FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

2003 Pole Michael Schumacher - Ferrari 1:09.150
2014 Pole Felipe Massa - Williams-Mercedes 1:08.759

2003 full tank, 2014 on fumes.

Yeah, a better comparison would be 2002 - where Barrichello was on pole with a 1:08.082. So effectively in 12 years the cars have got 0.7 seconds slower!

and 50% more fuel efficient.

[spankyham]

...
and 50% more fuel efficient.

If I was advising a friend buying a family car and on a budget, that would be super important.

Whether it was in the 70's during the first "oil crisis", or in any of the "oil crises" since, when I want to watch "racing" I couldn't give a fat rat's clacker about efficiency.

[Jabberwocky]

I look at it as furthering technology for the engine suppliers, all the efficiency stuff that they learn from F1 will filter down to the road going cars eventually.

[stonemonkey]

I look at it as furthering technology for the engine suppliers, all the efficiency stuff that they learn from F1 will filter down to the road going cars eventually.

That's where the savings to the planet would be, not the savings made in the sport itself which is just a tiny drop in the ocean of fuel used around the world and essentially meaningless if only looked at in that context.

[spankyham]

I look at it as furthering technology for the engine suppliers, all the efficiency stuff that they learn from F1 will filter down to the road going cars eventually.

Yes, I can see the business imperative for production car companies to transfer costs and use F1 for their R & D. Still doesn't change my personal view that I watch F1 to see racing, not conservation or R & D.



Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[What's Burning?]

And how is it not racing? Meanwhile we turn ourselves insideout to defend drivers that can conserve their fuel and conserve their tires and drive smoother and get their cars to the finish, but in your argument you seem to say that you want cars going all out 100% of the time. I'd like for you to point out which season in F1 that's happened in the past, cause I'd run out and buy the DVD... hell I'd spring for the Blu-Ray!

[LewEngBridewell]

And how is it not racing? Meanwhile we turn ourselves insideout to defend drivers that can conserve their fuel and conserve their tires and drive smoother and get their cars to the finish, but in your argument you seem to say that you want cars going all out 100% of the time. I'd like for you to point out which season in F1 that's happened in the past, cause I'd run out and buy the DVD... hell I'd spring for the Blu-Ray!

[spankyham]

And how is it not racing? Meanwhile we turn ourselves insideout to defend drivers that can conserve their fuel and conserve their tires and drive smoother and get their cars to the finish, but in your argument you seem to say that you want cars going all out 100% of the time. I'd like for you to point out which season in F1 that's happened in the past, cause I'd run out and buy the DVD... hell I'd spring for the Blu-Ray!

Just watch the first 18 hours of the GTs a few weeks ago at Le Man

In fact, until recently, drivers could push to "their" maximum all race, it is only now that a driver cannot push all race to his max


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Jabberwocky]

I would like to see the regulation made simple.

You use 1 fuel tank, which has a capacity of 105L of fuel.
Fuel is 98 Ron Unleaded.
All other energy stores are empty at the start of the race.


Sent using NCC-1701

[darwin dali]

I would like to see the regulation made simple.

You use 1 fuel tank, which has a capacity of 105L of fuel.
Fuel is 98 Ron Unleaded.
All other energy stores are empty at the start of the race.


Sent using NCC-1701

Is that 100% Dennis?

[1Lemon]

I would like to see the regulation made simple.

You use 1 fuel tank, which has a capacity of 105L of fuel.
Fuel is 98 Ron Unleaded.
All other energy stores are empty at the start of the race.


Sent using NCC-1701

Is that 100% Dennis?

[racechick]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before but I found it interesting and not what I expected. the Mercedes engine is the cheapest to buy! so not only are it's customers getting the best engine, they are getting the cheapest. It comes all in at around $26mil

Next up is the Ferrari engine at $30 mil

And for those swanky high end spenders, the Renault comes in at a whopping $ 40 mil

I wonder where Honda will fit in on the scale? No brainer really to go for the Merc.

Here's a bit from Joe Saward

Talking around the paddock, it seems that Renault is the most expensive option at the moment. This make sense given that everything in France costs more than elsewhere because of the country’s employment laws and social charges (eh bah!). The price tag I hear for Renault is, ahem, $28.5 million for the engine. To this one must add the transmission (which Red Bull will do for you if you write them a cheque for $9 million) and you need to purchase the right lubricants for the engine from Total ($2 million more). Thus, without needing a pocket calculator, one can surmise that a Renault deal engine will cost you the best part of $40 million. Geez!

