Are rotary engines alowed in F1??

[ae86_16v]

Originally Posted by sentra_dude You all seem to think that the FIA is trying to kill an innovation in F1, and to some extent you are right, but you must realize that innovation costs lots and lots of money...and F1 is already absurdly expensive. Many of the regulations the FIA has are not evil anti-tech rules, they are there to either slow the cars down or decrease costs. Even the large teams are getting a little squeamish about the costs, Ferrari spent in excess of $300 million last year, and to get any more edge they will have to spend even more next year. Then again some of the FIA rules are just plain stupid... I think F1 is still a tech showcase...the teams are still throwing way more money around in R&D than any other motoracing series...and they are still pushing the limits of automotive tech. Where else do they have pneumatic value closure, 18,000+rpm, 300hp/L, and aerodynamics that more advanced than some airplanes...

Exactly. . . Best post yet. It isn't just about the engine, although the engine is extremely advance as it is. This year to cut down on cost, the engine must last an entire weekend from qualifying through the race, approximately 800km. But these days, a lot of it has to do with aerodynamics of the car, suspension set up, and of course tyres.

I also have heard that Toyota and Ferrari are pushing pass the $500 million mark this year.

Originally Posted by t-maxx i would like to see turbo cars back in f1.

Why? The engines are spectacular enough as it is.

Originally Posted by kteo2003 and i would like to see slicks but......

Actually a while ago, I remember reading the some articles about tyre technology today. If today's grooved tyres were put on cars that were using slicks, they would still be faster than slicks. So could you imagine how much faster the current generation cars would be with slicks?

There has been complaint that the grooved tyres of today, usually end up as slicks after a couple of good hard laps. . . don't know too much about that though.

[kteo2003]

you are not quite right...the new groove tyres at the end of the grand prix have to be still yet "grooved"...i don't remember the depth they must have but they must...i also have seen a tv show and they all said that assuming that all the new tech would be done also woth slicks the cars would be much much faster.it is a fact that the todays F1 cars don't use so much the grip but the aerodynamic.FIA doesn't approve the slicks because the F1cars would go much fasyter and there would be more danger for accidents to happen.

[ae86_16v]

Originally Posted by kteo2003 you are not quite right...the new groove tyres at the end of the grand prix have to be still yet "grooved"...i don't remember the depth they must have but they must...i also have seen a tv show and they all said that assuming that all the new tech would be done also woth slicks the cars would be much much faster.it is a fact that the todays F1 cars don't use so much the grip but the aerodynamic.FIA doesn't approve the slicks because the F1cars would go much fasyter and there would be more danger for accidents to happen.

No, I understand that it is still there are still grooves at the end of the race. . . you could clearly see that they are still grooved. It was a sarcastic comment. Last year Ferrari was complaining about the tires that McLaren was using, something about the grooves and providing better traction in the corners and such. (Too lazy to dig up the story).

But in terms of aerodynamics, all it does it pushes the car to the ground so the tires could get better traction.

[steven 1234]

The lamans rotary engine was a 26B, equivalent to a 5.2 L piston engine - it made 600 or 800 hp using turbos. I don't think they can get close to a f1 engine output of 800hp if reduced to 3L

[ae86_16v]

Originally Posted by steven 1234 The lamans rotary engine was a 26B, equivalent to a 5.2 L piston engine - it made 600 or 800 hp using turbos. I don't think they can get close to a f1 engine output of 800hp if reduced to 3L

Ummm, no, the R26B R4 was 2.7L, 654cc x 4 rotors (rated by FIA formula at 4.7L, 4708 cc) and it was Naturally Aspirated! It produced 700 bhp at 9000 rpm and 608 Nm / 448.4 ft lbs at 6500 rpm.

By the way, it is Le Mans.

[FerrariKiller]

The 2004 F1 tech regulations say:
"ARTICLE 5 : ENGINE
5.1 Engine specification :
5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are
permitted.
5.1.2 Engine capacity must not exceed 3000 cc.
5.1.3 Supercharging is forbidden.
5.1.4 All engines must have 10 cylinders and the normal
section of each cylinder must be circular.
5.1.5 Engines may have no more than 5 valves per cylinder.
5.2 Other means of propulsion :
5.2.1 The use of any device, other than the 3 litre, four stroke
engine described in 5.1 above, to power the car, is not
permitted."

So that settles it.

For more check out:

http://f1.racing-live.com/img/regula...004tech_en.pdf

[he7lius]

Thanks of clarifying this.

[akumapc]

haha it would be funny to see a rotary engine in F1. If they were limited only by using an engine with 3 liters of displacement, mazda's rotary might have an advantage simply because their measurement of displacement is really half of what the engine really is. Thus a 3 liter mazda rotary would really have 6 liters of displacement. The bad part would be that the car would have to be refueled every lap...

[lovatof1]

Originally Posted by SFDMALEX I highly doubt that a rotary would be succesful in F1.

Anyone interested in the whys and hows of current F1 tech should pick up the book "Formula One Technology" from Peter Wright, former Lotus F1 designer/technician/engineer type guy. It explains the main reasons Rotary engines would not do well in F1, besides not having a specified 3.0L displacment with no more than 12 cylinders(how about none? ), is there is a big weight and balance issues of the mass in the rotors. This leads to all sorts of vibration problems due to the chassis characteristic harmonic resonances being the same as the vibrations of the spinning mass. In otherwords, the engine would shake the chassis to pieces, and be slow to boot.

cheers,
James

senna (RIP) the greatest because no matter what happened in the race. you could never count him out. master of the rain (RIP)

senna (RIP) the greatest because no matter what happened in the race. you could never count him out. master of the rain (RIP)

[biff19_a]

Originally Posted by FerrariKiller I'm sure if Mazda created a competitive package that didn't have an unfair advantage it would be allowed. There's no rule against it so they have no reason to ban it outright. Of course I doubt the issue will ever come up.

well they banned the V12 that toyota was supposedly working..

the one thing i love is the fact that the mazda won buy luck at le mans... the porches broke from what i remember

[kompak]

if F1 use rotary...the engine can produce quick response compared to the V10 engine used by F1 now because the rotary only make revolutions and hence reduce the power loss...but the V10 engine produce more resistance due to the up and down movement of the pistons...rotary don't have pistons