2013 rules approved - sort of
 

12,000 rev limit on the smaller engine? Seems kind of strange to me. But it sounds like they are going to make KERS something more representative of what F1 could bring to hybrid power. As long as the racing is good.


And I can't believe the forum admin didn't use a live link to the story. http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...s/laughing.gif

Very odd! Fixed!

Hopefully.

I hope they still make a terrific noise.

I hope they don't, instead they are more energy efficient and faster.

But they should still sound good.

Ever seen or seen video of an electric car drag racing? It's just not right seeing that happen without some ICE sounds coming out of the car. http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...lies/smile.gif

It is probably just me, however I prefer a car that is silent and doesn't transform energy into noise instead of dynamic performance.

If the rules is to become operative for saving energy, and on the other hand the car is faster, this change would be good. I see it with implementation of HPIS, and the like of KERS or even DRS, the smaller car can be faster. It just sounds strange an F1 car is only 1.6 liter car, and 4 cyls likely it's a common four-cyls configuration.

This is F1 not slalom contest, besides the performance I think we still need some noises. As the engine gets smaller it will produce less noise, imo. http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...lies/smile.gif

Turbo chargers tend to act as silencers anyway.

But it would be very strange indeed to think that an F1 car has a 1.6 litre turbo charged engine... My car has a 1.6 litre turbo charged engine!

Agree, some claimed turbocharger improves horse power up to 40%. If it works on your 1.6 L car, it would be workable too for F1 car.

They will have bigger cylinders, 400cc per cylinder vs. 300cc now. But you're right, it is relatively a much lower limit compared to the current one. A Ducati 848 does about 11,000rpm on 424cc per cylinder, with 7,500 mile service intervals. I reckon with a 12,000 limit the F1 engines will last most of a season!

I'm surprised to see so many people saying it will be weird having four-pot turbos as F1 engines... not all born after 1988 surely? http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I guess that's part of the reason, have engines lasting a long time. It basically reduces an F1 engine to a commodity item, which IMO is a shame.

I'm surprised to see so many people saying it will be weird having four-pot turbos as F1 engines... not all born after 1988 surely? http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Even if you do remember that time, that was 23 years ago http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

And prior to that there were 4-pot engines in F1 for 40 years http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...ies/tongue.gif

Possibly, but the turbos will bring added heat and you'll always have the Adrian Neweys of this world packaging them in ever-tighter ways and pushing the boundries of cooling to their limits in the search for aero efficiency. Besides, surely longevity is a "good thing" - nobody wants to see engines spewing oil onto the racing line and teams pouring money down the drain for no good reason.

Yes, quite true. But pushing the limits is also a good thing so there is a balance to be struck there. A rev limit that's only slightly above what a road-going engine can do is a bit too far on the reliability side IMO.