planetf1.com

Inspired by the aero rules thread, I was just thinking how these days F1 is all about aero and the tyres. I remember how in the last decade there was still a good healthy competition over who produces the most powerful engines and for a long time, BMW held that crown. Nowdays we only have 3 main engine suppliers (Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault) plus the old Cosworth. If Mercedes is contemplating to leave F1, that would leave us with only a competition between Ferrari and Renault which would be really sad. Although a company called PURE has announced it plans to supply engines for season 2014, still we only have a handful world's leading engine manufacturers left.

So as most probably know, the FIA have announced that 2014 will see the change to 1.6 litre, turbocharged V6s. They say it makes F1 look greener. Of course it's good to show care for the environment, but I fear these kind of regulations with decreasing power and increasing reliability (which is already on a very high level) might eliminate the little competition we have left and possibly even pave way for standardized engines by only one engine supplier? Much like how we only have one supplier for tyres. Also the engine sound is basically a huge part of F1's brand and I don't think anybody wants F1 car to sound like a lawnmower, like a GP3 car. What do you think?

I personally don't want a sole engine supplier. It would be one step too far in the spec series direction in my opinion.

As for the reducing the engine size to these 1.6's. I don't think it will make a fat lot of difference to the environment. I always thought the biggest polluters were the spectators themselves travelling to the event. But then again, F1 has to be seen attempting to be green so I guess it's understandable.

The biggest polluters [outside of the spectators, although I'm not sure how they compare] are the haulage companies that transport the kit and cars all over the world. Not helped by the layout of the calendar, with 2 visits to the Americas, 2 visits to the Far East, 2 to the Middle East... you get the idea.

As for the regulations themselves, what we see on track will be little different to the racing we have now, but a little quieter. Well, maybe a lot quieter, depending on the exhausts.

Tufty wrote:The biggest polluters [outside of the spectators, although I'm not sure how they compare] are the haulage companies that transport the kit and cars all over the world. Not helped by the layout of the calendar, with 2 visits to the Americas, 2 visits to the Far East, 2 to the Middle East... you get the idea.

Yeah, that's what I meant by saying that changing engine regulations only makes F1 look greener. In reality, the whole logistics chain with airplanes and trucks creates many times more pollution than 24 race cars driving around a circuit a few hours.

froze wrote:They say it makes F1 look greener. Of course it's good to show care for the environment,

This is the problem they have with these Engine regulations and making it as an excuse for F1 to go greener, as this is all it is to dumb F1 down and bring the costs down. F1 (Bernie etc) introduce night races which pump out so much pollution it's unreal, and this after commenting about F1 has a greener future. In reality if F1 cared to go greener there would be no night races amongst many other things, as the engines are actually one of the things in the build up and at an F1 event that causes some of the least pollution.

So we are getting engine regulations which dumb things down mainly for the cost, and now with potentially less big manufacturers in the future F1 is headed more towards a single spec series in terms of engines, if it carries on at this rate at least.

froze wrote:

Tufty wrote:The biggest polluters [outside of the spectators, although I'm not sure how they compare] are the haulage companies that transport the kit and cars all over the world. Not helped by the layout of the calendar, with 2 visits to the Americas, 2 visits to the Far East, 2 to the Middle East... you get the idea.

Yeah, that's what I meant by saying that changing engine regulations only makes F1 look greener. In reality, the whole logistics chain with airplanes and trucks creates many times more pollution than 24 race cars driving around a circuit a few hours.

But making F1 look greener IS the intention. In the grand scheme of things, F1 as a whole is responsible for a negligible proportion of the world's CO2 emissions. The new rules aren't meant to reduce F1's carbon footprint, they're supposed to attract more sponsors (and therefore bring more money into the sport) by creating a brand image that more companies will want to associate themselves with.

I think we pretty much have standard engines now. Yes there are four suppliers, but restrictive engine rules and the lack of development mean that there is very little difference between them.

I was sceptical of the new engine rules at first, but I've changed my stance somewhat since then. The current engines use antiquated technology that lags behind the automotive industry. Many people don't like the idea of F1 cars having the same engine size as the cars we drive every day, personally I don't like the idea of F1 cars using technology that belongs in the 1900s. And I am pretty sure that the new engines will be far from quiet.

j man wrote:

froze wrote:

Tufty wrote:The biggest polluters [outside of the spectators, although I'm not sure how they compare] are the haulage companies that transport the kit and cars all over the world. Not helped by the layout of the calendar, with 2 visits to the Americas, 2 visits to the Far East, 2 to the Middle East... you get the idea.

