that their Indycar engines finished every race of the year in question without failure, and they powered every car.

        2. 8 engines have to last 2.5 races (4 engines 3races, 4engines 2races), so three races is worst case scenario for the V8. so they have to be made to last those 3 races, so if they do 2races there is no reason to be woried + they know the engines. for the v6turbos they have to last at least for 4 races , probably have to be projected for 5races (if one of them dies at the 3rd race). so they have (be projected) to last ~2 times as much..

    2. @todfod – I agree that it seems a bit unreasonable to request the teams make more reliable engines than the V8’s on the first try but one extra race per engine doesn’t sound too bad. Also, it is necessary to increase the reliability of the engines for costs’ sake, as the new engines are expected to be much more expensive than the current engines.

      1. @vettel1, much has been made of the high cost of the new engines, but (electronics aside) there is no reason other than development costs for a price increase ie. it is only because the current engines have been around unchanged for several years that their price has not increased.

        1. @hohum – for the first season with the engines at least I expect the engines will definetly be a much more significant proportion of the teams’ budgets as of course they are new units and the teams will have to incur some of the engine manufacturer’s development costs. After a few seasons though indeed I would expect a similar thing as to what happened with the V8’s will occur and reliability/costs will improve.

          We have to remember though that the engines are not simply engines in 2014: they include the various ERS and of course the turbos as part of the package which was not present with the V8’s.

          1. I guess the point that @hohum was getting at though is that a large part of the extra cost isn’t a per-unit cost. If the manufacturer wants to recoup a certain amount of their development cost by adding it to the unit price a reduction from 8 to 5 units per year shouldn’t affect that since there will just be more of this additional cost put onto each unit to reflect the lower number of units. Indeed for a manufacturer it will be better to supply more teams since the amortised development cost will be spread over a wider number of units and can therefore be kept lower.

    3. I’m surprised everyone is talking about engine and not Kers for 2014 pronostics … Okay the engine is a what’s run the car but the KERS is becoming very significant and it’s a big step from where it actually is.
      Would it favor McLaren and send back RedBull to the back, could be even more significant than the difference between Mercedes and Renault engines.

      1. @jeanrien – definitely if Red Bull continue to have their usual KERS gremlins although I doubt Adrian Newey will comprimise the KERS cooling in 2014 when it becomes such as significant factor in performance. If you were to have an ERS failure you’d probably lose seconds per lap, not tenths.

        I have a feeling Mercedes will have the advantage in the engine department however: they are the first to have shown their engine to journalists which likely means they are ahead in development (unless of course Ferrari & Renault are being ultra-secretive about their projects). They have appeared to have the most powerful engines over the last several years and I’m not expecting that to change.

      2. Yes indeed, but who is supplying and integrating the ERS package, the engine supplier or the individual teams?

        Will the turbocharger driven generator just be a complementary source of power or is it going to be part of an overall integrated package?

        Are there fixed parameters for the ERS system or is it ” anything goes” within the charge/discharge limits mentioned in the article, that is are methods as diverse as Williams’ flywheel technology and say Piezo-electric cells in the suspension going to be allowed or will it basically be just a beefed-up version of the current KERS plus the turbo/gen ?

        @keithcollantine, I think this might a suitable subject for an article.

        1. The ERS (not inclusive of the ES) is part of the homoglation process and so will be purchased with the engine from the manufacturer. ( Engine weight includes this in the tech regs)
          This means the only advantage the teams can get from the power units over other teams running the same unit is either the ES or power management. Bear in mind though the ES rules stipulate that the weight must be no less than 20kg and no more than 25kg (so no much scope)
          Flybrid tech cannot be packaged effectively enough to be used right in F1 btw

          1. Thanks again @somersf1, pity, an opportunity lost for some real competitive development with real-world applications.

  4. I can hear whining already.
    I, personally, am looking forward to the new engine regs. Nice chance for a bit of engine innovation and it will be much more road relevant so hopefully road cars will benefit from the development work :)

    1. I am with you there, but for how long will we actually have any development before the FIA stops it and decrees an “equalisation” has been achieved.

    2. @bladeaddict, I just read Somers excellent article (below) and I am going to start whining right now, “development will cease on March 14 2014” so either all engines will be equal (boring) at the 1st race or the field could be separated into 3 classes, fast, medium and slow depending on engine performance. I was hoping for at least a few races where we saw teams gain and lose competitiveness as they refined their respective power-packages.

