F1 2013: The last of the V8s

In a sport where speed, skill and superior technological prowess reign supreme, the challenge of
squeezing every last ounce of performance from increasingly restricted resources is one that defines
Formula 1 engineers as the best of the best. Of course, walking hand-in-hand with this endless quest
for automotive perfection is an inherent goal to entertain; to provide the unique spectacle that
feeds the thirst of motorsport aficionados the world over.

With these intertwined factors of peak importance, it comes as little surprise that fundamental
changes within the sport are frequently met with scepticism as all parties concerned seek the
ultimate in performance and entertainment.

When the 2006 season got underway in the searing heat of Bahrain, both paddock and spectators
alike waited with baited breath as a much-debated topic finally came to a head; what effect would
the switch from the spectacular scream of V10 units to the smaller, quieter, more efficient V8
packages have on our beloved sport?

As we head into the fresh battlefield of 2013, the same question is once again at the forefront of
many minds as Formula 1 prepares to enter a new era with the introduction of 1.6 litre V6 power
plants at the end of the year. So, are critics right to be concerned by this new dawn? On the
evidence of the past seven seasons, there is plenty to suggest that this overhaul could provide yet
more intrigue from a variety of perspectives.

On paper, the V8 era would inevitably generate mixed reactions from the mechanical purist. The
more nostalgic would highlight the golden age of the all-conquering DFV engine, which dominated
the grid from the late 60s right through to the early 80s taking 155 wins from 262 races between
1967 and 1985. By contrast, some would view a switch to what would theoretically be a more
restricted format as a backwards step in the pursuit of absolute performance. In either case, it takes
merely a brief glance through the archives of recent seasons to note the V8s influence on what may
arguably have been some of the most thrilling championship battles of the modern age.
Since the introduction of mandatory V8 power in 2006, five different Drivers World Champions have
emerged from as many manufacturers, with three engine suppliers among them. As if that werent
enough, five out of the seven Drivers Championship battles have been decided at the final race of
the season, including unforgettable nail-biters in Brazil [2007] and Abu Dhabi [2010] where any one
of three and four men respectively could have conceivably clinched the title.

Beyond the points table there have been further positives to take. Although the engine architecture
and capacity has remained the same since its inaugural appearance during the 2006 season when
development was free and units were required to last two race weekends the V8 has operated
under a wide variety of regulations; each leading to significant technological advances.

With engine homologation introduced for 2007 continuing right through to this final fling for the V8,
each subsequent engine iteration produced by the various suppliers has forced designers and
engineers to painstakingly glean incremental but significant improvements from what has been
effectively the same piece of hardware.

Combine this with the regulation changes of 2009 which limited each driver to a pool of eight
engines for the entire season and the introduction of KERS that same year and the V8 has made
substantial strides in terms of both engine efficiency and reliability, which are filtering down into the
wider automotive industry as a whole.

What significance the end of this period may hold for the future of the sport remains to be seen.
Changes to regulatory formats throughout the years have brought the demise and re-instatement of
various engine platforms including the V8 itself so to condemn this era to the annals of Formula 1
history could potentially be somewhat premature; particularly given the positive impact this most
recent incarnation has had on the industry as a whole.

Many people assume that the engines are similar since the specification has been frozen for many
years, however they are all very different as the specifications were frozen at a point in time where
the V8 concept was relatively immature. The technical regulations are strict and there are some
common characteristics including the bore size and rpm limit, but there are many thousands of
design decisions that are not fixed in the regulations. Perhaps it is not obvious but, in an unfrozen
environment there is more opportunity to converge on common solutions between engine suppliers.
The engine contribution to car performance is just as important now under a frozen set of rules;
even if frozen in performance, the impact on the car remains as important as it ever has been.

The engines can produce over 750bhp and the top speed of the car is over 330kph not far off the
cruising speed of a light private aircraft. Acceleration from 0 60kph can be done in 1.6 seconds,
approximately the same as an F16 fighter plane. It can do 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 2.5 seconds, 0
to 200 km/h (124 mph) in 5.1 seconds and 0 to 300 km/h (186 mph) in 12.0 seconds, dependent on
aerodynamic setup and gearing. This is notwithstanding a weight of just 95kg, less than the weight of
a slightly overweight man. The heat produced by the engine is also such that the exhausts of the
Renault RS27 will reach up to 1,000C. To give you an idea of this unimaginable temperature,
volcanic lava is between 700C and 1,200C!

But how do these engines compare, no driver experienced them all and those that have experience a
selection rarely comment on the differences but at the start of the 2012 season the then Williams
technical director Mark Gillan revealed his drivers feedback.