Ferrari seems to be the next best/worst offer with the suggestion being that you get the back end of the current prancing horse for a sniff under $30 million, when one adds in the transmission, service and yadda yadda.

Up in Brixworth, however, you can order the Menu du Jour, service included, for $24.4 million. That will include a little supplement for Petronas but from what I hear this is simply a deal to run Malaysian Jazeman Jaafar in a limited number of free practice sessions on Fridays. All in, the figure is believed to be around $26 million.

So, you want to be more competitive and spend less money? What do you choose?

Ferrari at $30 million. Maaa…

Renault at $40 million. Yougottabekiddinme…

Mercedes at $26 million. Ker-Ching!

Uh-duh…


http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/06/ ... 1-engines/

[What's Burning?]

Don't let Haas see this post.

[What's Burning?]

Engine rule changes trough the years
1947–1953

This era used pre-war voiturette engine regulations, with 4.5 L atmospheric and 1.5 L supercharged engines. Formula 2 cars were allowed. The Indianapolis 500 used pre-war Grand Prix regulations, with 4.5 L atmospheric and 3.0 L supercharged engines. The power range was up to 425 hp (317 kW)
1950-1951

1500 cc with compressor or 4500 cc without
No car weight limit
425 hp at 9300 rpm - (1951 Alfa Romeo 159)
1952-1953

750 cc with compressor or 2000 cc without
No car weight limit
175 hp at 7200 rpm - (1953 Ferrari 500)
1954–1960

Engine size was reduced for 2.5 L without compressor. 750 cc supercharged cars were allowed but no constructor built one for the World Championship. The Indianapolis 500 continued to use old pre-war regulations. The power range was up to 290 hp (216 kW)
Capacity was limited to 750 cc with compressor or 2500 cc without
No car weight limit
280 hp at 7600 rpm - (1957 Maserati 250F)
290 hp at 8500 rpm - (1955 Mercedes W196)
1961–1965

1961 International Gold Cup at Oulton Park was run to Formula One regulations and 1.5-litre Coventry Climax engine under the bonnet of Ferguson P99 Four wheel drive Formula 1. The combination of Moss's wet-weather mastery and all four wheels scrabbling for traction was simply unbeatable. It was the first and last victory for four-wheel-drive in Formula One as well as the last victory for a front-engined car.
The new reduced engine of 1.5 L took control of F1 just as every team and manufacturer switched from front to mid-engined cars. Compressor was banned. Although these engines were 1961 underpowered, 1965 average power had increased by nearly 50%. Lap times were better than in 1960 anyway. The power range was between 150 hp and 225 hp.
Capacity was limited to maximum of 1500 cc, minimum 1300 cc
Minimum car weight: 450 kg
190 hp at 9500 rpm - (1961 Ferrari 156)
225 hp at 10800rpm - (1965 Lotus 33)
1966–1986

Supercharging was allowed again. In 1966 FIA increased engine capacity to 3.0 L atmospheric and 1.5 L supercharged engines. 1966 was a transitional year, with 2.0 L versions of the BRM and Coventry-Climax V8 engines being used by several teams. The appearance of the standard-produced Cosworth DFV in 1967 made it possible for any small manufacturer to join the series with a home-built chassis. 1977 Renault debuted their Renault-Gordini V6 Turbo. 1971 Lotus made a few unsuccessful experiments with a Pratt & Whitney turbine fitted to chassis which had also 4WD. 1984 maximum fuel consumption of 220 l/race regulated until 1985, for 1986 195 l/race regulated. The power range was between 390 hp to 500 hp for normally aspirated, turbos 500 hp to 900 hp in race, in qualifying up to 1,500 hp.