      1. There will still be differentials as each team will have different power management/deployment strategies along with fuel strategy. I suspect most people will be pleasantly surprised in 2014 as strategy will once again play a major role in how teams approach races.

        1. @somersf1, what do you think will happen if 1 package is vastly superior to the other 2, will the FIA allow it to dominate the season before the others are allowed to catch up or will there be an opportunity made for the others to catch up like happened when the 2.4L formula began ?

          1. Personally I think they will let it ride for a season as each circuit will represent a new energy management challenge with each team adopting differing strategies.

  5. I don’t think things will be anywhere near as bad as the critics believe.

    James Allen recently did an article having been able to hear the Mercedes V6 on the dyno & these were his thoughts on the sound.

    It is noticeably less of a high-pitched wail at peak revs, as the maximum is now 15,000rpm, rather than the 18,000 previously. But through the upshifts and downshifts it sounds very much like an F1 engine and there is a sweetness to the sound which is distinctively F1. And the turbo, which revs to a maximum 125,000rpm will also be audible.

    I also like these quotes-

    More spectacular racing, with F1 cars having more power than grip on corner exits and an opportunity to showcase technology and innovation, putting F1 back at the cutting edge – these are the likely hallmarks of Formula 1 as it will be under the new formula in 2014, according to experts who are building the new engines.

    With the new generation hybrid devices, the power unit will produce far more torque than the current V8s and this will lead to the cars stepping out more at the rear as they exit corners.

    Something been ignored is that ERS will not be driver operated like KERS currently is. Much like at Le Mans the ERS system will simply come on under acceleration which as James says will give the drivers a fair bit of extra torque kicking them out of corners which is likely to see cars sliding around more exiting slower corners.

    I also think its worth looking at the Indycar series which now runs V6 Turbo engine’s, They had a great 2012 season & the smaller V6 Turbo units did nothing to detract from the racing & having attended a few races I thought they sounded great.

    1. “ERS will not be driver operated” ? at 33seconds a lap I suppose for many circuits that will cover all full throttle applications but what about those tracks like Monza that have a greater time at full throttle?

      1. @hohum – I suspect that the teams will be able to change the engine mapping or give a time delay so that the ERS is used more effectively on the high-speed tracks like Monza & Spa where full-throttle is for more than 33 seconds/lap but it will definitely be intriguing to see how that plays out. Perhaps the drivers will have a certain level of time which they have control over, rather like the current KERS, to which they can operate as they please once the automatic ERS deployment is used up? I’m just coming up with ideas on the spot but I too wouldn’t think that they would have it so that the ERS is used up at Monza from likely around the exit of Ascari.

        1. @vettel1 team can probably program it such that it works on certain rpm, shift or anything else. And would be interesting to see how they distribute the use of it quicker exit – lower high speed could match slower exit – beter high speed …
          Who develop those ERS ? is it still team developped as the actual KERS ? If such that could play a role as big as the engine itself

          1. @jeanrien – I believe it is the manufacturers of the engines who are developing the ERS as they are an integral part of the engines more so than the current KERS systems, with turbo’s and MGUH/K’s included in the engine units.

          2. As you guys are discussing already, having the engine and the ERS power working together is exactly what works best. electric engery can be used to get up to a good speed when maximum acceleration is needed, esp from slower bits (where combustion engines can be operating below their optimum revs).
            That is exactly how normal day hybrids work at getting good milage and/or nice performance, by optimizing for the strengths of both.

          3. @vettel1, @jeanrien,@bascb, because it will not be usable for the entire full throttle time at some circuits I expect it will operate automatically through the throttle as you suggest but will have an on/off switch so the driver can choose which part of the lap he most wants to use/save it.

          4. @hohum – yea, that makes much more sense than some of the ideas I came up with! It would of course also allow for tactical use too so a double bonus, it’s just a shame we still have DRS.

        2. The other factor to bear in mind is that it takes 2 laps to harvest enough energy for the full 160bhp bost for 33seconds so if it is fully used up every lap then there is in effect either only 80hp or 17 seconds. Presumably the most efficient way over the course of a race would be to use only 2MJ per lap in the most efficient way possible, whilst for overtaking/defending being able to build a reserve of 4MJ would be beneficial.