The initial feedback on the engine from Pastor Maldonado was very much positive even on the
installation lap which is very unusual. Indeed it is incredibly unusual for the driver to get out the car
and comment on the improvement he felt straight away. The installation of the engine into the car
has also opened up some design scope according to Gillan. The Renault engine differs in a number
of ways to the Cosworth, it has opened up a lot more flexibility in terms of mapping and it allows us
to run a lot hotter with the water and oil which an aerodynamic point of view it is much better. Now
we can close up the bodywork a bit. The RS27 also has less degradation with mileage in terms of the
engine life. At the end of the season when they try to preserve agents that makes a big difference.

Seven engines were built to the 2.4 litre rulebook, Honda, Toyota, Renault, BMW, Ferrari, Cosworth
and Mercedes but not all of them lasted the duration of the rules. Over the following pages we take
a look at each of them.

In part 2 we look at all of the V8 engines starting with the Honda

Honda RA806E

(aka 807E, 808E, 809E)

Chassis: Arrows A23, BAR 007, Honda RA106, Honda RA107, Honda RA108, Honda RA109 (never
raced)
Note Super Aguri chassis were rebadged Hondas or Arrows designs.
Wins: 1

For Honda work towards the 2006 season started in 2004 when it became clear that Formula 1 was
to switch from 3.0-litre V10 engines to smaller, less powerful 2.4-litre V8s. Honda already had some
experience of building racing V8s for the IRL but those units would be little help in developing a
20,000rpm Formula 1 screamer.The first prototype engine was run in the back of a development
car at Mugello in September 2004, so the team could gather data on performance and the effects of
the increased vibrations caused by a V8 on the surrounding systems. The engine development
project team was run under Kazuo Sakurahara, who revealed to RE:The most worrying problem
would be a level of engine vibration which the design team had never experienced before. The
vibration issue could potentially have lead to a range of problems that would keep both the engine
and chassis design teams busy. Design of the RA806E, the eventual full race engine, started in
January 2005 and it first ran in July of the same year. The initial concept of the engine was to create
a package with greatly improved body joint rigidity, which would surpass the V10 in terms of power-
per-litre running at full revs in the opening race of the season. Then the focus of the development
stage was to try and solve the vibration issues inherent in a V8 engine, explains Sukurahara. The
new engine regulations would limit the freedom of Sukuraharas team on overall architecture of the
engine, and also the materials they could use. It had to be a V8 engine of no more than 2400cc, with
a V angle of 90 degrees. Only two inlet valves and the same number of exhaust valves would be
permissible. The regulations were tight and very restrictive, even the cylinder spacing was fixed at
106.5mm (+/- 0.2mm). A really difficult part of the regulations for the designers, however, were
those regarding the engines centre of gravity, as laid down in article 5.5:
5.5 Weight and centre of gravity:5.5.1 The overall weight of the engine must be a minimum of
95kg.5.5.2 The centre of gravity of the engine may not lie less than 165mm above the reference
plane.5.5.3 The longitudinal and lateral position of the centre of gravity of the engine must fall
within a region that is the geometric centre of the engine, +/- 50mm. The geometric centre of the
engine in a lateral sense will be considered to lie on the centre of the crankshaft and at the mid
point between the centres of the forward and rear most cylinder bores longitudinally.

These regulations meant that the Honda team would have to check the materials, positions and
details very carefully at the design stage.
There were also some other issues for the engine team, as well as the V8-related problems already
mentioned, to overcome as senior technical director, Shuhei Nakamoto, explains: In the early stages
of development it was hard for us to produce torque efficiently because of the ban on variable
trumpets. The torque curve is not smooth on a V8 and that created challenges from the point of
traction control. It took us a while to flatten the curve out.
The engines development continued into 2006 with track testing, and then on into the racing season
itself, as Sakurahara expands: During the early part of the season we focussed on reliability, using
slightly reduced revs without sacrificing too much in terms of power. Other teams seemed to be
pushing hard the rev limit to ascertain engine loads during the early stage of each race. The engine
was capable of running at 20,000rpm momentarily, but to run it consistently at that speed
throughout a long race seemed impossible. Going on to explain one of the reasons the Honda V8
did not rev as high as some of the other engines, such as the Cosworth V8, Sakurahara continues: It
is as we have a relatively small bore and a long stroke, but we think we produced about the same
amount of horsepower.