1961 Capacity was limited to 1.5L
1966-1969

Capacity was limited to 1500 cc with or 3000 cc without compressor
Minimum car weight: 500kg
360 hp at 9000 rpm - (1969 Matra MS80)
1970-1971

1500 cc with compressor or 3000 cc without compressor
Minimum car weight: 530 kg
450 hp at 10000 rpm - (1970 Tyrell 001)
1972

1500 cc with compressor or 3000 without compressor
Minimum car weight: 550 kg
450 hp at 10000 rpm - (1972 Lotus 72D)
1973-1980

1500 cc with compressor or 3000 cc without compressor
Minimum car weight: 575 kg
500 hp at 12000 rpm - (1975 Ferrari 312T)
500 hp at 11000 rpm - (1977 Renault RS01 turbo)
510 hp at 12000 rpm - (1979 Ferrari 312T4)

1980-1983

1500 cc with compressor or 3000 cc without a compressor.
Minimum car weight 575 kg (1980), 585 kg (1981), 580 kg (1982), 540 kg (1983)
480 hp at 10000 rpm - (1980 Williams 07B)
640 hp at 11000 rpm - (1983 Brabham BMW BT55 Turbo)

1984-1985

1500 cc with compressor or 3000 cc without a compressor.
Minimum car weight 540 kg,
maximum fuel consumption 220 l/race.
750 hp at 12000 rpm - (1985 McLaren-TAG MP4/2B Turbo)

1986

1500 cc with compressor or 3000 cc without a compressor.
Minimum car weight 540 kg,
maximum fuel consumption 195 l/race
1400 hp at 12000 rpm - (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
1987–1988

The FIA regulations introduced wastegate with limited boost pressure (charging pressure) of 4 bar in qualification in 1987 for 1.5 L turbo and allowed a bigger 3.5 L for non charged engines. Seasons were still dominated by turbocharged engines. The rest of the grid was powered by the Ford GBA V6 turbo with Benetton, and then the only naturally aspirated engine, the DFV-derived Ford Cosworth DFZ 3.5 L V8 outputting 575 hp (429 kW).
1988 was again dominated by turbocharged engines limited to 2.5 bar charging pressure. Ford introduced its DFR 3.5 L V8 producing 585 hp (436 kW) at 11000 rpm, Judd introduced its CV 3.5 L V8. For 1988 maximum fuel consumption reduced to 155 l/race for turbocharged engines, no limit for normally aspirated engines.

1987

1500 cc with compressor or 3500 cc without a compressor.
Minimum car weight 500 kg
Maximum fuel consumption 195 l/race
maximum charging pressure 4 bar
850 hp at 13000 rpm - (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
3500 cc not compressed. Minimum 500 kg, no fuel-limit.
575 hp at 12000 rpm - (Tyrell-Ford 016)

1988

1500 cc with compressor or 3500 cc without a compressor.
Minimum car weight 540 kg
Maximum fuel consumption 155 l/race
maximum charging pressure 2.5 bar
685 hp at 12500 rpm - (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
3500 cc not compressed. Minimum 500 kg, no fuel-limit.
590 hp at 11000 rpm - (Benetton -Ford 016)
1989–1994

Turbochargers were banned from the 1989, leaving only a naturally aspirated 3.5 L engines.

1989

Capacity was limited to 3500 cc not compressed (no more turbo engines), no refuelling.
675 hp at 13000 rpm - (McLaren-Honda RA109E 72° V10)
660 hp at 13000 rpm – (Ferrari with its 035/5 65° V12)

1990

3500 cc not compressed, no refuelling.
690 hp at 13000 rpm – (McLaren - Honda RA100E)

1991

3500 cc not compressed
710 hp at 13000 rpm – (McLaren – Honda 60° V12 RA121E)
By the end of the 1994 season, Ferrari's 043 was putting out 820 hp at 15,800 rpm
1995–2004

This era used a 3.0 L engines, with a power range between 650 hp and 950 hp. For 1996, Ferrari changed from their traditional V12 engine to a smaller and lighter V10 engine. At the 1998 Japanese GP, Ferrari's 047D engine spec was said to produce over 800 bhp. The BMW P82, the engine used by the BMW WilliamsF1 Team in 2002, had hit a peak speed of 19,050 RPM’s in its final evolutionary stage. It was also the first engine in the 3.0 liter V10-era to break through the 19,000 rpm-wall, during 2002 Austria Grand Prix's qualifying. BMW's P83 engine used in 2003 season managed an impressive 19,200 rpm and cleared the 900 bhp mark and weighs less than 91 kg.

