monza gorilla

Blown Four Pots For 2013

56 posts in this topic

It appears that the new engine formula will be announced shortly. Or longly. 1.6 litre turbocharged four cylinder lumps with a 10,000 rev limit and 120kW KERS. So a total of about 700 - 750 gee gees, then. What are your views? Companies, such as VAG, have feigned interest in this as it is road relevant, allegedly. Flow limiting devices are also mooted to push the fuel efficiency aspect. Some here remember the 1.5 litre turbos of old, and some will even remember the naturally aspirated 1.5s of the Moss era. So does it really matter if the motive force is relevant to your daily driver econobox?

Post prolific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to start, Volkswagen have already confirmed none of their brands will be in F1 in 2013, so so much for interest. Related note, too, that VAG is a horrible acronym. :P

On the engines, I really would like to know how "road relevant" these engines are, because Volkswagen obviously didn't like what the saw as they are not going to join, and BMW said they won't come back to four cylinders. Would some of our current ones not find it as worthwhile to be here with those engines, too, even if they were relevant, because they aren't relevant to their brand? And then there's that rev limit, which is bad for competition, really. I'm not very good with the technical stuff, of course, so I can't really say too much, but I don't see this attracting anyone new to supply engines, if that's one of the goals, unless the engines are cheaper to make and we could see a Judd or Zytek or AER I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Road Relevant is a buzzphrase I am sick of hearing in F1. It is supposed to be about the pinnacle of technology, and the pinnacle of drivers. By it's very nature, F1 is never going to be overly road relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt if they'll be any cheaper than what we've got. Road relevance is an irrelevance. As Delta says, it's just the buzzword of the moment. If they were using hydrogen fuel cells then maybe. But F1 is, was and always be profligate. And long may it continue to be so. Otherwise I'm off to watch the lawnmower racing. The days of Ken and Harvey building things in a shed out of old bits of Vauxhall Viva are long gone.

I'm all in favour of giving the teams a fixed amount of fuel, or energy, per race and letting them decide how best to deploy that allotment. Variety, spice of life, and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grew up with Offy 4 pots in USAC Indy, great motors. I can still hear the buzzsaw that was the 1.5L turbos. Great days if I may say so. If this is a plan to have more than one lump style I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related note, too, that VAG is a horrible acronym. :P

You and your toilet humour. :rolleyes::P

As for road-relevance, I'm all for it. If we lose that, my Sundays will be spent watching the M25 instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to the point...how CRAP will the Ferrari engine be? Let's just say that they are not teeming with four-cylinder technology over there in Maranello....

Could be a route back into F1 for Toyota too...as an engine supplier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all in favour of giving the teams a fixed amount of fuel, or energy, per race and letting them decide how best to deploy that allotment. Variety, spice of life, and all that.

That was very like one of my 5 or so rules that should govern F1 car design. Can't find my post now - must be about 2 years ago.

Something like...

1) minimum safety requirments for the ****pit (hey it's going to censor it anyway)

2) maximum x, y, z dimensions

3) sandard fuel - but unlimited, because amount used would be confined naturally by finding that balance between weight of car (+ fuel), size of car and efficiency of engine. this would give engine designers the job of making the most efficient engine out there.

...and a couple of other things I forget now.

once you have a maximum size and weight of a car plus a standard fuel, the engines, aero, tyres etc sort themselves out. Hey presto - vastly different takes on the best way to get a driver around the track the quickest. some cars fast on the turny bits, some faster on the straights, some good on some tracks, some at others, some beter in the rain, some better in the desert, some with four wheels, some with six. some good in qually, others better over race distance. more variety. more fun. and eventually (after a few seasons) more overall parity but with differing solutions causing more of that 'overtaking' thing that everyone seems to like so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The type of engine in the back of the car is an irrelevance, whether it be 1.6ltr turbo V4, or 3.5ltr normally aspirated V12 or anyother such configuration. It's all about the message that F1 portrays to the world in general. If, in the future, fuel prices continue to increase and the F1 circus is still racing high reving V8 around the world in its own bubble without a care, then it is a sure fire way to make yourself unpopular with governments and bodies that get themselves elected every few years. So F1 must at least be seen to continue pushing forward with more fuel efficient technology and energy recovery systems. Whether these actually lead to anything on road going cars is anyones guess.