          1. Actually, that’s not right.

            The 2MJ per lap limitation purely applies to energy transfer from the MGUK to the ES. Energy transfers both to and from the MGUH to the ES are unlimited (as are energy transfers between the MGUK and MGUH units).

          2. gets confusin, dont it.

  6. Cannot wait to see how f1 adapts to a change like this. Is it one single turbocharger working in the unit, and at what revs? I take it there’s no double turbo system to cover the whole rev range, so will there be turbo lag with these new engines?

    1. Correct, it’ll be one single turbocharger, which apparently can rev up to 125,000rpm (!). As for turbo lag, your guess is as good as mine.

      1. and they may also be driving an alternator which will increase lag unless the turbochargers are designed to achieve max rpm continuously through the power band, off-throttle blowing????

        1. The more I think about this alternator/turbocharger unit the more intriguing it gets.
          Perhaps in off throttle situations the alternator will be isolated so it will not be producing electrical current but will in fact act as a flywheel to maintain the turbos rpm. Any cleverclogs out there who know if this would work?

      2. I red somewhere that the turbo’s electric generator , works as an electric motor as well boosting the turbo while accelerating and reduce turbolag!

        1. Ah haa, clever!

      3. I still think calling an alternator driven from a turbine spun by high velocity exhaust gas a heat recovery system is pure tautology.

        1. Drop Valencia!
          25th January 2013, 3:46

          And you would be absolutely correct!

    2. I don’t know how much turbo lag there will be, but by the end of the of the previous turbo era much of the problem had been solved and, I imagine, with another 25 years of technological advancement, turbo lag in these engines shouldn’t be too serious.

      I think it’s the combination of turbo and ERS that will give drivers the most headaches; I’m sure many drivers will need to adjust their driving style. It’s gonna be quite interesting and scriting.

      1. *exciting.

      2. I think that will put Vettel in the pound seat; in 2011 with new and strange tyres, he was able to adapt very quickly to them, so in theory he should be able to adapt to the turbocharged engines as well; apparently, according to Adrian Newey, that is one of his strengths.

        1. I think what Vettel was best at adapting to was the counter-intuitive way rear grip increased mid-corner with more throttle opening rather than the traditional way of defeating oversteer by backing off the throttle. I didn’t see him adapt any faster than his team-mate to the tyres, although the latter did have problems in mid-pack situations.

          1. @hohum, @xjr15jaaag I think you could both be right. As hohum says it was the counter-intuitive action that Vettel seemed best at dealing with, however with the complex interaction of ERS and turbo along with the need to control fuel consumption it could be that once again a counter-intuitive driving action is required and Vettel’s brain might adapt best to whatever is required to deal with this.

        2. I’ve never really understood where the whole idea of Vettel needing the right set-up arose: he was the best at adapting to the “unnatural” driving style required by the EBD’s and so I expect he’ll adapt very well to the new cars. Albeit they will no longer be as planted as he’d like which may play into the more aggressive driving styles of Hamilton or Alonso but I’d expect that Vettel, Hamilton & Alonso will remain as the faster three drivers.

          1. Vettel is ****** next, he wont win the title again.

  7. Seriously, 33.3 sec from the ERS per lap? Might as well integrate its activation into the fuel foot pedal.

    1. That is whats available but doesn’t mean you can use it, a track like Monaco and Singapore I would have though it would be difficult to use it all.

      But your right…its a big amount.

      1. I would say that @reg is perfectly right, and expect that is exactly what manufacturers will do. At a track like Monaco or Singapore I would think its even more worth with all the slow corners. Remember those are the areas were full electro cars or hybrids running on their electrical engines excel @georgetuk (at acceleration from lower revs a combustion engine struggles most, electrical drives are not).

    2. I´m guessing it´ll act sort of like how Toyota´s VVTi works…. you might have the pedal at half way but if you press it all the way down… it kicks in the vvti…. so I´m guessing it will be integrated to the gas pedal and it will be up to the drivers to manage the power….