Despite this, the early races were not to be good ones for Hondas engine team, and this was
highlighted by the afterburner moment suffered by Jenson Button at the final corner of the
Australian Grand Prix. And other similar problems dogged the team for some time afterwards. We
encountered seven engine failures in the course of 18 grand prix weekends, all of which were
reciprocation-related problems. Many of them were caused by the uneven quality of the parts
affected by vibration in the crankshaft area. This had never been a problem with the V10. As a result
we had to improve the quality control process, explains Nakamoto. The long stroke increases piston
speed and that makes durability harder to achieve. Our early season reliability problems may also be
related to this.
Even the victory in Hungary was overshadowed by an engine problem, as Sakuhara admits: The
Victory in Hungary was strange for us, as on qualifying day we had an engine failure which initially
was a mystery as the part that failed had never done so before. But the cause was found to be a
higher than normal oil temperature at the previous race in Germany. This forced us to investigate
the relationship between higher oil temperatures and higher engine revs.
The ongoing development was halted at the end of the season by an engine technology freeze that is
to last throughout the next two years at least. But, prior to that, the RA809E had received a number
of updates, including a new induction system and a new injector in the early part of the year while,
during the mid season, the engine team found a way to modify the structure of the pneumatic valves
and reduce friction. Towards the end of the season the engine received a new fuel system and the
injector design was modified, and the final update before engine homologation kicked in was a new
cylinder head. In addition to increasing peak power the new head improved low and mid range
torque.
Reliability was improved in the second half of the season too, and the team managed to increase the
rev limit and get the engine to run in reliably at a higher oil/water temperature which, in turn, meant
the engine team had done its bit to help overall car aerodynamic efficiency by allowing the car to run
smaller radiators.

Honda continued in F1 with the RA806E used by it works team up until early 2009 when it suddenly
quit Formula 1, the team morphed into Brawn GP and won the 2009 World Championship with
Mercedes power. The RA806E was also fitted to the Super Aguri customer chassis between 2006 and
2008. Honda is set to return to F1 in 2015 as an engine supplier.

In part three we look at Bavarias finest V8

BMW P86

Chassis: Williams FW27, Sauber C24, BMW-Sauber F1.06. BMW-Sauber F1.07, BMW-Sauber F1.08,
BMW-Sauber F1.09
Wins: 1

The decision to switch from V10 to V8 engines in Formula One was made at the end of 2004,
leaving the engine specialists to focus their efforts over 2005 on the new regulations. 2006 saw the
culmination of the switch-over phase.
As the then BMW Motorsport Director Mario Theissen explained at the time: The development of a
V8 powerplant for Formula One represented a huge challenge for our engineers especially given
the relatively short amount of time at their disposal. The V8 is a totally different concept to the
V10. The drop in output is roughly proportional to the 20 percent reduction in displacement. I
would therefore expect lap times to climb by an average of one to two seconds. The reduced
output on tap for the drivers means the cars will spend significantly more time per lap under peak
loads. Reliability is top priority. We cant wait for the serious action to get under way in Bahrain on
12th March. Only then will we get an impression of whos really been doing their homework.

[Show as slideshow]

Although the V8 with the now compulsory cylinder angle of 90 degrees may look like a sawn-off
V10, technically it is an entirely separate concept with its own specific requirements. The V8 has a
distinct firing sequence and demands a fundamentally different crankshaft design. Whereas a 72-
degree offset crankshaft was used in BMWs V10 Formula One engine, V8 powerplants can feature
crankshafts with either four throws spaced at 90 degrees or four throws spaced at 180 degrees.
Standard production engines are fitted with 90-degree crankshaft variants due to their better
dynamic attributes, but a 180-degree crankshaft is favoured in racing car engine design. The
improved performance this allows offsets the disadvantages in terms of dynamics.
Indeed, mechanical dynamics and vibrations represent a particularly critical area of development
for the new generation of Formula One engines. The V8 units have different firing sequences and
intervals from their V10 predecessors, which leads to a totally different situation in terms of
vibrations. The V10 entered a critical area in terms of vibrations between 12,000 rpm and 14,000
rpm. However, this was not an issue as the engine did not spend much time in this rev band and
smoothed itself out again once the driver stepped up the revs. And, since that was where it spent
the majority of its time, vibrations were not a worry. A V8, on the other hand, is not so well off. Its
vibration curve enters critical territory later than the V10 from approximately 16,000 rpm and
continues to climb from there. It is therefore no longer possible to think in terms of getting through
a difficult patch and everything will be all right. Now, the problem of constantly increasing
vibrations has to be confronted head on. If you dont get a handle on vibrations, they will eat into
the service life of the engine and multiply the loads exerted on chassis components. In order to get
on top of this problem, the calculation and analysis of each individual engine component has to be
totally reliable. However, analysis of the individual components is only part of a bigger challenge.
Determining how they work with and against each other in simulations of the overall system is the
main task.

