Formula 1 WI - Naturally Aspirated Teams received earlier capacity increase during Turbo Era

In the OTL F1 teams racing naturally aspirated engines (mainly variations of the Cosworth DFV) were left behind as turbocharged cars begin dominating at most tracks, the last NA win during the Turbo Era apparently being the 1983 Detroit GP.

It was only from the 1987 F1 season that the naturally aspirated cars received a capacity increase from 3-litre to 3.5-litre, intended as a temporary measure to tide smaller teams over until the turbos were banned at the end of the 1988 F1 season.

What if the ATL naturally aspirated cars instead received an earlier capacity increase to 3.5-litres from the 1984 F1 season?
 
An interesting thing to consider is how the increased displacement to 3.5-litres would have affected the fortunes of the naturally aspirated teams from 1984-1985 such as Tyrrell (until mid-1985 - especially if Tyrrell's alleged technical infringement in 1984 remains undiscovered) and Arrows (until it was replaced by the Arrows A7), along with the likes of Minardi and Spirit.

And while no teams used naturally aspirated engines during the 1986 season in OTL, would some smaller teams have used the uprated ATL 3.5-litre non-turbo engines if they were in essence for example earlier versions of the Cosworth DFV derived DFZ / DFR V8 engines?
 

Archibald

Banned
Well, I think the turbos had reached such insane power levels (1500 hp during qualification by 1985) that even at 3.5 the Cosworth still would be left behind, panting heavily. The interesting question is, how large would a Cosworth needs to grow to compete with the monster turbos ? think 5 L like like some kind of american muscle car engine (Shelby and the like), but could grow even larger.
I know it is aples-to-oranges, but a Merlin or Allison V-1710 was 1000 hp without a turbo, but at the cost of an enormous size and weight.

By the way, I think I may start my own Formula One thread on a different subject.
 
Perhaps an earlier introduction of the pop-off valves and reduced fuel tank sizes of only 150 litres on turbocharged cars would have help matters slightly, the idea is to have the front-running ATL naturally aspirated teams in 1984-1986 perform roughly as well as Benetton and Tyrrell during the 1987-1988 F1 seasons.
 
The problem with any 'equivalence' formula is that it is unfair to whichever is not winning. Bump up normally aspirated engine capacity until they begin winning and the turbo folk will whinge about an 'unfair advantage'. Balance them by weight and the heavier choice will have more moveable weight to place low down and move it fore and aft to improve the handling, traction and braking as necessary. The only true equivalence is the same playing field. Colin Chapman was one who liked the idea of allowing teams the same BTU in fuel for each car. What fuel and how they used it was up to the engineers; steam, turbines, N/A, turbos on methanol mixes etc. on anything from coal to nitro methane with no other restriction.
 
To be fair the turbocharged teams would still dominate in this ATL until they are outlawed from 1989 as in OTL, it is just that the non-turbocharged teams would not be completely left behind during the 1984-1986 F1 seasons.

Am not after a complete equivalence between the turbocharged and non-turbocharged teams in this scenario from 1984, merely a bit of tweaking here and there that potentially allows the odd fluke victory / podium place by non-turbocharged teams.

Fwiw the Cosworth DFV V8 (and related variants) was capable of displacements of around 2.5-4.0-litres.
 
Last edited:
Top