Yeah, that's what I meant by saying that changing engine regulations only makes F1 look greener. In reality, the whole logistics chain with airplanes and trucks creates many times more pollution than 24 race cars driving around a circuit a few hours.

But making F1 look greener IS the intention. In the grand scheme of things, F1 as a whole is responsible for a negligible proportion of the world's CO2 emissions. The new rules aren't meant to reduce F1's carbon footprint, they're supposed to attract more sponsors (and therefore bring more money into the sport) by creating a brand image that more companies will want to associate themselves with.

True. But the way I see it, the new engine regs aren't a sufficient way to do that. All it is, is a word on a paper that 'we changed from V8 to V6'. I don't know if that means anything to a casual viewer, even if he takes the environment seriously. Even if they ran the cars with hydrogen, the eco people will say Formula 1 is vanity. I think there are better ways to promote eco friendlieness. For example, Lotus F1 team have a parternship with Trina Solar, and they have installed solar panels to their motorhome and also run their Enstone simulator partially with solar power. I think such partnerships are a far better, and a tangible way to make F1 look greener.

j man wrote:I think we pretty much have standard engines now. Yes there are four suppliers, but restrictive engine rules and the lack of development mean that there is very little difference between them.

I was sceptical of the new engine rules at first, but I've changed my stance somewhat since then. The current engines use antiquated technology that lags behind the automotive industry. Many people don't like the idea of F1 cars having the same engine size as the cars we drive every day, personally I don't like the idea of F1 cars using technology that belongs in the 1900s. And I am pretty sure that the new engines will be far from quiet.

I guess that's a matter of taste. I also think that F1 as a pinnacle of motorsport should always go for the newest technology possible, but when it comes to the engine regs, I kind of prefer the old school style raw power engines with high revs because I think that belongs in the dna of F1. Also the 'antiqued' engines still offer the best bang for buck performance to date.

You know, it might not be too long until F1 switches from petrol entirely...

F1 can't be antiquated and needs to keep up with the changing conditions to be relevant to viewers and to manufacturers. Useful reduction in F1's carbon footprint isn't the goal of V6 turbos - it is to raise awareness and thus economic viability of this engine technology and to give manufacturers expertise in a relevant engine technology. Turbos aren't new, but making it mainstream will be new.

Isn't it about turning F1 into a test-bed for technologies that filter down to road cars again? If the f1 engine has more road relevance for major manufacturers, then maybe more manufacturers will come on board. Also, it might help their sales. There's an old saying which goes 'win on Sunday, sell on Monday'. I'm all for less rules though. Maybe keep the use of expensive materials down, but other than that, let them do what they want, but limit fuel for a weekend. Let them use Kers or other hybrid technology without limit though, that would surely advance these technologies at a faster rate than they are currently being pursued.

The F1 BMW turbos of the 80s were 4 pots, produced 1400 bhp in qualifying spec and used the standard blocks off the road car production line, so engines under the new regs might surprise us in the long term.

I've been over the 2014 regulations a lot, and to me there's one thing that stands out, that all engines have to have identical mounts and basic dimensions. They all have to mount to the chassis in exactly the same manner, and to the transmission in exactly the same manner. Here's some snippets from the 2014 regulations.

5.3 Power unit dimensions :
5.3.1 Cylinder bore diameter must be 80mm (+/- 0.1mm).
5.3.2 The crankshaft centre line must lie on the car centre line and 90mm (+/-0.5mm) above the
reference plane. The power unit may only transmit torque to the drive train by means of a
single output shaft that must be co-axial with the crankshaft. The output shaft must rotate
clockwise when viewed from the front of the car.
5.3.3 Valve stem diameter must not be less than 5mm.
5.3.4 Any timing gear between crankshaft and camshaft must not be less than 8mm wide.
5.3.5 The entire power unit (with the exception of the items listed in Article 5.3.8 ) must be installed
between two vertical planes normal to the car centre line separated by 700mm or in a box
150mm long, 250mm wide and 800mm high which lies symmetrically about the car centre line
immediately ahead of the front vertical plane.
5.3.6 Power unit mountings may only comprise six M12 studs for connection to the survival cell and
six M12 studs for connection to the transmission.
The mounting faces of the studs for connection to the survival cell must lie on the forward of
the two planes described in Article 5.3.5 and be located at Y215/Z15(2), Y340/Z260(2) and
Y175/Z420(2).
The mounting faces of the studs for connection to the transmission must lie on one vertical
plane normal to the car centre line and be located at Y100/Z15(2), Y150/Z140(2) and
Y255/Z345(2).
The distance between the two planes is fixed at 500mm.
A tolerance of +/- 0.2mm will be permitted on all of the above dimensions.
No additional load path from the survival cell to the gearbox, with a connection to the power
unit, is permitted.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... _20.07.pdf