Reduced mass should mean less in the way of bad vibrations. However, the regulations have
sensibly nipped any natural tendency among the teams to reach straight for exotic and expensive
ultra-light materials in the bud. The engineers work with conventional titanium and aluminium
alloys, as stipulated in the regulations. The new V8 has to be heavier than its predecessor, even
though the 2005 engine had two extra cylinders. This seasons powerplants must tip the scales at
no less than 95 kilograms. This should include the intake system up to and including the air filter,
fuel rail and injectors, ignition coils, sensors and wiring, alternator, coolant pumps and oil pumps. It
does not include liquids, exhaust manifolds, heat protection shields, oil tanks, accumulators, heat
exchangers and the hydraulic pump.

Added to which, the new regulations stipulate that the engines centre of gravity must be at least
165 millimetres above the lower edge of the oil sump. The experts had previously managed to
lower the ten-cylinder engines centre of gravity to the benefit of the cars handling. However, the
longitudinal and lateral position of the V8s centre of gravity has to be in the geometric centre of
the engine (+/-50 millimetres). For the technical commission, checking that everything is in order
no longer consists of a simple weighing process. Now, making sure that the rules have been
observed involves weighing on two levels and making calculations according to the lever principle.
Previously a closely guarded secret, the dimensions of the cylinder bore are now limited to a
maximum 98 millimetres. The gap between the cylinders is also set out in the rulebook at 106.5
millimetres (+/- 0.2 mm). The central axis of the crankshaft must not lie any less than 58 millimetres
above the reference plane
Another critical change in the regulations is the ban on variable intake systems. Known as
trumpets, these systems could previously be used to optimise the cars torque curve. The fixed
duct lengths will now make achieving good engine driveability a more exacting challenge. The
teams will have to strike a compromise between maximum power and good driveability. Where the
best compromise for the pipe lengths is to be found depends on various factors. The track layout
and the weather, for example, both play a role. The teams will favour one set of intake pipe lengths
for circuits with long straights like Monza, Indianapolis and Spa where power is critical, and a
different selection for twistier grand prix tracks such as Budapest and Monaco, where driveability
relegates raw power to the back seat. The same applies in wet weather. The air intakes are, by
definition, part of the engine and are included in its 95-kilogram maximum overall weight, but they
can also be changed up to qualifying.
Joining variable intake systems on the black list are variable exhaust systems and variable valve
control systems. The power supply to the engine electrics and electronics is limited to a maximum
17 volts and the fuel pump now has to be mechanically operated. Only an actuator may now be
used to activate the throttle valve system. With the exception of the electric auxiliary pumps in
the petrol tank, all sub-components must now be driven mechanically and directly via the engine.

BMW had limited success in F1 and late in the 2009 season it announced that it was leaving the
sport. The P86 engine was never run by anyone but the works BMW team.

In part four we look at the Japanese engine made in Germany

reliable and disappointing

Toyota RVX-06

(aka RVX-07, 08, 09, 10)

Chassis: Toyota TF105, Toyota TF106, Toyota TF107, Toyota TF108, Toyota TF109, Toyota TF110
(never raced), Williams FW28, Williams FW29, Williams FW30, Williams FW31, Spyker/Midland M16
Wins: 0

Toyota developed a 2.4 litre V8 along with the other manufacturers in time of the 2006 season. It
was to be a story of missed opportunities. Despite showing strong pace, especially in the double
diffuser equipped cars of 2009 the engine never won a race.
In 2007 F1 engine development was restricted. Teams had to submit an engine at the end of the
2006 season to world governing body the FIA. For this season, engines must be of the same design
as given to the FIA, with a limited number of changes allowed only to improve reliability not
performance.
Luca Marmorini, Toyotas Senior General Manager Engine (now at Ferrari) explains: In the engine
we use almost every kind of material you can on a Formula 1 car, for example you can see
aluminium made with complex casting techniques but you also see carbon material. It is very
important to keep the centre of gravity of the engine very low so we tend to put the very light parts
on the upper part and the heavy parts on the bottom. But the engine cannot power a Formula 1 car
on its own, it needs the help of a gearbox and thats not your standard five-speed road car
transmission with gear stick and clutch.
The quest for high performance does not stop with the engine and gearbox, as the exhaust system
also plays a vital part in maximising power output. Any engine needs to breathe and the efficiency of
an exhaust system has a direct influence on engine performance.
In principal, a Formula 1 exhaust behaves exactly as a road cars it takes gases away from the
engine and expels them safely at the back of the car. In practice, the intricate welding and precision
design of the TF107 exhaust looks closer to a work of automotive art.
In order for the bodywork to be as aerodynamically-efficient as possible at the rear of the car, the
exhaust system is designed to fit as tightly around the engine as possible. Therefore, a successful
exhaust design serves two purposes maximising engine performance and minimising aerodynamic
compromises.
Luca says: Engine people start with the details of the flow inside the exhaust. We are tuning it like a
musical instrument, like an organ, to be sure the engine torque is the highest possible in all the rev
ranges.
With all the power, performance and noise of a Formula 1 engine comes heat, so much so that the
exhaust system glows orange at full throttle. As any driver knows, an overheating engine can be a
serious problem, so a modern Formula 1 car has sophisticated radiators to keep the engine within
safe temperature limits.
These radiators, produced by the teams official partner Denso, are located in the sidepods, to the
right and left of the engine and contain around three litres of coolant. To fine-tune engine cooling,
different air vent options are available on the bodywork, allowing more, or less, air to reach the
radiators, depending on the cooling required.
Luca adds: The radiator has a very important role in the speed of the car. It is not just the engine
that makes a car fast it is a partnership with other parts. The radiators have to be small because a
smaller radiator makes it easier to design a fast car, when it comes to aerodynamics. We tend to
have a very narrow engine cover, but the engine also has to run in a very narrow temperature
window.
Cosworth CA