If the change in engine configuration does go through it would be a great opportunity for a new supplier to join in starting from scratch as it were. VW has always attracted rumours of them coming on board but they never materialise. I agree that it would be a strange engine for Ferrari to support, but that is not to say that technology cannot be gained from it and besides Ferrari road cars will not be immune from the global change of emphasis from 8mpg road cars to those that can achieve 60+mpg.

Personally, I would welcome the change.

Tchau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the new engine formula will be announced shortly. Or longly. 1.6 litre turbocharged four cylinder lumps with a 10,000 rev limit and 120kW KERS. So a total of about 700 - 750 gee gees, then. What are your views? Companies, such as VAG, have feigned interest in this as it is road relevant, allegedly. Flow limiting devices are also mooted to push the fuel efficiency aspect. Some here remember the 1.5 litre turbos of old, and some will even remember the naturally aspirated 1.5s of the Moss era. So does it really matter if the motive force is relevant to your daily driver econobox?

Post prolific.

Let me guess. None of you will point out the obvious, namely, if both types of engines are F1 "worthy", why force one or the other?

Imagine a world where F1 was a sport and, dare to dream, a _competitive_ sport... ahhh, the possibilities open for engineers to develop as they please rather than the possibilities open to bureaucrats to regulate who gets to win...

I forget myself. Even speaking of freeing F1 of irrelevant regulation is conspiracy talk.

Let's go back to Mosley, yeeeeeaaaaahh, the one who's punching a dead goat to see if he can get back into the game...

Hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F1 should be at the front of tech. What will be the future engine tech? I don´t know what will be but for sure it wont be a single tech!

May be is time to free engine regulation and get out some enviro boundaries: max consumption during a race, min km it must last, etc. and every maker will do what they want! 4,5, 6 or 16 pots, turbo or nonturbo! From the cost point of view every maker choosing it will add no cost to a engine development!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 10,000rpm??? Damn them turbo's :( ! Should be very quick down in the lower rpm range!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? Shake things up a bit, perhaps bring some new (or old) manufacturers on to the grid. Embrace it or die. The money that controls the sport will do whatever it wants anyway, and you can't possibly enjoy it if you are forever complaining about the state of F1. I certainly remember the 1.5 L normally aspirated engines and could go on and on about the good old days. There's nothing wrong with fond and closely held memories but you can't dwell on such things and you can't constantly equate the past with the present in any sport. Accept the fact that change is inevitable and hope for the best.

In the immortal words of Gary Gilmore, "Let's do it."

Edited by Persevere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F1 should be at the front of tech. What will be the future engine tech? Firstly it will be mulit-fuel, then hydrogen. But not till the average person can not afford to buy petrol...which is about fifteen years away....

I don´t know what will be but for sure it wont be a single tech! Nope, but electric engines will not be what you want.

May be is time to free engine regulation and get out some enviro boundaries: max consumption during a race, min km it must last, etc. and every maker will do what they want! 4,5, 6 or 16 pots, turbo or nonturbo! From the cost point of view every maker choosing it will add no cost to a engine development! Green, schmeem...oil is finite. We'll all be green in twenty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? Shake things up a bit, perhaps bring some new (or old) manufacturers on to the grid. Embrace it or die. The money that controls the sport will do whatever it wants anyway, and you can't possibly enjoy it if you are forever complaining about the state of F1. I certainly remember the 1.5 L normally aspirated engines and could go on and on about the good old days. There's nothing wrong with fond and closely held memories but you can't dwell on such things and you can't constantly equate the past with the present in any sport. Accept the fact that change is inevitable and hope for the best.

In the immortal words of Gary Gilmore, "Let's do it."

Don't you mean in the words of Rob Schneider "You can do it..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see a huge dollop of turbo shove cause some lurid tail wiggling moments, as expert peddlers counterract with arm twiddling and pant filling. The reality will be ECU's smoothing out power delivery for a whole load of nothing more than we already have. So as a spectacle enhancer, it's a non starter. No relevence to road cars either. I do wish the car companies would stop suggesting that it would be. Biggest laugh was when Bavarian Motor Works said their M5 V10 harnessed F1 technology. Er yeah, it had two banks of five pistons on a common crank. Did that make my Grandad, Tim Henman because he had two legs and a tennis racket and enjoyed a banana. No, hang on, that sounds wrong....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power output has to be correlated with overall mass and drag to get the overall performance.