Capacity was limited to 3.0L

2004

3000cc engine that must last a complete race weekend. Replacing an engine costs the driver 10 places on the grid. Replacing one after second qualifying is equal to a start from the back of the grid.
Minimum car weight : 605 kg during each qualifying practice session and no less than 600 kg at all other times during the Event.(including driver and fuel)
900 hp at 18500+ rpm (BAR Honda 006)

2005

3.0 L V10, engine may have no more than 5 valves per cylinder. Engines must last 2 complete race weekends.

2006

For 2006, 2400cc engine with 8 cylinders in a 90° V bank, each one with 2 inlet and 2 outlet valves with a 98 mm maximum circular bore, which imply a 39.7 mm minimum stroke. An engine must weigh at least 95kg. Limited to be built with Aluminium alloys (with ceramics, metal matrix and magnesium alloys forbidden). Variable geometry intake and output systems forbidden. Each cylinder can have only one fuel injector and a single plug spark ignition. This is leading to a power reduction of around 20% from the three litre engines. Gearbox must last 4 consecutive races.
750 hp at 19000+ rpm (Toyota)
2007–2009

For 2007 the engine specification was frozen to keep development costs down. The engines which were used in the 2006 Japanese Grand Prix were used for the 2007 and 2008 seasons and they were limited to 19,000 rpm. In 2009 the limit was reduced to 18,000 rpm with each driver allowed to use a maximum of 8 engines over the season.

2008

All components of the engine and gearbox, including clutch, differential and all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier. Engines must last 4 complete race weekends.

2010

2010 sees the re-introduction of Cosworth to the grid who have been absent since the 2006 Season. New teams HRT, Lotus F1, and Virgin Racing along with the established Williams use this engine.

2011

Engines and gearbox must last 5 complete race weekends.
2014

1.6-litre, six-cylinder single-turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s, Fuel efficiency to increase by 35%, Power of energy-recovery systems to double, Overall power to remain at approx 750bhp. Technical Regulations now refers to what's called a 'Power Unit'. This comprises an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine, traditional engine), an ERS (Energy Recovery System) and all the ancillaries needed to make them work. From 2014 each driver will have 5 “power units” for the season (before 2014 8 engines). So if he has a failure of ERS, turbo, an exhaust, battery or control electronics failure you will have to use a sixth power unit and incur a 10 place penalty. Today it’s only the engine itself which attracts a penalty.
Whereas today’s engines need to last for 2,000kms, the 2014 units will therefore need to last for 4,000 kms, which interestingly also makes them usable in the Le Mans 24 hours race.

Capacity was limited to 1.6L, turbocharged, hybrid

So Spanky, I tried to find the previous rules regarding engine changes due to freezes and I haven't been able to find anything that is explicit. I linked to this page because it's very complete as far as the history. I reject your claim that Ferrari and Lotus not being allowed to develop their engines for "Performance" gains is unfair in any way, or is stifling the racing, in any way. Everyone got the same instructions, and had the same opportunities in developing the new specs engine, and as I've mentioned elsewhere specific concessions were made for Ferrari, 1, going from a 4 cylinder inline to a 6 cylinder V and raising the capacity from 1.2 to 1.6 liters. 2, extending the introduction of the new engines by one year. Both f those changes were specifically to help Ferrari since they were the team most resistant to the change.

So there's a few points that I need to make that have been muddied in my opinion by your statements that engine development is frozen.
1, engines can be modified for reliability gain.
2, engines can be modified for cost reductions.
3, ECU software can be modified for performance and indeed had the lions share of the performance gains. In other words, you may be able to pick up small percentages of performance gains through hardware, but you will pick up large chunks of performance gains through software.

So there are a number of changes that can and have been made to this year's engine. I understand that you feel that Ferrari is on the back foot, but time and time again concessions were made and I can understand how perhaps Ferrari fell short when compared to the Mercedes juggernaut, but I can't understand how they'd fall short to Renault in making an F1 engine.

I also don't understand the insistence that if Ferrari was allowed to develop their engine that we'd immediately see competition from them. It's not as if Mercedes or Renault would sit still if they were allowed to make engine changes for performance gains. Lastly, there are specific provisions built into this years regulations (as there have been in previous engine freeze yeas) that are for teams that can demonstratively prove to the FiA that they are at a power disadvantage.

So can you provide something concrete to refute each and every of my claims or is this just you as a Ferrari fan having difficulty accepting the year's results?

Let's put this to rest once and for all please.

[What's Burning?]

An additional comment here, let's keep this strictly technical as there have been outlandish comments made about Mercedes having the time since they were so uncompetitive in previous seasons, to somehow manage test parts of their V6 1.6 liter Turbo engines in race situations with the V8 2.4 liter normally aspirated engines (that were also frozen for development). So you can see how I'd like to unmuddy the waters here, since it's gotten out of control.