Chassis: Williams FW28, Williams FW32, Williams FW33, Lotus T127, HRT-Dallara F110/F111, HRT
F112, Virgin VR-01, Virgin MVR-02, Marussia MR-01, Marussia MR-02, USF1 Type 1 (never run),
race wins: 0

Cosworths CA 2.4 litre V8 had two phases of use, initially when the new rules were introduced it
showed great promise in the Williams FW28, even threatening to win the Monaco Grand Prix in
2006 but it proved unreliable and suffered a number of failures, one costing it that Monaco win.
Cosworths last V10 engine was the TJ, introduced with Jaguar Racing in 2003. It replaced the LK, the
engine that gave Giancarlo Fisichella his win at Brazil that year with Jordan Grand Prix. Following
significant developments, the TJ (itself a 90-degree V10) included many of the elements that would
have allowed Cosworth to simplify its transition to V8. However, the FIA had decreed other
requirements too, including a minimum crank axis and centre of gravity height. With this in mind,
and with progress it had made on combustion and piston design, Cosworth decided to take the
opportunity of the rule change to produce a completely new engine. The TJ had not taken full
advantage of the rules on bore diameter, falling short of the maximum at only 95mm. So, during its
development, the company experimented with various bore sizes but, as the aspect ratio of the
combustion chamber changed with increasing bore size, the combustion processes suffered. Since
then, much work has been done on single-cylinder test engines to develop mixture preparation,
combustion chamber and injector design to make the larger bore size effective.
As it was, even with its longer stroke and more conservative aspirations for revs, the V10
experienced cam torsional problems that taxed the team early in the engines life, resulting in,
amongst other things, the need for additional de-coupling devices for the camshafts to reduce the
vibration amplitude.With these, and other more advanced developments, under its belt Cosworth
set 20,000rpm as the number one target for its new V8 engine the CA. Going to the largest
permissible bore meant a shorter stroke, which would help achieve these revs, but it would also
mean a larger and logically heavier piston. But this was an area where Cosworth had developed its
understanding greatly in previous years.Chris Jilbert, project manager at Cosworth, explains: It was
a continual evolution using FE [finite element analysis] experience, understanding the duty cycle on
the piston and, of course, the evaluation of the components when they come back. Making sure you
capture all of the information is critical. It is not unusual for the piston to be cracked when it comes
out of the engine, its just a question of how big that crack is as to whether it is going to be a
problem or not. Normal dye penetrant detection methods cannot always detect such cracks,
especially if they are microscopically small or, for example, if material has been smoothed over the
opening say by the gudgeon pin moving in its bore. You then get into sectioning the piston or
looking under the microscope for evidence.

