|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
21 Oct 2015, 16:13 (Ref:3584607) | #26 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
Quote:
other than being louder i dont look back of the last years of the V8 era being all that great or really any different then it is now. sure the engines were cheaper but the money from the over bloated budgets was spent on aero instead of engines, races were still processional, the outcomes of races were still predictable, lack of driver input was still there, it was still too expensive for the small teams, poor governance, over priced etc etc. i dont see how going back to V8s is a magic bullet. personally i would rather see the new technology made to work rather than abandon to go back to formula that most thought was pants back then anyways. i suppose i should add that i'm going to watch regardless. too much time invested to pull out now. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
21 Oct 2015, 18:41 (Ref:3584633) | #27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
There is not a hope in hell that the current PU package will get scraped.. Way too much money and time invested this far..
I am sure changes will be made to them better reliability, the noise level will go up not by a huge amount but enough to make a difference .. The cars will get faster again. And hopefully the tyres made to be more durable, which will have to happen because if they start to really open up these engines then ... |
||
|
21 Oct 2015, 18:44 (Ref:3584634) | #28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,119
|
Quote:
Seriously, I think much of this is ludicrous. I will say that one true point about all of this lives in the other thread (German TV Interview...) in which either Max or BE makes the point that the prior V8 engines where at the end of their development life-cycle so that more money spent had little or no impact on performance. While that is true there are two aspects of that that people conveniently forget... 1. Engine development was moot because the development had "run it's course". So that means to a degree teams were roughly running spec engines. 2. If I remember correctly, development was free. So initially there were winners and losers with the V8 engines, but it did take time for parity to happen and manufactures were free to make the required changes when they needed to do so. I have mentioned this before, but in my opinion a few key features need to be implemented... 1. Equal access. In short if a manufacture provides an engine, then everyone can get the same exact spec (mechanical + software) as the manufacture. 2. A fixed and low cost for engines. So if manufactures want to spend a bunch of money and sell/lease the engines at a loss they can. But they will also be providing competitors with quality engines on the cheap. 3. Unrestricted development (which does not impact cost set in #2) My biggest concerns with my proposal above is if there is to be a fixed limit to number of teams you provide (or not) and the risk of someone still dominating and chasing off the other manufactures. Lastly, talk (mostly in the Max/BE interview) of independent source for engines (Cosworth) is unrealistic in my opinion for the exact reasons Cosworth is not providing an engine right now. And that is because they can be out spent by the manufactures. In the Max/BE interview, Max talked to going to Cosworth and saying "write a spec that would allow you to be competitive". Personally I think they only way they could do that would be to revert to a prior spec that they had already solved (prior V8 spec). Anything beyond a solution that is at the end of the road development wise AND also simple (not requiring lots of third party partnerships such as for hybrid solutions) they would again get out developed by the manufactures (and their partners) given size and resource availability disparities. Ultimately all of this is pushing for a spec engine. Which I consider to be sad and would just be a trigger for a different path for the demise of F1. I think cost controls is the real answer. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
21 Oct 2015, 19:20 (Ref:3584638) | #29 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
Quote:
again just going from memory, but was not one of the problems of the Cosworth V8 (used by Williams and others in 2010?) that it was much heavier then the other manu engines affecting among other things handling? it was a powerful engine (even detuned) and reliable but it was still an underdeveloped design relative to what the manus were providing. rather the money the manus had meant they were pushing in areas of lighter weight materials which did provide performance gains. i could be totally wrong on this though. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
21 Oct 2015, 20:37 (Ref:3584649) | #30 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
My suggestion for power units would be that each manufacturer makes a batch of power units to last say five races. These units would be sealed including the ECU so that no changes can be made to them and if an inspection is needed this has to be done under FIA supervision.
The drivers of each car would then draw lots for their power units from their chosen manufacturer. This way all power units should be equal from each manufacturer. F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport so it should have the most advanced engines. How long have 8 valve twin overhead cam V8,s (or V10's or 12's) been around? Longer than I can recall. |
|
|
21 Oct 2015, 21:29 (Ref:3584661) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,119
|
Quote:
Regardless... I think that even in the best of scenarios that it will continue to be hard for someone like Cosworth to battle the manufactures. I think they can be close in some scenarios (like I tried to outline). Even then... I don't believe a simple throwback style engine will happen. However I know there is a group here who continue to call for it (be if V8, V10, etc.) Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
22 Oct 2015, 07:32 (Ref:3584710) | #32 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 717
|
Earlier this season a revised V6 engine was mooted. I think this is the only viable solution if they do want to change.