      1. I think a NOX system might be a better analogy.

    3. I believe it won’t be independently operated. It will automatically come on when accelerating.

      1. @giuseppe
        well… then what use will it be then??? if it is activated simultaneously while accelerating… that means you´ll just have that 160 bhp on the opening 33 seconds of the lap….
        If it is actually settup to activate at WOT or at 85% throttle then yes…. you can make those 160 bhp las for the entire lap… it wouldn´t make sense to have it and not being able to use it to defend from drs in a race…. I believe it will activate on-demand or at WOT!

        1. Of course it won’t be on every time you press the accelerator, but since I don’t know the specifics what would be the point of me saying how and when it will be done? All I know is that it won’t be driver operated and it will automatically come on under acceleration. At what precise settings, I have no idea. Probably it will be down to each team to come up with their own settings for when the power is delivered, depending on the race track, and what set-up they prefer.

          The amount of time spent accelerating and the amount of time spent at full throttle can vary wildly from race to race, depending on how long and how fast the circuit is, so it would be daft to use the same setting on every track.

    4. “Might as well integrate its activation into the fuel foot pedal.”

      There’s no choice in the matter – that’s what the regulations require:

      5.5 Power unit torque control :
      5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is
      via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator) pedal.

      1. @nigelf1, so does this mean that the drivers can or cannot have a switch to save or use electric power on those tracks where WOT is used more than 33.33 seconds per lap even though the electric motor is only activated by depressing the accelerator. I guess it depends on how you define “control”, would isolating the engine from the battery pack so as to save power for when it is most needed be deemed controlling acceleration torque negatively?

        1. @hohum

          so does this mean that the drivers can or cannot have a switch to save or use electric power on those tracks where WOT is used more than 33.33 seconds per lap

          I’ve had a quick read of the regulations and it doesn’t seem to state that is forbidden, so I assume they will be able to turn off the ERS to save it for use at a latter point on the lap. The only snagi could see is the rules regarding engine mapping, meaning that the accelerator position has to correspond directly to engine torque demand. I wouldn’t expect that the ERS will be included in that regulation though.

  8. I think we could get a lot of spins next year as people get used to the power delivery in different conditions and surfaces. They have had the V8s for a long time now.

    Are feeder categories such as GP2 going near this as otherwise it will be a big difference? Could also mean a quieter time on the young driver market going into 2014 because of that jump.

    Either way…exciting times!

    1. Should be good for drivers who like tail happy cars.

  9. I’m hugely excited for the new engines. The journos say they sound good, and it’s great to see emphasis being put on the ERS system. I don’t think there’ll be a power deficit compared to the V8s with the new energy recovery methods. Obviously the whinge brigade will keep claiming how they’ll stop watching F1, it’s a disgrace, etc etc, but in reality we’re in for some exciting changes in 2014, can’t wait!

  10. Michael Brown (@)
    24th January 2013, 16:40

    The only thing that annoys me at the moment with the 2014 regs are the fixed gear ratios.

  11. Hey Keith, I hate it to be that annoying engineer, but in the article the Power Output from ERS is the supposed to mean the same as the Power boost. You repeated yourself. 161bhp = 120kW. Watts (W) and horsepower (bhp) are both units for power. They mean the same thing, one is just bigger than the other. =)

    1. @chebeto0 Good point – have removed the extra line.

      1. @keithcollantine

        2MJ Maximum energy that can be harvested from ERS, up from 400kJ

        With two sources of recovered energy to use the limit on the amount of power they can generate has been raised

        The 2 and 4 MJ per lap limits apply to energy transfers between the Energy Store (Batteries) and the MGU-K (KERS) ONLY. The MGU-H, which is connected to the turbocharger shaft, can send and receive unlimited amounts to and from the ES. There is also an unlimited exchange of energy allowed directly between the MGU-K aand the MGU-H as long as it doesn’t go through the Energy Store.

        the consensus view is today’s cars have around 750bhp.

        Their replacements are expected to produce the same – before the addition of further power from ERS is taken into account

        The engines themselves are expected to produce 600-650 HP and equal the current engines output only after the addition of power from the ERS.