So what does that mean? It means that with just relatively minor alterations, any team can bolt on any engine. Right now, to change to a different engine would require a complete redesign of the chassis and transmission, a formidable and expensive task. But in 2014, any engine manufacturer could approach a team and convince them to change engine manufacturers if they are unhappy.

It also leaves the door open for someone to think about building Formula One engines. If, for instance (wild shot here) Ford decided to get back into the Formula One game, they could just build an engine, and just convince some team to use it. It might, it just might encourage a greater variety of engines. It will, for sure, make it more competitive.

If it was up to me there would be no standard for the teams to use. I understand safety precautions but as has been mentioned in this thread over and over again the engines themselves do not cause as much pollution as pretty much any part of Formula 1. I believe that for as long as the drivers are safe the teams should be allowed to develop how they want. The freeze on engine development is ridiculous as is the fact that Pirelli are the sole tire supplier of Formula 1. I was never alive for the more competitive days but just off of my research I believe that the engines should be developing from race to race. Perhaps that could even make the engines as green as the Formula 1 community hopes to be(I recall a thread that estimated the environmental difference from the V6's and it was not impressive at all). Also I do remember the Bridgestone v Michelin days and although I was too young to understand the significance looking back I understand the pace those cars gained by having 2 tire suppliers trying to outdo each other constantly.
Once again I personally believe that as long as the drivers are safe the cars should be allowed to refuel and the suppliers should be fighting to have the best product. But thats just my opinion I hope that the F1 leaders will soon agree with me.

There should be 2 rules

1. Engine size ( 1.6 ) and max cylinders
2. Fuel consumption ( make this quite stringent )

Other than that they should have free reign and then you would see innovations that will benefit road cars, they will push limits to find the most bang for buck

Its all rubbish and 'cooking the books' to look green.

The regs are so tight there is little that can be done

the shape and size of an engine is fixed, so no scope here, as is the silhouette of the car.

If you fit a flat 6 instead of a v6, you can not lower the profile of the car and save (say) 15% due to less drag.

You can not shuffle the energy you scrape off slowing for the corner onto a flywheel and use it to zoom down the straight instead of squirting loads of fuel in. You can not run your engine constantly at its most efficient point and vary the gearing to what is required (CVT) or use it to drive hydraulic or electric motors on the wheels. you can not even drive/brake all/each wheel/s as required to avoid slip or skid
You can not even chose the most efficient fuel to use.

People have got the wrong idea about what these engines are supposed to do. F1 is the pinnacle of automotive technology, and these engines are supposed to help improve the tech in use in road cars. For once F1 engines will have something to do with the automotive engineering challenges of the day.

And to the poster above, you cannot make a flat 6 to begin with; mandated 90 degree bank angle. And how is the silhouette fixed? There's a reason Renaults abandoned their wide-angle V10 in the 00's; it was a pain in the donkey and provided pretty much no benefit except centre of gravity.
A flat engine would probably be harmful to packaging, s it is wider.
As far as I know you can use a flywheel; Williams developed the Flybrid system for F1 in 2009. But it's too big and heavy and thus had no place in an F1 car. ERS in 2014 will be much less restricted both in how much energy you have available and in how you can acquire it; it can be taken from the exhausts I believe, as well as some other places.

Restricting the engine regs means that you don't get manufacturers wasting their time and money on solutions which will not work. It's the only way that it will work in this ecenomic climate.
And Adrian Newey says that the engines will be the defining performance-affecting characteristic in 2014. While I still think that the aero will be most important, it's certain that some of the engines will be better than others, no matter how restrictive the rules are. And I'll use the old forum adage; Newey knows better than you.

I would still like to see natural evolution in F1 engines. Like in 80's teams figured out the advantages of Turbo engines, so almost every team used Turbos. And they were popular on roads also.
So in my mind FIA should just give some specs to engines to keep power output reasonable (cylinder count? engine capacity?) but for example, give free hand for brake energy systems. We would see some differences between engines and I think it would be more useful than just standard engines in every car.

