FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#263032
Let me simply it for you ok? "Good morning sir would you like a half dozen donut's or a full dozen"!


I disagree - you're asking half a dozen donuts to contain as much jam as a dozen. It's cheaper to get 850bhp from a V10 than it is from a four cylinder lump. The development costs far outweigh the cost of the components of a larger engine obviously under less stress (without the heat associated with forced induction). :whip:


isn't your disagreement the very point of the thread?
#263036
Let me simply it for you ok? "Good morning sir would you like a half dozen donut's or a full dozen"!


I disagree - you're asking half a dozen donuts to contain as much jam as a dozen. It's cheaper to get 850bhp from a V10 than it is from a four cylinder lump. The development costs far outweigh the cost of the components of a larger engine obviously under less stress (without the heat associated with forced induction). :whip:

I see your point but the point I'm alluding too is that when the engine components increase by 1-2/3rd's the cost savings are eliminated. We do not know what boost level's will be set or if the V6 will be a single or TT setup and if they are TT (which I honestly believe they should be) which will eliminate some of the cost savings.

Back in the TT day's when boost was 'limited' to what 5-bar for qualifying (73.5 psi) and with the 'doctor heckle and mister hyde' rocket fuel those power level were endured by a few 4 pot bangers. We could go on and on about who is right and who is wrong but atleast I have experience with huge turbo'd 4 banger's (with quality internals) that would eat 90+% of the cars I went up against meaning experience means more than just an outsiders view with no personal experience in the matter.

Oh I almost forgot, :whip: !
#263091
when the engine components increase by 1-2/3rd's the cost savings are eliminated


Absurd - are you saying it's cheaper to develop and produce turbo charged four cylinder engines producing 850bhp over say V10 N/As producing the same?! :nono:

As for your comment regarding my knowledge on the subject, I wouldn't be so naive to go down that route my friend. I didn't spend the afternoon working on a V6 trackday car just to improve my 'outsiders view with no personal experience'. Back at you! :whip:
#263357
when the engine components increase by 1-2/3rd's the cost savings are eliminated


Absurd - are you saying it's cheaper to develop and produce turbo charged four cylinder engines producing 850bhp over say V10 N/As producing the same?! :nono:

As for your comment regarding my knowledge on the subject, I wouldn't be so naive to go down that route my friend. I didn't spend the afternoon working on a V6 trackday car just to improve my 'outsiders view with no personal experience'. Back at you! :whip:


Yep, Turbo charging inevitably increases reliability issues due to the increase in strain on components that forced induction brings.
#263460
Forced induction tends to reduce reliability but it isn't carved in stone. And the decision whether it's worth the risk is best left to the teams themselves.

Stephen, I have been arguing in favour of your point for quite some time. The FIA are too meddlesome and too controlling.

F1 isn't a thing so much as it's a process. It reached its present station through the blood, sweat and toil of generations of designers and engineers exploiting the limits of the FISA's/FIA's rules and exploring the limits or Professor Newton's rules, which, at different times, left them free to experiment with forced induction, active ground effects, active suspension, continuously adjustable aerodynamics, all-wheel drive, gas turbine engines, even six wheeled cars!!! The current Bernie-inspired trend toward manipulating the formula in the interest of controlling costs serves to the detriment of the creativity and inventiveness of the engineers. The sport no longer is evolving, now it's being gardened like some damned bonsai tree, forever kept in a tiny pot with its roots trimmed sort, lest it should grow overly large.

A classic example of F1's process of evolution through competition was the V-10 engine. Ferrari undoubtedly is the world's leading proponent of the 12-cylinder car. As Il Commendatore famously said to driver/journalist Paul Frère, "Una Ferrari è una macchina di dodici cilindri." Enzo was so committed to this principle that when his company first marketed six and eight-cylinder cars, he insisted they be badged as Dinos rather than Ferraris. So, naturally, Ferrari raced 12-cylinder engines.

And the earth fair shook in 1996 when the Scuderia broke with a tradition dating back to 1964 and campaigned a V-10 F1 engine. Why had they made the change? Because of the new 3-litre displacement limit.

Since the earlier 3-litre era, research and race results had demonstrated the clear advantage of a cylinder sized from 300 to 350ccs (due to optimal thermodynamic efficiency). Ferrari's testing confirmed they could not tolerate the loss of performance a 250cc cylinder would have produced. So they swallowed their pride and built a V-10.

Thank god Enzo already was dead, else it would have killed him.

You'll never see Formula 1 return to that kind of inventiveness again, until the FIA overcome their phobia of a return to a free and unfettered evolution of the sport.
#263582
FIA announces 15,000 rpm limit

The FIA has announced that the new 1.6L V6 turbo engines will have a rev limit of 15,000rpm and will still ensure Formula One has a unique sound.

There has been speculation of what the limit would be as Bernie Ecclestone and the circuit owners had voiced their concerns at the sound of the new engines. After Adrian Newey told BBC Sport in Valencia that he expected the limit to be "around 14,000 or 16,000", the FIA announced in a Q&A press release that the limit had been agreed on a middle ground.

"This parameter has been updated from 12000rpm to 15000 rpm to allow engineers more flexibility in power and energy management," the FIA release read. "However, as a consequence of the new architecture (V6) and the change in rev-limit, the engine will sound different, but will remain representative of Formula One."

The clarifications come after the FIA ratified the new power units for 2014 on Wednesday. In a further challenge to the engineers, the FIA announced that the fuel flow had not changed from the initial limit imposed in order to force the engines to be even more efficient.

"The fuel flow limit will stay the same. The technologies are the same and as a consequence any increase in rpm will constrain the engineers to work harder on reducing friction and gaining on engine efficiency. The challenge will be even bigger than originally planned and will therefore enhance the technological lead of Formula One."

____________________________________________

Brilliant...reduce the RPM from 19k to 15k and call it an 'enhancement of technological lead'. We have V6ers running around everyday on the road here, and we'd be associating a 6 cylinder with an F1 car.I love these guys.

If they're going to dumb down the engines for green mentality, at least be up front and honest about it. These 'marketing talks' are uber lame.
#263589
An alternative to V6 engines in F1...


Turbocharged 5-liter V12s at 20,000 RPM?

Honestly, I'm really not down for this whole "world's fastest lawnmower" thing. When Lewis Hamilton revs his engine in the pits, I want people on the back rows of the grandstands to suffer minor burns when their coffee is vibrated right out of their cups. I don't so much want Lewis to rev his engine and the crowd to think the gardener has shown up to trim the lawn real quick before the race.

Granted, we're not talking about the world's fastest lawnmowers just yet, but I feel that's the direction we're gradually heading.

See our F1 related articles too!