  12. It may be worth noting that gearboxes will now feature 8 forward gears as opposed to 7 too. The engine output prior to ERS will be around 600-650BHP so a little down on the V8’s however the area that the teams aren’t talking about is the symbiotic relationship between the MGUK (Kinetic or KERS) & MGUH (Heat or HERS/TERS). Although 4MJ of energy can be released via KERS at a maximum of 120KW (compared to now 400KJ / 60KW) there can be an exchange of energy between the two systems if it doesn’t go via the Energy Store (ES). That means whilst in the braking phase the MGUK can recover energy and feed it straight to the MGUH to keep the turbo spooled for instantaneous power when the driver returns to the throttle.
    The engines are restricted to 15,000rpm but due to the fuel flow restriction above 10,500rpm it’s unlikely that any team will rev beyond 12-12500rpm as the curve simply flattens out.
    2014’s power plants will be inherently different to the V8’s used now but don’t see it as a bad thing these engines will provide much more torque and so although they seem down on power we will certainly see cars squirming out of corners much more.
    As for the sound, yes they won’t have the same sound as a V8 but it will be something that is unmistakeably F1 as no other class of motorsport or road car is yet to use anything remotely advanced as these units. I expect a much more low down bellow.

    One of my latest articles covers quite a large proportion of the new power plants and so may be worth looking at as a supplement to Keith’s great piece: http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/2014s-power-units-16-v6-turbos-with-ers.html

    1. Thank you Somers excellent article, don’t know how I missed it.
      Reading the bit about the Li-ion batteries placement and considering the recent coverage of Boeings 787s trouble I expect the drivers may want to double-up on the fire-proof undies.

      1. Thanks glad you enjoyed it, in regard to Boeing and Li-Ion batteries I believe they were going beyond the charging capacity of the batteries and that’s what caused the issue. One of the biggest challenges facing the teams regarding ERS will be thermal management/cooling

        1. Nick Smythchomleyhigginbottom
          24th January 2013, 22:33

          The thing about lithium ion batteries is they catch fire/swell/explode when they are overcharged. Whether they do these things and how extremely depends on the battery chemistry. I’m hoping the F1 rule makers were smart enough to set the rules so either a) certain chemistries of batteries are not allowed, or b) the teams can’t use the top 5%ish of the state of charge of the batteries. That would prevent the teams being too ambitious about minimizing the weight of the battery by stuffing more into fewer cells. When you try and do that, that’s when you get the heat and then finally the fire.

    2. Wow, very nice article, I was able to understand that quite well. I’m not a very technical guy when it comes to racing, more so with F1 since I’ve only been a fan for 2 or so years now. Thank you again :-)

    3. if you are right about peak revs being 12-12500 I will be very sad. That’ll mean my little 250cc motorcycle will outrev a million dollar prototype F1 car engine. That’s just so wrong, even if the comparison is totally meaningless. :'(

      1. @lurker

        I don´t think that´ll be the case…. I f they have been given a 15,000 rev limit…. believe me they will map the engine so that they can use all of thos 15,000 revs…. no point in not using thos extra revs…

  13. Hard to imagine the 2014 cars being able to complete normal race distances at normal, or possibly even higher speeds, using only 60% or so of the fuel that they carry now. That’s pretty amazing stuff.

  14. i really like the new rules, particularly the fuel flow limit. i still have mixed feelings over the forced lifespan and rev limits:

    – it narrows the effective budget gaps between teams, somewhat leveling the playing field.
    – is that what f1 is about? besides, well-funded teams are still loaded and broke teams are still broke.

    – reliability has never been higher, so there are more cars to enjoy for the length of the race.
    – BORING! chance is a huge element in the sport from both the participants’ and fans’ perspectives. the teams are constantly working to reduce this, so the governing body should be reinforcing uncertainty, not not killing it. having all cars complete a parade doesn’t stop it from being a parade.

    i’d like to see teams free to blow up their cars at any time in pursuit of speed. it should be their choice to play conservatively (for budgetary reasons, taking points in hand, a punishing track, et cetera) or to roll the dice to score the win. in that, there is sport.

  15. Pirellis don’t slide, do they? If the cars are to be more spectacular out of the corners, they’ll need some radically different tyres – or a new supplier.

    I thought drivers who compared Pirelli tyres with Michelins, Bridgestone etc said they’d destroy the Pirellis unless they were precise about braking then turning, and finishing the turn before getting the power on. Not just Michael Schumacher and his eggshells, but (I think it was) Alexander Rossi talking about GP2 Pirellis & Renault 3.5’s Michelins.