Can anyone explain what these all are please....

rife_hypocricy Can anyone explain what these all are please....

Does it not say on the labels in each photograph?

Jezick wrote:rife_hypocricy Can anyone explain what these all are please....

Does it not say on the labels in each photograph?

Smartarse filter alert....

hence the word "explain" and even discuss what they all do.....

would they use a twin turbo configuration on these new engines?

they could use the audi tech on the R18 which uses a single turbo down the centre of the V.

rife_hypocricy wrote:

Jezick wrote:rife_hypocricy Can anyone explain what these all are please....

Does it not say on the labels in each photograph?

Smartarse filter alert....

hence the word "explain" and even discuss what they all do.....

would they use a twin turbo configuration on these new engines?

they could use the audi tech on the R18 which uses a single turbo down the centre of the V.

[edit] no point

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a
sole single stage exhaust turbine by a common shaft parallel to the engine crankshaft and
within 25mm of the car centre line. An electrical motor generator (MGUH) may be directly
coupled to the same shaft.
5.1.7 All engines must have six cylinders arranged in a 90° “V” configuration and the normal section
of each cylinder must be circular.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... _20.07.pdf

So the turbocharger has to be located on the center line, and there's only one allowed. The only locations that make sense are in one of three places. First, between the V's of the cylinders. The second would be above the gearbox, and the third would be BETWEEN the engine and gearbox, a spacer would be involved. That last location was common in IndyCar, because the cars were longer, but in Formula One I don't know if that's feasible. It may work, the V-6 is shorter, and placing a turbo low down may be workable.


These are components of the ignition and fuel system. The part on the left is the fuel injector, the middle part is the ignition coil, and the one on the right is the ignition coil and the connector tube to the spark plug. The coil sits directly above the cylinder, there is one per cylinder.


These are the ERS (energy recovery system) motor generator and associated electronic controls. They are basically electrical motors, directly connected to the turbo or drivetrain. They can harvest energy, or generate energy, and they are representative of the present KERS system used today. They are not alternators, as presently famous with Renault engines and Red Bull.



Now this, this is really cool and what turns my crank. This is a turbocharger with a motor generator sandwiched between the compressor and turbine. On the left is the turbine, hot exhaust gases come in and spin the compressor wheel, which turns a connecting shaft. During operation this part will be red hot. Then to the right of the turbine is a bearing cooled and lubricated by oil. Then there's the motor generator, and compressor.



We may be soon hearing about HERS, which is heat energy recovery system, which this thing does, capture the heat energy. What's really cool about it is that when the engine is putting out power, the motor generator unit is harvesting energy. But it can also be commanded to spin the turbine shaft, completely eliminating turbo lag and adding boost low in the engine RPM range.

cheers blinky........

check out the Audi R18 engine with 120o V6



we are definately looking at something similar for f1 with current airbox on top.

That's a very sweet engine rife_hypocricy, a 3.7 liter V-6 turbodiesel making around 532 HP.

For this application, the exhausts from the cylinder exit inside the cylinder banks in a "hot side inside" configuration, to feed the single turbo. But that means the intakes are fed from the outside of the cylinders, and in the case of the Audi, the plenum (black) sits exactly where the Formula One sidepods want to be. For an endurance car like the Audi, it's not a packaging issue because they don't have the undercut sidepods. In fact, they have tons of room beside the engine bay to allow those plenums.



But for a Formula One car, this is a serious packaging issue, due to the Formula One regulations, a deeply undercut sidepod and narrowing rear end are almost mandatory. So the solution would be to have a convoluted intake runner, fed from a plenum somewhere behind the engine. That could get very complicated because engine designers want all the intake runners to be equal length, and feed each cylinder exactly the same for all. In the Audi engine you can see the black intake pipes all nice and equal, identical to each other.

On my opinion, a nicer solution is to have the exhaust pipes convoluted and snake behind the engine to feed the turbo, and have the intake plenum and pipes feeding each cylinder between the V to make the intakes work to their optimum. The people at Indycar have been doing turbos for many years, and all the engine manufacturers choose to have a plenum between the V's. They do have twin turbos, although.