With this knowledge, the design team felt confident going to the maximum allowable 98mm bore on
the V8, and of being able to take maximum advantage of it with increased revs. Without the budgets
available to the big manufacturer teams, Cosworth had not adopted aluminium beryllium alloy as a
piston material and has always instead used 2618A, which is basically the same as RR58, the
aluminium alloy used in the Rolls Royce Merlin aero engine pistons. The F1 pistons are forged,
before 95 per cent of the surface is machined. The result is impressive, with an exquisitely detailed
area beneath the piston crown leaving metal only where it can contribute most efficiently to the
strength of the component. Even the compression ring thickness is down to less than 0.7mm. The
benefits were clear at the end of 2005 when Cosworth was the first F1 engine builder to publicly
demonstrate a current V8 revving to 20,000rpm. At no point in the season did the pistons give any
cause for concern.
The power developed by the CA was more than respectable from the outset and was the envy of the
competition, climbing to in excess of 755bhp in the 6 Series engines, or 315bhp per litre. The latter
specification TJ V10 engines produced around 915bhp (or 305bhp per litre) for Red Bull during the
2005 season, reducing to 735bhp in restricted guise for Toro Rosso during the 2006 season.
Achieving these figures was not without its challenges though, and the change to a V8 brought its
own set of unique problems.
All F1 V8s use a flat-plane crank, which produces its own vibration signature, known to be more
severe on components than a V10. With this in mind, special attention was given to stiffness
throughout the engine and nowhere did it have a bigger influence on design than the cylinder heads.
The heads and block are cast using the famed Cosworth Casting Process in a dedicated bay at
Grainger and Worrell using a Cosworth-developed aluminium alloy. In order to keep weight as low as
possible, Cosworth F1 engines have long since dropped steel liners and now rely on an iron-based
coating on the aluminium bores.
Space for coolant in an F1 block is at a premium, as Jilbert explains: We have thermal analysis tools
that allow us to design our water passageways efficiently. Of course, the smaller volume we get
away with the less weight we carry around and the better the packaging. Currently the V8 runs with
around four litres of water in the entire cooling system, including the radiator. This is circulated at
about 270 litres per minute by a small, high-revving impeller, which pumps the water out of the
engine at 125degC. Water is still believed to be the best cooling medium and the engines run it with
nothing more than the addition of a corrosion inhibitor.How to keep the heads and block together
with a gas-tight seal under the huge cylinder pressures the engine experiences is always a challenge.
The heads are sealed with a very thin steel head gasket, explains Jilbert. The deck on the block is
accurately machined and the fire face of the cylinder head face is precision ground. Because the
stiffness varies along the head and within the block, you have to develop a method to tighten the
cylinder head studs down to ensure that you get even clamping across the very small gasket area.
You have the steel gasket, which is basically only trying to keep the combustion gases in, then you
have o-ring seals for the water and oil passageways.The inner surfaces of the ports are accurately
machined and, despite the engine freeze, builders are allowed to modify them freely, but only
outside the confines of the homologated casting. So moving other components within the head or
changing the shape of the casting is not allowed. However, with this in mind, Cosworth took a
typically creative route, as Jilbert points out: One of the things that did change when we went to the
CA is that we only have a very small section of the port in the cylinder head. This allows us to do
quite a lot of development work on the port, especially for this engine freeze, so you have got a
short length in the head, but the barrel housings are free and the trumpets are free, so you can
change all that legitimately.
How well the engine copes is shown by the output at the crank. Jilbert again: The engine is pretty
progressive, and the drivability is excellent and has been praised by the drivers. At a particular
hairpin you might be down to 7-8000rpm, but when you are shifting down the main straight you
might be using just 2-3000rpm [between ratios]. The drivers will use that full spread of the power at
various times.Since titanium aluminide was banned, Cosworth has resorted to a more common
titanium alloy for the valves, with solid-stemmed inlets and hollow, sodium-filled exhausts for extra
cooling.Another challenge faced when chasing such high revs were the connecting rod and big end
bearings, which displayed their weaknesses very publicly when Nico Rosbergs failed spectacularly in
Malaysia. The rods are titanium and, unlike some other manufacturers, still have separate shell
bearings. Initially, the rev limit was reduced to ensure the life of the engines while the problem was
tackled at the factory. The problem is ensuring the big end adopts the correct shape under load to
achieve an even surface pressure across the bearing face with an uninterrupted film of oil. Extensive
work on the rod design, bearing specification and choice of engine oil allowed the full 20,000rpm to
be built up to again as the season progressed and confidence grew. This is indeed an impressive feat,
when you consider that the piston has an equivalent mass of about 2.5 tonnes at 20,000rpm. With
peak gas loads greater than 65kN, and peak inertia loads verging on 60kN, there is little wonder the
connecting rods can stretch as much as 0.6mm during a single cycle.
The location of the rod is entirely determined by the little end and the piston. If you attempt to
move the connecting rod along the crank pin there is a surprising amount of movement, notes
Jilbert. Like all these things, its the detail in the design that matters.The crankshaft turns in a
chambered crankcase running at 300-500millibars depression to reduce windage losses. To keep it in
balance at 20,000rpm the crank has balance weights made from Densamet, a tungsten alloy that is
normally found on the end of missiles.Was it the most powerful engine in 2006? Chris Jilbert
certainly believes so, and it is a tribute to the skills and ingenuity of the team at Cosworths
Northampton base.
F1 2013: The last of the V8s