    1. @bullfrog, funny isn’t it, everyone talks about how great the racing is when the track is wet and slippery but how bad the racing is when the tyres are hard and slippery.

  16. With so much technology involved it is oficial: NASA F1 is entering the 2014 F1 season :)

    1. Nah, they don’t have the budget.

  17. Their replacements are expected to produce the same – before the addition of further power from ERS is taken into account.

    @keithcollantine what’s your source for that? The articles I’ve read suggest about 600 horespower for the petrol engine component of the drivetrains, with current power levels matched only when KERS/TERS is fully deployed.

    1. no source

  18. Overall very mediocre stats, I guess they are freezing the development off the bat. Don’t expect any difference in engines, they all will be pretty much identical.

    Road Car technology in F1, that the new moto.

  19. I don’t know about anyone else, but I genuinely cannot wait to hear these engines in action. Frankly, if they sound anything like the Indycar engines, I’ll be happy!

  20. This might be a daft question – sorry if it is. But the max amount of fuel per race is 100kg; any race? No difference between Monaco and Monza?
    And are there any restrictions on the amount of fuel used in practice or qualifying?

  21. I don’t like the idea of fuel limit. It was very embarrassing for the image of F1 in the 1980s to see cars regularly run out of fuel in the dying stages of the races. Of course, it provided some excellent spectacle, drama and it can be an interesting strategic variable, but still, F1 once deemed it is not in the best of its interest to see cars trying to outlast themselves while running 60 km/h during the last two laps.

    Personally, I’m for the reintroduction of refuelling and the introduction of some very serious penalty if a fuel-related accident happens in the pits. Refuelling was a great idea, masterminded by Ecclestone & Co at Brabham in 1982, I think it has a place in F1, it would be a key strategic variable as well without deteriorating the image of the sport, while its shortcomings (accidents) can be eliminated by cleverly-mixed rules package.

  22. @atticus-2

    It was very embarrassing for the image of F1 in the 1980s to see cars regularly run out of fuel in the dying stages of the races

    Technology back then was not as advanced as it is now… so I guess that won´t happen as much…. but if it did, it´s great for racing…. it´ll be heartbreaking for some but it´ll make races much more exciting since you will never really know if they´ll make it to the end!

    1. @catracho504 Yes, I have already mentioned that agreement basically under ‘spectacle, drama and strategy’ and it is a valid point.

      But although technology is far more advanced by now, I think the fiercest competition will do result in 1980s-ish finishes, simply because teams will want to make use of every ounce of fuel in the tank.

      I expect more Barcelona 2012s and Abu Dhabi 2012s, but this time not during the Q3 inlaps, but during the last lap of the race – even more of them in one year, because the race will be longer than the Q3 runs and it will be harder to calculate.

      1. @atticus-2

        although technology is far more advanced by now, I think the fiercest competition will do result in 1980s-ish finishes

        Bring it on!!! I shouldn´t be rooting for this since mack then… Ferrari had a big issue with fuel consumption….. but hey…. that is definitely a big part of motor racing and I welcome it whole-heartedly!!

        I expect more Barcelona 2012s and Abu Dhabi 2012s, but this time not during the Q3 inlaps, but during the last lap of the race

        Could be… but, again, those where cases in which the teams deliberately(undeliberately, depends on how you choose to see it) underfueled the car in order to claim pole. Some argue and blame a robot…. in the other case thay said it was an “honest” mistake for the second time! So yeah…. I think the team can really manage the numbers nowadays, they sometimes choose to overlook that so I wouldn´t be too worried about that… besides, turbo´s do have a better fuel efficiency compared to N/A engines…

        One thing is for certain…. This is gonna be a whole new ballgame once these engines hit the track…. I want to see how they use the exhaust gases on these since they say it´s gonna be 1 exhaust directly in the middle pointing or exiting near the rear wing. That´ll definitely make a big difference. I honestly cannot wait till 2014 let alone for this season… The off time is just tortuous!!

  23. I don’t agree with the people that say that v6 are going to make cars slide more in corners because they have more torque than the v8.

    Torque measured in the engine doesn’t matter because the final torque that reaches the wheels is changed by the gearbox. The only important thing is power, which is the same at the engine and at the wheels (a little less here because of mechanical loses). The power on the wheels is the real torque (the torque the wheels applies to the ground) plus the spin velocity of the wheel. So, the maximum real torque for any given speed is the power given by the engine divided by the spin velocity of the wheel.