KingOfSpa wrote:I would still like to see natural evolution in F1 engines. Like in 80's teams figured out the advantages of Turbo engines, so almost every team used Turbos. And they were popular on roads also.
So in my mind FIA should just give some specs to engines to keep power output reasonable (cylinder count? engine capacity?) but for example, give free hand for brake energy systems. We would see some differences between engines and I think it would be more useful than just standard engines in every car.

I completely agree with you. Standardization is just NOT Formula One. I would limit engines only for safety reasons in two ways:
1) Engine external size (dimensions not displacement nor cilinder count). It is simple to police and everyone can easily check on any other rival to avoid cheatting.
2) Type of fuel. It must be a commercially available fuel. This avoids the use of ethanol or some other special cocktails that can be really dangerous.

The rest should be free.

In case speeds become too high, which eventually will happen, the size should be reduced.

We've been discussing what is the basic powerplant, the lump of metal that turns the crankshaft. But for 2014 there are a whole slew of new rules that open up energy recovery devices. There is the KERS, and added to that will be heat energy recovery devices (HERS). Each of these systems will harvest energy, and store it to be discharged at a later time.

My personal belief is that between the engine manufacturers, the filed will be relatively level. But as far as the energy recovery devices, how they are used and integrated as a whole will be the game-changer. I'll get back to that opic at a later date while I review the 2014 regulations and do some serious inquiries.

So far, we haven't seen any engines in the flesh, what one that do exist spend their lives in secret test cells, far from prying eyes. But some CAD pictures have come out. The first is what PURE hoped to build, until they stopped because of some kind of financial difficulties.



The second is from Renault

I've just been reading up about some alternative engine technologies on another forum, and the concept of pneumatic valve engines being used in f1 came up. The engine can have infinitely variable valve events for different timing, lift, and duration as the engine is put through different phases of warm up, fuel saving or 110%.

Apparently in 2008 there were v10s developed without valve springs, nor cams-the valve was actuated completely using pneumatic pressure.

This is why I follow formula one. The technology like this makes me so interested in this sport, but before this I had no idea there was anything radical like this done to formula one engines-is there a chance that the 4 cyl in 2016 will push forward and bring out newer technology? or do you think it will be more electronic style developments-such as the electric engined turbo seen above?

Interesting posts above, but that is not heat recovery though is it?
It us using the exhaust gas to drive the motor. Any indication of how they are going to recover energy from heat?

i have to admit that when I saw the generator on the vane shaft of the turbo, the first thing to go through my head was the thought that it is only a generator because it id being spun. IF however it was fed, it would drive the shaft. Scope for chea,,, errm producing more power here?

First off, here's the 2014 technical regulations

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... _20.07.pdf

I've been going over it a lot lately, trying to figure out what's going on.

As far as variable valves, variable intakes, variable turbos and such stuff, that's not going to happen. It's to keep from starting a technology war, designers spending millions pursuing such technologies. Bloody shame, but understandable.

The turbo is allowed to harvest energy, and then recover it too. That means that it can feed power into the batteries/capacitors/flywheel, and then later use the motor function to spin up the turbo. So much for turbo lag, and it's going to offer tons of low end torque on demand.

KERS is still going to happen too, but it's increased in time to be used, and power. So it's going to change the game, allow cars to use KERS coming out of almost every corner, and instead of having 80 HP on tap, it will double to 160 ponies. And although it's a smaller engine, and will generate less power than the current V-8, KERS will be available more, and with HERS, it will have monstrous low end torque coming out of corners.

froze wrote:

Tufty wrote:The biggest polluters [outside of the spectators, although I'm not sure how they compare] are the haulage companies that transport the kit and cars all over the world. Not helped by the layout of the calendar, with 2 visits to the Americas, 2 visits to the Far East, 2 to the Middle East... you get the idea.

Yeah, that's what I meant by saying that changing engine regulations only makes F1 look greener. In reality, the whole logistics chain with airplanes and trucks creates many times more pollution than 24 race cars driving around a circuit a few hours.

The trouble is, F1 needs to move about to these places for the money, but weather can be a major limitation. I once worked out a very efficient (miles-wise) method but it meant doing races at odd times. But yes, green engines etc are a joke given the proportion of the "carbon footprint" that actually comes from the cars. That said, when I checked I didn't see any real issue with Bahrain and Abu Dhabi being a week apart. Plenty of others looked fine but I didn't do the full amount of research required, just had a look. Basically wanted to compare the F1 loop to what I thought would be more efficient (probably not most efficient due to my lack of finesse with the code).