A V6 with a bias more towards ICE, less toward hybrid. Perhaps twin turbo, which I believe would improve the quality of the sound, and probably make it a little louder also. Increased fuel flow to allow them to push closer to the 15krpm limit will also improve the sound. Pushing up over 1000bhp will be easily achievable, the only real downside is the increased fuel use. Refuelling was pretty much ruled out, so increasing the tank size is the only other option, which is a little bit of a pity, but I don't think it matters a great deal in the scheme of things. I think the above solution will be met with hostility from the public initially, but after seeing the improved engine formula running it will be embraced perhaps not as much as the V10's, but easily as much as the V8's. |
|
|
22 Oct 2015, 21:45 (Ref:3584834) | #33 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
23 Oct 2015, 00:05 (Ref:3584863) | #34 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Reverting back to a more traditional IC motor will not on its own improve racing apart from eliminating some short periods of less than full throttle but that will happen anyway due to the need to conserve tyres and fuel. What it will do is (supposedly) reduce unit costs to customers who buy the motors and maybe increase the noise which will be a backward step. Formula E has one big advantage over F1, the lack of noise so it can be run in cities etc without upsetting the pigeons or sleeping babies. Don't under estimate that aspect of it as the series matures and it will mature and grow. Some big names are now involved including current F1 competitors who are having an each way bet on both horses.
If the engineers write the rule book for any future PU then it will never be less than what it is as engineers do not like having their toys taken away from them. A stock block formula would allow any and all teams to run their own in house engine program or buy in as needed and would be noisy, cheap, just as powerful and F5000 like which everyone keeps bringing up. There is not one single good reason to run bespoke motors in the category that I can see apart from the kudos of saying F1 made a more expensive mouse trap than anyone else has done. Use a V8, bolt two turbos on it and 1500hp is possible with little effort. That should be enough power to keep the drivers busy and frighten a few of them I dare say. A unit like that could be built for under a million dollars a piece, will rev to 10,000 and last quite a few races but who cares as they would be so cheap longevity would not be a major issue. MB could yank a motor out of one of their road cars and make it work if they wanted. Sanity needs to return to F1 or it will walk off a cliff. |
|
|
23 Oct 2015, 03:45 (Ref:3584918) | #35 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Bring back the Ford DFV and the glory days to F1...
I think Bernie was responsible for the death of F5000 in the day too. |
||
|
23 Oct 2015, 03:50 (Ref:3584919) | #36 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
||
|
25 Oct 2015, 11:24 (Ref:3585418) | #37 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,753
|
This is just the sort of thing Max was talking about, with regards to the top teams in that German interview. Mercedes don't like the idea of a cheaper independent engine.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121497 |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
25 Oct 2015, 12:41 (Ref:3585437) | #38 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
25 Oct 2015, 13:15 (Ref:3585444) | #39 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,753
|
As Max said in the German interview, when ever something new was presented to the teams, there would always be opposition from some of the them but it was a case of the teams eventually coming around. However, with all the money Mercedes have thrown at this, I'm not too sure with Jean Todt in charge. He seems very conspicuous by his absence.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
25 Oct 2015, 15:33 (Ref:3585474) | #40 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Quote:
It might seem as though it is a good idea to those who only spectate, or are a team that is struggling financially, but it makes a mockery of the rule stability that is in place for exactly this reason. It will possibly lead to the loss of the three major car manufacturers, and now that Ferrari has been partially floated on the New York Stock Exchange (it happened on Friday), their shareholders may have something to say about the wasted money. This is what I find unacceptable about F1; if a team starts to dominate for one reason or another (but funnily enough, never Ferrari), the FIA or someone else steps in to take away the advantage. I think that I am right in saying that when Cosworth were about to introduce their latest incarnation of the V8, the opposition realised that their engines might not be a match for it. So they got the FIA to change the rules so that engine revs were reduced which immediately took away the performance gain that Cosworth had created in an engine that revved upto 22,000 rpm. |
||||
|
25 Oct 2015, 16:04 (Ref:3585480) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
I could be misreading this but it sounds to me like a Mosleyite ploy from a number of years ago where he placed some heavy and outrageous proposals to the teams such as teams being required to pass drivers onto other teams for every race and other circus-esque proposals.