    To work with some crude figures we can estimate that the current V8’s produce around 220 lb/ft X 18,000rpm /5252 = 753BHP

    V6 Turbo – 600bhp @ 10,500rpm would be 300lb/ft

    But when you take into account the gearbox the real torque applied to the wheels that move the car is grater in the 750 BHP car. Imagine two cars with the engines working at Those points and at the same speed, a wheel spin speed of 10500 rpm (random number for easier operations). In the v6 the gear ratio would be 1/1 so the real torque would be 300 lb/ft. In the v8 the gear ratio would be 18000/10500 so the real torque would be 377 lb/ft.

    I’m tired of seeing reviews where they say one car is better because it has more torque. Of course a diesel has more torque than a similar petrol engine because it works at lower revs. But if both cars have the same power, similar power/rev graph and the same weight they would get the same exact acceleration.

    So people please forget about torque, power is what matters!

    PS: Torque and power are indeed the same, but you can use power to compare different engines always and torque only when they work at the same revs.

    1. I understand what you are saying but usually forced induction engines have a “fatter” torque band, ie more torque at lower rpm and sustained to higher rpm, a bit like a bigger capacity engine that does not rev so high can have more “grunt” but ultimately less horsepower, think Chevy Corvette V Ferrari, comparable power but the Corvette is much easier to drive in traffic because of its low rpm torque superiority and we notice the same effect when we drive a turbo diesel. But of course you are correct to mention the effect of gearing and as Somers points out, this year they will have 1 extra ratio (same as Hyundai) and a fatter torque curve.

  24. glen turnbull
    13th May 2013, 14:34

    Hi, will the new V6 still give us the “ear busting” sounds you get from the V8

  25. At the moment ,in my opinion ,GP2 cars are the benchmark for driver comparison since they are almost identical in specifications. They are also less complicated and much cheaper than F1 cars in all aspects.
    If FIA were to support this series and present it globally in a better way, it could be a platform which separates the best drivers from the runner ups more accurately than the existing F1 championship where everything else besides Driver talent comes into play…

  26. 500bar Fuel injection pressure limit???????????
    this must be a misprint I have never heard of anything over 4bar??
    I run 1.2bar in a sr20det(4cl 2L turbo) and im making a little under 380 at the wheels.

  27. I am not too worried about the engines or ES thing. I think the 5 engines is good so maybe we will see some cars getting some failures!

    The next year will be terribly boring. Every race will just end with the cars saving fuel and not racing. The driver should be the limiting factor in F1, not the tyres or the amount of fuel it has. Bring back refueling, get rid of the DRS. It is actually making the races boring as people wait till the straights to overtake and dont do it in other corners. They have to stop making these rules to manufacture “exciting” races, thats why we have the crap tyres (not all Pirellis fault), no refueling, this stupid DRS, 100kg of fuel.


    We should look back and get the rules from a good year and do those again

  28. Juan Luis Elgueta
    3rd February 2014, 14:54

    I miss the sound of the v8′ :(

  29. It is about racing? What does racing mean to you? Looking at “vehicles” running on a track?

    F1 is the TOP level of motor sport. An F1 race should be when you stand next to the track and a F1 car passes that you will put your fingers in your ears. That is part of it. The sound, the smells the ambiance and the fact that it is the top level motorsport in the world. If we all change this to some silly “regular” standards we just might go to a DTM race instead of F1. Because it is all the same and not “the F1” anymore.

    How many times you go to a moped race each year? You don’t go? Why not? Because you have/had one at home. We don’t have 20.000rpm V10 engines at home like they had in 2008. And this is why we go to F1, to experience that.

    Now they just sound like freakin whistles these F1 cars. Engine sound is the same as MotoGP. And this ERS, great for being green. But we don’t see much of that when we stand next to the track.

    Starting to wonder if the V8 supercars in Australia will be 4cil supercars in the next decade.

  30. After reading the rules and the restrictions its obvious F1 has lost its edge in favor of happy feet penguins or some other ridiculous cr@p.
    When telemetry decides whether you’re allowed enough fuel to pass or not, that isn’t racing.
    Why not just draw cards to see who wins, just as interesting.

Comments are closed.