[3798j]

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

...TWO CRANKSHAFTS...

As only BRM (British Racing Motors) could envision...the incredibly complicated two crankshaft H16 for the new 1966 3L engine formula.

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by 3798j

As only BRM (British Racing Motors) could envision...the incredibly complicated two crankshaft H16 for the new 1966 3L engine formula.

Hahaha yes!!!

[GeorgeA]

Originally Posted by 3798j

As only BRM (British Racing Motors) could envision...the incredibly complicated two crankshaft H16 for the new 1966 3L engine formula.

This is the craziest engine setup I’ve seen! Wow!

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by 3798j

Also consider...turbos quiet exhaust quite a bit plus the 1.6 V6 engines are limited to 15,000 rpm, but rarely exceed 12,000 rpm during a race due to the new reliability (three ICE's for a season or grid penalties) and the dreaded fuel flow restrictions. Plus, when the new engine regs were being considered, inline 4 cylinder engines were initially part of the discussion but Adrian Newey pointed out that a change to a V6 would enable teams to still carry the engine as a stressed member, whereas an inline 4 would have required a space frame. The same would apply to an I6. Additionally, it would be hard to imagine Ferrari embracing an I6 engine formula.

The 3 power unit rule is new, the hybrid cars never went up to 15k though. Im pretty sure they dont go to 15k because the engines lose efficency and it doesnt make sense to rev them out to 15k from a performance point of view.

[mkoesel]

According to Wikipedia (not sure if it can be verified elsewhere):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formul...–present

Adrian Newey stated during the 2011 European Grand Prix that the change to a V6 enables teams to carry the engine as a stressed member, whereas an inline 4 would have required a space frame.

Presumably this would also apply to an I6 as well.

That being said, it occurred to me while reading this thread, BMW happens to have an I6 that displaces 1.6L, just like an F1 V6 does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_K1600#Technology

According to the wiki entry, it is the most compact I6 ever produced. Of course with a cylinder spacing of just 77mm, it would not be able to accommodate the as-big-as 80mm bores the F1 V6 engines use. So, it couldn't achieve as short as stroke as they do either (without decreasing displacement), and thus could not be made to rev as high as they do, and probably therefore couldn't make as much power.

Still, I thought it was sort of interesting that BMW's motorcycle engine gives us a glimpse into what an F1 I6 might actually look like if it existed.

[RXeckless]

Originally Posted by rainfall

Lots of people complain that F1 lost the sound of the V8 (well I miss the V10's for that matter). I kind of agree that the V6's don't sound as great and we all know the downsize is due to emissions regulations (right?)

Regardless, I wonder what would happen if F1 implemented the straight six in their engines. In my (biased) opinion, it would sound a lot better than the current V6's, would have a similar displacement and sound amazing. Wouldn't it?

I know it's not F1 but this is a sound I personally miss:

BRAP

[Poiseuille]

Originally Posted by 3798j

As only BRM (British Racing Motors) could envision...the incredibly complicated two crankshaft H16 for the new 1966 3L engine formula.

just think of the missed opportunity when F1 was denied the combination of the H16 and the ummmm, "short-lived" Ferguson AWD F1 car. See the attached pic of Himself driving the very car he raced at a recent Goodwood meeting.
(I suspect that Daniel Ricciardo thinks he's been driving that exact car throughout the season just ending)

[Poiseuille]

for a taste of what a BMW I6 can sound like watch the YouTube vid pictured below. Having seen and heard this motor in a Jagermeister MARCH 762 at the Watkins Glen historics a few years ago I can certify that that motor is A LOT louder then the video. The other picture is of an F2 car similar to the one I saw at the Glen. The blue car is the same chassis in Formula Atlantic configuration with a four-cylinder Brian Hart Ford BDA. Driver is my brother back in the day.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

According to Wikipedia (not sure if it can be verified elsewhere):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formul...–present

Presumably this would also apply to an I6 as well.

I dont know if thats necessarily true.
There are multiple formula classes that use an I4 as engine and as stressed part of the frame, like Formula Renault.
You can strenghten the block any way you like to have it a stressed member of the frame.

I expect F1 to adapt 4cyl engines in the future (or maybe 3 cyl) once electrification becomes more a part of the cars. (I dont think thats an unstoppable trend)
I mean 25 years ago they had V12's and gradually the # of cylinders went down with the displacement. Why would that stop; they do this to limit power because of safety. There comes a point that the manufacturers can get 1000hp out of the current # of cylinders and displacement with this turbo pressure.

As long as F1 also has an agenda to adapt technology and trends that play a part of daily life cars, fuel consumption and efficiency are factors that play along. And an I4 is in the end more efficient than a V6 at these small displacements imho.

What I find a bit disappointing is that competing teams are not free to choose their engine configuration.
Why not set the rules so that you can have (or must have) a certain amount of displacement, a certain turbo pressure and you get a certain amount of fuel for a certain track/race and just figure it out. On the one side that may limit certain teams to compete because the diversity means maybe higher costs, but it will result in the most technological innovations.

[3798j]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I mean 25 years ago they had V12's and gradually the # of cylinders went down with the displacement. Why would that stop; they do this to limit power because of safety. There comes a point that the manufacturers can get 1000hp out of the current # of cylinders and displacement with this turbo pressure.

A little more than 30 years ago the formula had 4 cylinder 1.5L turbo engines making more than 1000hp (BMW's M12 made an estimated 1400HP in qualifying trim). The formula then changed to limit boost which lowered horsepower making 3.5L na engines a viable alternative.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I dont know if thats necessarily true.

Yeah, it might not be. It is possible this is a misquote or misinterpretation. There is no attribution on that sentence in the Wikipedia article, and the one for the next sentence does not have any info about this claim.

I agree with you that it is possible in general to use an inline engine as stressed member.

I expect F1 to adapt 4cyl engines in the future (or maybe 3 cyl) once electrification becomes more a part of the cars. (I dont think thats an unstoppable trend)

Yes, if they continue to reduce displacement - and I agree it’s a good bet they will at least one more time before eventually going pure electric - it would make sense to drop more cylinders too.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by 3798j

A little more than 30 years ago the formula had 4 cylinder 1.5L turbo engines making more than 1000hp (BMW's M12 made an estimated 1400HP in qualifying trim). The formula then changed to limit boost which lowered horsepower making 3.5L na engines a viable alternative.

At that time the manufacturers had the choice of using a 1,5L turbo engine or 3L NA engine. But with the permitted boost pressures (which now would be considered insanely high) the turbo engines got the overhand once reliability issues were solved.

I think in the early days they used something like 8 bar boost pressure in qualifying. The size of the turbo's back in those days were immense (and no variable geometry, twinscroll etc, so lag was immense. I wonder how many gears they had back in those days)

BTW in the late 70's/early 80's manufacturers didnt necessarily had to use i4 turbo engines within the boosted rules. The first turbo engine in F1 was a V6, and other manufacturers also used v6 engines, but back then manufacturers had the choice. I think thats better.

[The Choosey begger]

That's an easy one, because the car handles better with the much shorter V6.