The idea in putting outrageous proposals to the teams was that they would adopt more modest ones as compromise, modest proposals that would've otherwise been trenchantly opposed by the teams. I wonder whether this "independent engine" malarky is a similar high stakes game by Eccelstone to bring teams/manufacturers to heel and to get them to redraft the rules according to Eccelstone's real wants. If the ploy succeeds and the teams/manufacturers relent, then it would also serve to immeasurably strengthen his political position overall. If his ploy works that is. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
25 Oct 2015, 16:11 (Ref:3585483) | #42 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
that is straight out of his playbook.
|
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
25 Oct 2015, 23:37 (Ref:3585578) | #43 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
If they want a bespoke PU then the answer to all the problems is simple, get rid of the token system and allow proper on track testing during the year. If a PU is found to be fundamentally deficient ala Renault then the fixes can be applied as needed.
|
|
|
26 Oct 2015, 20:59 (Ref:3585793) | #44 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Yet again, it seems as though Ferrari has broken ranks with the rest of the teams (as they did when they went behind the back of FOCA to do a secret deal with FOM) to use their veto to stop the FIA introducing a price cap for PSUs to client teams. Apart from the fact that it is only Ferrari that has been granted this power to veto changes to technical regulations (which I believe to be an uncompetative advantage under EU laws), this apparently is behind the reason that the FIA is tendering for a second string power-unit.
What a mess F1 has become! See: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fe...ngine/?v=2&s=1 |
||
|
27 Oct 2015, 04:41 (Ref:3585873) | #45 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 197
|
Yes Mike, but I think you'll find the way the set up works, that there will be a point where Ferrari can look at this proposal and veto it too....
|
|
|
27 Oct 2015, 06:52 (Ref:3585885) | #46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
I hope that Mercedes are profoundly disappointed and Bernie gets an independent engine manufacturer in F1. Mercedes is one of the worst things to ever happen to F1 right behind their hybrid engine! Mercedes have no interest in motorsport, they only care about domination and maintaining their advantage. Bernie is at least concerned with F1's continuity, and he needs a show to sell, in this case I believe Bernie is the white knight! Not often you get to say that! |
||
|
27 Oct 2015, 09:06 (Ref:3585908) | #47 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Mike I read that article I find it interesting that Bernie is now calling for low cost power units but he backed Ferrari in opposing a cost cap on the existing power units.
I wonder will Ferrari veto the new proposal for low cost engines? |
|
|
27 Oct 2015, 09:34 (Ref:3585920) | #48 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,264
|
Why cant Renault build a stronger engine in the off season - Is there a freeze on engine development for 2016?
|
||
|
27 Oct 2015, 09:59 (Ref:3585925) | #49 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Quote:
Like this year, they will have 32 "tokens" for 2016. |
|||
|
27 Oct 2015, 10:38 (Ref:3585938) | #50 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Quote:
There are a number of issues surrounding this conundrum that need looking at. Mercedes, when this package was first mandated some years ago, decided to throw the kitchen sink at it, and drafted in engineers from all parts of it's structure to come up with the perfect solution. Money was almost no object because their management could see that there could/would be benefits to the whole of it's business in the long term as there would be cross-fertilisation of ideas/designs with it's road vehicles. Ferrari and Renault, on the other hand, have seemed to have only looked upon the F1 PSUs in isolation for their use in motor-racing. Although Ferrari have developed one or more hybrid road cars, I believe, their business doesn't rely on them to survive; like other supercar builders, they have only used the technology to try beat their rivals, really. It's more about bragging rights. Renault is difficult to understand. They were the driving force behind this move to a hybrid system, but I think that they took their eyes off the ball whilst it was going through the planning stages. In reality, all they wanted was a small block 4 cylinder ICE with turbos which would compliment, or have been sourced from, it's road going cars. However, because of budgetary restraints within the comapany, they were severely constrained in their development of their PSU. In their last meeting of the Stategy Group, BCE and Todt actually joined forces to table the PSU cost cap, and in a vote, it was approved by the majority of the teams. Then Ferrari vetoed it. Now, if the FIA mandates that a second tier power-unit will be allowed, I believe that it is the intention of the ruling body to ignore Ferrari's veto if it comes to that point. Ferrari, in my view however, would be foolish to use their power of veto twice on this subject, and now that it is partly a public company, it has to be seen as behaving in the best interest of it's shareholders; it cannot be deemed to be a pariah. |
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2014 Power Units | Mike Harte | Formula One | 1 | 21 May 2014 19:20 |
What is the true revs and power output of the current MotoGP 990cc four stroke engine | Robin Plummer | Racing Technology | 4 | 26 Mar 2004 12:23 |
Current Power | Robin Plummer | Formula One | 41 | 27 Sep 2003 16:38 |
CURRENT POWER OUTPUTS OF GP AND SUPERBIKE ENGINES? | Robin Plummer | Racing Technology | 3 | 12 Oct 2000 11:15 |