By Sam // October 11, 2013

Ferrari 056

Chassis: Ferrari F2005, Ferrari 248, Red Bull RB2 (also as STR2), Spyker F8-VII, Ferrari F2007, Red Bull
RB4 (as STR3), Force India VJM01, Ferrari F2008, Ferrari F60, Red Bull RB5 (as STR4), Ferrari F10,
Toro Rosso STR5, BMW-Sauber C29, Ferrari F150 Italia, Sauber C30, Toro Rosso STR6, Ferrari F2012,
Sauber C31, Toro Rosso STR7, Ferrari F138, Sauber C32, Toro Rosso STR8
Race wins: 37

It is a totally new project, began Paulo Martinelli at the launch of the 2006 F1 Ferrari. It is a return
to the past, as the name of the car demonstrates. We started working on this engine midway
through 2004 and then tested it on the bench. Last August it made its first outing, at Fiorano, and in
the autumn of 2005 we completed the V8. Now we are close to the final version. Obviously, in the
course of the season we will have to cope with a very steep learning curve. Gilles Simons success in
development was underlined: the calculations were made long ago and even if the regulation
changes were related to us rather late in the day, fundamental modifications such as the selection of
the centre of gravity had already been made. The rules outline global constraints but do allow a lot
of space for projectual experimentation, continued Martinelli. The 90 angle was our choice as was
settling on the minimum weight for the non-moving parts. The real challenge, however, was
lightening the weight of the moving components. For the first time in ten years a drop in
performance was recorded and this was fundamental. The change in power meant some greater
investment, but,in the long run, it will be more economical. The overall output of the engine remains
unchanged and so some factors were the same as on the V10. Martinelli also revealed that there
had been some dialogue between the engineers who work on road-going cars and those who
concentrate on racing models. We met the people who work on GTs and exchange opinion in
analysing problems and the methods to resolve them. It was by no means a one-way
communication We were certainly on shared ground, added Simon. However, there are many
differences, for example in our time schedules. We made a lot of input and so did they. It was a
process of cross contamination.

The 056 engine is load-bearing and is fitted longitudinally. Design work began back in the spring of
2005 and naturally, took into account the strict limits laid out in the FIA technical regulations, in
terms of the angle of the V, weight, dimensions and centre of gravity. The first example of the V8
engine ran on track in the month of August and development was initially carried out with it fitted to
an F2004. As was the case last year, engines will again have to be used for two consecutive grands
prix in 2006. With this in mind, Shells support has been even more invaluable in defining the
specification for fuels and lubricants best suited to meeting set targets in terms of reliability and
performance. Driveability was another important factor, when defining the new engines
characteristics, with the regulations requiring fixed inlet trumpets: engine management is controlled
by an integrated injection and ignition system from Magneti Marelli.

In 2007 some minor modifications were made to the engine, the combustion chamber was revised
as were the, the valves, the inlet and exhaust chambers, all aimed at optimising the torque curve,
given the engre limit of 19,000 rpm. For the same reason changes were made to the piston, the
piston pin and the piston cooling jets to aim for the best possible reliability when running at the limit
of 19,000 rpm.

In 2009 the max RPM was further reduced and the engine life increased. To cope with this
modifications were been made to the inlet trumpets, the position of the injectors and the
configuration of the exhausts.

In part seven we reveal the most successful individual modern F1 engine

The three pointed start

Mercedes-Benz FO108

Chassis: McLaren MP4/20, McLaren MP4/21, McLaren MP4/22, McLaren MP4-23, McLaren MP4-24,
McLaren MP4-25, McLaren MP4-26, McLaren MP4-27, McLaren MP4-28, Brawn BGP001, Mercedes
W01, Mercedes W02, Mercedes W03, Mercedes W04, Force India VJM02, Force India VJM03, Force
India VJM04, Force India VJM05, Force India VJM06
Wins: 43

