FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[MattMK45]

I can't say I was as savvy about F1 in earlier years but I do remember that the v10 engines made the v8s of today so flat and rather slow. So why did they decide to move to v10 engines? Was it just a change in regulations or something else?

[scotty]

Yup. Those V10's could deliver 1000hp in qualifying and i think they wanted to slow the cars down a bit.

[MattMK45]

Yup. Those V10's could deliver 1000hp in qualifying and i think they wanted to slow the cars down a bit.

Thanks! Yer I guessed it was probably safety orientated, a shame that but I still want them back!

[myownalias]

I'd rather have the 3.5L V12's back; I also want back unlimited engines so the power envelope can be pushed plus it also added to the unpredictability of the race when engines used to blow up in spectacular style; Or even better going back to 1.5L Turbo's pushing out upwards of 1500hp in qualifying trim!

[Jabberwocky]

The 8 engine rule, would keep the rev limits down to keep the reliability up. So yep lets get rid of the rev limits.

I like the sound of the Turbo cars as well

[myownalias]

I never experienced the turbo era cars but clearly remember the 3.5L V12s, infact let's roll everything back to that time with modern day safety tests, better racing!!!

[kerc]

I'd rather have the 3.5L V12's back; I also want back unlimited engines so the power envelope can be pushed plus it also added to the unpredictability of the race when engines used to blow up in spectacular style; Or even better going back to 1.5L Turbo's pushing out upwards of 1500hp in qualifying trim!

I would love them to have a more open formula for engines. Turbos, V8s, V10s, V12s, even Wankels. How awesome would that be!

[madbrad]

Once the Turbos were banned for the end of 88 or 89 I forget , and everyone had 3.5 litre NA engines, there were V8s, V10s and V12s. By te end of that period, Ferrari had the only V12 in the field. When the formula was reduced to 3 litres, Ferrari CHOSE to quit with V12s and went to V10s, because it was just too small for all that mechanical motion. So during the 3 litre period there were V8s and V10s but then IIRC they made a rule that they all had to be V10s. Then eventually it was reduced to 2.4 litres and mandated V8s.

Useless trivia: Nigel Mansell won the first and the last 3.5 litre races.

[cap-dude]

What annoy's me is all the talk of drivers hitting the rev limit before they can make any use of the tow from the car in front

More revs more overtaking ??

[f1ea]

What annoy's me is all the talk of drivers hitting the rev limit before they can make any use of the tow from the car in front

More revs more overtaking ??

But also less reliability. Also the turbos... they do give the engine a beating. But turbos are sweeet.

V10's would be nice, but with the slicks and the way the aero is so perfected now, i'm thinking it would be simply too fast for it to be safe........... Today's cars with slicks and V10's in a rainy Monza

[darwin dali]

It's also about costs and about applicability for passenger cars.
Get used to the idea of V6 F1 cars in a not too distant future...

[MattMK45]

It's also about costs and about applicability for passenger cars.
Get used to the idea of V6 F1 cars in a not too distant future...

That will be the fate of F1 soon.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

The TR specifies a 4v/cyl 90° V-8 with circular pistons/cylinders in an effort to restrain developmental costs. History has proved that some teams will spend cubic Euros to gain an advantage by exploiting any property not explicitly defined to the most minute detail. For instance, the TR only specifies 99% of the ingredients in the petrol the teams must run, so Ferrari employ 40 people to determine what to do with the remaining 1% to produce optimal engine performance. I'm not sure Hispania Racing have a total staff of 40 but Ferrari have that many just tweaking fuel.

A V-10 is a mechanical abomination because a straight-5 is inherently unbalanced (both primarily & secondarily), and a V-10 is two abominable 5s joined at the crank. F1 embraced it when displacement was raised to 3.5 litres because 300-350 CCs per cylinder is optimal for thermodynamic efficiency (350cc X 10 cylinders = 3.5 litres). Engines then only had to last the one race so reliability wasn't as strong a concern as it is now. The 90° V-8 has perfect primary and secondary balances so it will tend to have better reliability.

When limited to 4 valves per cylinder (as per the current TR), the V-10 will have a breathing advantage over a V-8 (40 valves vs. 32), but the V-12 will breathe even better (48 valves). Plus the straight-6 has perfect balances and two sixes mated at the crank -- regardless of the angle -- is smoother still.

The current engine configuration was set in 2006. Displacement was reduced to 2400CCs to try to slow the cars down a bit. A V-8 is cheaper to build than a V-10, plus no two designers can agree on the proper bank angle for a V-10. But no one disputes the benefits of the 90° V-8, so the FIA chose it so there would be no flexibility in the design. Otherwise, Ferrari might have spent a gazillion Euros deciding whether 110° is best or 120 (or anywhere in between).

I am fair certain neither BMW nor Porsche would have resorted to building V-10s for the street if F1 hadn't been running them. It's an exceedingly compromised design and road cars with them need more counterbalancers than Paris Hilton has had social diseases just to dampen the vibration.

You can keep the V-10s but I'll take a V-12 any day.

It's also about costs and about applicability for passenger cars.
Get used to the idea of V6 F1 cars in a not too distant future...

My money's on the turbo straight 4 with regulated boost and unlimited revs.

[f1ea]

The current engine configuration was set in 2006. Displacement was reduced to 2400CCs to try to slow the cars down a bit. A V-8 is cheaper to build than a V-10, plus no two designers can agree on the proper bank angle for a V-10. But no one disputes the benefits of the 90° V-8, so the FIA chose it so there would be no flexibility in the design. Otherwise, Ferrari might have spent a gazillion Euros deciding whether 110° is best or 120 (or anywhere in between).

hmmm that should make it a bit more interesting.

You can keep the V-10s but I'll take a V-12 any day.

Even faster

It's also about costs and about applicability for passenger cars.
Get used to the idea of V6 F1 cars in a not too distant future...

My money's on the turbo straight 4 with regulated boost and unlimited revs.[/quote]

i'm with the turbos too.

There's a new Alfa Romeo turbo engine that's won some awards... great little engine to get ideas from.

its fitted in the new Alfa Giuletta:
http://www.alfaromeo.com/com/cmsen/home ... WebCrawler

I want this car soo bad. But with the older headlight design.........

[vindicator86]

I think an f1 car should have more power than the chassie can handle. Todays cars have to much grip for the power they produce.