It's an admirable effort mac_d, since the ecology and going green isn't really an option, IMO it's necessary. I'm not too proud that my generation has raped and polluted the land, and consumed irreplaceable resources. We just can't keep going on like this, we need to leave future generations something better than this mess.

This is purely my personal opinion, but Formula One, and in effect all forms of motor racing are nothing but an irresponsible waste of resources, it's nothing but boys with toys having fun. When you start to look deep into the sport, the "waste" is huge. There's spectators traveling, either by thumb or car or aircraft. Each team have hundreds of employees, many have cars they drive to work. The factories and wind tunnels consume lots of electricity, and when we start to look at travel, just one word ..WOW. Many racers have their own aircraft. When the circus arrives at a venue an entire air force follows. Not only the transport 747's carrying cars and parts, but team managers, drivers, and celebrities. Pause for a moment and try to figure out how much Bernie travels, it's really impressive. For him, he has his own plane, a sweet Dassault Falcon 7X. Love the registration.



But engine technology can show the way towards better efficiencies, and that's about all Formula One is good for in this aspect.

Hopefully we'll see fully electric F1 from 2018 onward. I can just about accept the proposed turbos as an interim solution but in general combustion engines have no place in the future of the sport. Interesting new technologies are an integral part of F1 and there just isn't anything exciting about burning fuel anymore.

phfft... wrote:Hopefully we'll see fully electric F1 from 2018 onward. I can just about accept the proposed turbos as an interim solution but in general combustion engines have no place in the future of the sport. Interesting new technologies are an integral part of F1 and there just isn't anything exciting about burning fuel anymore.

But no plugs! Give them one regulation; Hydrogen, and kickstart the engine race.
It would be like going back in time if we got more manufacturers to show that they are best with the new technology. I mean, why should manufacturers be interested in joining F1, if they have do standard engines.

KingOfSpa wrote:

phfft... wrote:Hopefully we'll see fully electric F1 from 2018 onward. I can just about accept the proposed turbos as an interim solution but in general combustion engines have no place in the future of the sport. Interesting new technologies are an integral part of F1 and there just isn't anything exciting about burning fuel anymore.

But no plugs! Give them one regulation; Hydrogen, and kickstart the engine race.
It would be like going back in time if we got more manufacturers to show that they are best with the new technology. I mean, why should manufacturers be interested in joining F1, if they have do standard engines.

Why limit it to one fuel? 'Letric looks the most probable way now, but there could be budding technologies we have not even considered. I suspect that if you asked someone in 1900 how it would go, few would have dreamed how many petrol and diesel vehicles would be on the road now, and a fraction of that would suspect steam trains would be replaced

From a purely practical point of view, I still see petroleum or synthetic petroleum being the main fuel, but recovering huge % of what is waste today. A good start would be increase the weight of the car to allow experiment.

I know it would use more fuel to get it around, but cars are not going to carry a useless load unless its mandatory.

It's a big ask to try to completely change over to another energy source. And unless whatever alternate is proposed, it has to possess performance not unlike today's cars. It would be a fatal blow to Formula One if the cars had slower lap times than other series.

What I think is happening is that Formula One in the form of the FIA are shifting towards powerplants and cars that are greener, and more efficient. All these new technologies of turbos, KERS, and HERS all move in that direction, where efficiency is becoming more relevant.

But a word of caution from someone who has witnessed disaster up close, fuelage races suck. If you just give the competitors a fixed amount of fuel for the race, it can turn into the most boring thing since rust.

Photos of 2014 Renault engine...

Nice looking beast! Did they make the logo big enough?

Still, all we can really comment on at this stage are aesthetics, and shape in terms of aero packaging. Looks like a nice compact engine, but without comparisons to the others we can't really say much that will have a bearing on relative performance.

interesting how different the Merc and Renault are. Merc has the generator/motor high up in back, Renault has it low like an accessory.

Hopefully PF1 is working on infiltrating all 3 facilities to obtain recordings of the engines.

Interesting...
http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/gall ... 5fev-1.php

Toasts a bagel perfectly.

If we are talking alternate fuel sources, Hydrogen all the way. Car companies seem to have focussed resources on Electric cars despite the fact that it is vastly inferior.

Everyone acts as if Electricity is clean, but creating batteries alone has a massive pollution rate, not to mention the shipping or the fossil fuels used to create the electricity to charge them.