While F1 had /has a lot of power it was also a terribly inefficient, draggy and turbulent aero.

At Monaco F1 has CoD of 1.20+ witch is 3.5 - 4.0x times more drag than a typical car (and one of the reasons for the lack of passing).

So I'm all for less power but with a vastly improved aero package and the possibility for driver to over-rev the engine and/or use K.E.R.S. for passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say it's terribly inefficient. Draggy - yes.

Vastly improved aero package as you named it would be possible, but only if numerous aero-bans were to be dropped, which isn't likely.

This new engines are quite promising. How they will influence the spectacle will depend mostly on strictness of regulations. If FIA decide to make it somewhat like current it will be sh*t, but if they'll go for example maximum fuel flow rate and limited number of engies used by a driver over the season (and nothing more) it may turn out quite good.

Edited by raw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power output has to be correlated with overall mass and drag to get the overall performance.

While F1 had /has a lot of power it was also a terribly inefficient, draggy and turbulent aero.

At Monaco F1 has CoD of 1.20+ witch is 3.5 - 4.0x times more drag than a typical car (and one of the reasons for the lack of passing).

So I'm all for less power but with a vastly improved aero package and the possibility for driver to over-rev the engine and/or use K.E.R.S. for passing.

There is no plausible way for Formula 1 cars to produce the extreme amount of downforce that they do without producing a large amount of drag, i'd wager that if you tried to produce that amount of downforce with a typical car, it would actually be far less aerodynamically efficient than a formula 1 car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grew up with Offy 4 pots in USAC Indy, great motors. I can still hear the buzzsaw that was the 1.5L turbos. Great days if I may say so. If this is a plan to have more than one lump style I'm all for it.

I think you hit it here. For me it's all about the sound. It's an often forgotten piece of the racing puzzle. We all sit at home and watch the races listening more to the talking heads than the roar of those monsters. The sound of racing hooked me many years ago and it still thrills. Sitting on a bench feeling five F1 cars blast by, scaring you into your next life, is worth more than ten overtaking moments.

Put something manly in the back of these things and call it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no plausible way for Formula 1 cars to produce the extreme amount of downforce that they do without producing a large amount of drag, i'd wager that if you tried to produce that amount of downforce with a typical car, it would actually be far less aerodynamically efficient than a formula 1 car.

On the contrary.

The aero efficiency for 2008 was around ~3.0 lift (meaning negative here a.k.a. downforce) to drag ratio, while it was ~7.5 during the ground effects era and ~12.4 on the Williams 6 wheeler.

It's the rules that make the F1 racecars very heavy on drag and inefficient so as to stop them from becoming death traps, because they have relatively high power outputs and grippy radial tires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you hit it here. For me it's all about the sound. It's an often forgotten piece of the racing puzzle. We all sit at home and watch the races listening more to the talking heads than the roar of those monsters. The sound of racing hooked me many years ago and it still thrills. Sitting on a bench feeling five F1 cars blast by, scaring you into your next life, is worth more than ten overtaking moments.

Put something manly in the back of these things and call it done.

Only because Martin Brundle is a pansy and hasn't punched the lights out of Leggard to make him shut up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary.

The aero efficiency for 2008 was around ~3.0 lift (meaning negative here a.k.a. downforce) to drag ratio, while it was ~7.5 during the ground effects era and ~12.4 on the Williams 6 wheeler.

It's the rules that make the F1 racecars very heavy on drag and inefficient so as to stop them from becoming death traps, because they have relatively high power outputs and grippy radial tires.

That isn't overly surprising though, is it? Ground effect aero is obviously a lot more efficient than generation of aero with wings, and moreover, cars in those days had far more simple aero profiles, and far less aero parts in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you hit it here. For me it's all about the sound. It's an often forgotten piece of the racing puzzle. We all sit at home and watch the races listening more to the talking heads than the roar of those monsters. The sound of racing hooked me many years ago and it still thrills. Sitting on a bench feeling five F1 cars blast by, scaring you into your next life, is worth more than ten overtaking moments.

Put something manly in the back of these things and call it done.

Hi Mike, nice to see you around...

It's not always that cube's = noise. You only have to feel the soul stirring that a Ducati twin gives you; and that's 800cc. It's all about how the gass are allowed to escape. Tradtionally, F1 cars have shoved out their gasses through some pretty straight through pipeworkery; I'm sure they'll sound just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now