Although the engine architecture and capacity has remained the same since 2006, the V8 engine has
been operated under a wide variety of regulations. In 2006, development was free, although the
engine had to last for two race weekends. For 2007, the engine was homologated (the start of the
frozen era) and had to last for two race weekends only including Saturday and Sunday teams
were free to use a different engine on Friday, to encourage them to run during practice, and ran to a
maximum rev limit of 19,000 rpm. These rules remained in force for the 2008 season. Since the start
of 2009, each driver has been able to call on a pool of eight engines for the entire season, and the
maximum engine speed has been fixed at 18,000 rpm. In both the 2009 and 2011 seasons, the
engine was also adapted to incorporate the KERS hybrid system.The Mercedes engine is
codenamed FO108 followed by a letter denoting they year Y denotes 2011 for example and F
denotes 2013 oddly. It is designed and developed by Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines in
Brixworth, UK. It has a maximum capacity of 2.4 litres, while its architecture is fixed at eight cylinders
in a V configuration, with a bank angle of 90 degrees. The engines minimum weight is fixed by
regulation at 95 kilogrammes, and it develops over 750 bhp.The Mercedes-Benz V8 was the first
engine to score three race wins with one engine: in 2009, Jenson Button used engine FW049-01 to
win races in Bahrain, Spain and Monaco. The unit went on to be used for Friday practice in Germany
and Hungary, accumulating a total of 2,016 kilometres. It also scored two pole positions (Spain and
Monaco) and spent 72 percent of its racing laps in the lead. In the same season, engine FW058-01,
used by Lewis Hamilton, also became the first hybrid-equipped engine in Formula One history to win
a race, at the Hungarian Grand Prix.
In 2013 it will be used by McLaren, Force India and the Mercedes works team.

In part eight we reveal arguably the best engine in F1

Renault RS26

aka RS27
Chassis: Renault R25, Renault R26, Renault R27, Red Bull RB3, Renault R28, Red Bull RB4, Renault
R29, Red Bull RB5, Renault R30, Red Bull RB6, Renault R31, Red Bull RB7, Lotus T128, Red Bull RB8,
Lotus E20, Williams FW34, Caterham CT01, Lotus E21, Caterham CT03, Red Bull RB9
Wins: 46

The Renault RS27 is an evolution of the RS26 of 2006. 2007 was the first year of the homologation
process so all of the RS27 variants have their roots in an RS26 engine we supplied to the FIA around
October 2006 explains Rob White of Renaultsport F1. After that we were allowed to make certain
number of modifications some for installation reasons and some minor re-workings for the first rev
limit that we had, which was 19,000rpm. At that point the homologation only applied to the
fundamental engine architecture, not to the pumps and ancillaries or the inlet. At the beginning of
the 2007 season we provided another engine and drawings to the FIA, knowing that once we had
done so, all of the rest of it it would be fixed up until the end to 2010. That was the rule framework
as it stood on that day. Leading into that 2007 engine there was a big development effort going on
as at that time we were in the middle of trying to win the World Championship. That took priority.
In a completely unconstrained environment we probably would have done some more
development on the RS27. Subsequently, through 2007 we were able to work on the auxiliaries and
the inlet system, but then in 2008 the FIA homologation perimeter was extended to include all of the
peripheral stuff as well. But over the years we have made a lot of detail changes for the installation
of the engine in different cars. We also made changes to accompany all of the other rule changes
that came along. The engine life example is a good one today we validate engines to 3000kms on
the dyno, whereas the RS26 and the first RS27s were validated to half of that.
You are not allowed to make a change just because it makes the engine go better, or because youve
discovered a new magic coating, or whatever, but thats not a particularly frustrating situation
because theres not a bandana of silver bullets rushing around that nobody had thought of before
the homologation process arrived. Over the years we have gained a fantastic understanding of the
control of the operation of our engines. There is a much smaller spread in performance between the
engines that we produce now and we have a much smaller deterioration of the performance in its
lifespan than we did before. The spread in the pit lane over the life of the engine is between one and
three per cent, and thats up to about 20bhp at the end of the life of the engine. Id like to think that
we are at the happy end of that spectrum. The sum of all the small changes, though, is a big
development programme. You shouldnt underestimate how finely optimised these engines are, or
how close to the edge they are. Its all about how to extract the smallest element of performance we
can, even if were not able to make any mechanical change. We will seek to make best use of how
we operate the engine, the fuel and the temperatures. Even the oil is specially developed by Total
for our engines. The biggest, baddest example of changes in operating conditions for the engine was
the hot blown diffuser, which came around in the past 18 months, and now most of the cars on the
grid have it. Both LRGP and Red Bull are particularly sophisticated users of that concept and weve
used it to help exploit the potential of the engine and of the car.
Over the years the rev limit on the cars changed from and was eventually restricted to just
18,000rpm. Something White thinks was a good move
Without the rev limit we would have continued to pursue greater rpm until we became limited by
the physics of the combustion process and diminishing returns due to increased friction with
increasing rotational speed. Without any other new regulatory constraint, I imagine we would have
reachedf over 22,000 rpm by now and would have found a further 75 horsepower (ie +10%),
equivalent to a lap time gain of around 1.5 sec at Monza. Without doing the development work, it is
difficult to judge the level at which engine performance would have converged at the limit of the
technical regulations. The same effects that have been pursued in the frozen era (exhausts, mapping
etc) would have been of interest, but the priorities may have been different.