Looks like they got it wrong again... smaller engines in F1

The new V8 F1 Sauber BMW is being tested by Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez this week and his first comment on the new, smaller-capacity engine rules ...

"The speed in the corners seems to be the same- while you are going slower on the straights."

Ho hum, back to the drawing board Max.... yet another rule change that sounds like it'll make for even less overtaking than before!
It's also cost ever manufacturer a vast amount of money to replace their existing V10s. I was told by someone who works in F1 that it used up something like 3 year's worth of budget to produce a new engine to these regulations. Not exactly encouraging for any other manufactuere who may have had eyes on F1...and probabaly no longer has.

OK this isn't strictly a TNF topic but it does rather echo the last engine capacity cut in F1 , which was of course back in 1961 and vastly unpopular. It also makes one wonder if five years down the line we'll have another "Return to power" ?

Sadly I doubt it... :

Simon Lewis
Transport Books
www.simonlewis.com

Well they moved from 3.5l to 3.0l after 1994, although admittedly that wasn't as big a change as the move to 2.4l V8s now.

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks

OK this isn't strictly a TNF topic but it does rather echo the last engine capacity cut in F1 ,

www.simonlewis.com

What's History if it is not a way to understand the present?

Originally posted by Bondurand


What's History if it is not a way to understand the present?

Very well put !
Pity the FIA never seem to comprehend that concept...

Simon

Originally posted by mikedeering
Well they moved from 3.5l to 3.0l after 1994, although admittedly that wasn't as big a change as the move to 2.4l V8s now.

Of course you are quite right, although that was a reduction to existing engines where this is starting with a clean sheet.


Simon

formula 'spec' if you ask me...

Still more diverse than the Cosworth vs. Ferrari years of the 70'ies.


I also think that we shouldn't take JV's word as gospel in regard to these new rules. The purpose of the package is to reduce speed. First step is engine size, second one-tyre-supplier.

I would think that the alternative of modifying/mutilating the tracks with more chicanes than is already in place would be abhorred in TNF.

They are "only" cutting 20% of the engine size. If we believe Honda they were pushing at 1000 bhp last season (though didn't quite get there). I think that the 700 to 800 bhp these new engines will make should be sufficient.

Originally posted by jcbc3
They are "only" cutting 20% of the engine size. If we believe Honda they were pushing at 1000 bhp last season (though didn't quite get there). I think that the 700 to 800 bhp these new engines will make should be sufficient.

So in truth it's rather futile. What it amounts to is a vastly expensive new way of achieving almost the same power you already had.

Simon

to reduce the engine capacity is alright as long as they do major rule change on the aero pack . to cut the overall downforce of 50% would be a good start

..... of course, if you ask me .....

The FIA should go back to 1967, put a bunch of templates together and build a new fleet of "Old cars" and get on with the business of getting back to racing !!!

Originally posted by Keir
..... of course, if you ask me .....

The FIA should go back to 1967, put a bunch of templates together and build a new fleet of "Old cars" and get on with the business of getting back to racing !!!

On a similar forum a few months back someone asked the question: "Where did it all start to go wrong for Formula 1?" I suggested 1968 -- the first wings and the first mainstream sponsorship deal (Gold Leaf Team Lotus).

It's probably an oversimplification but reading this thread reminded me of that statement.

Originally posted by philippe charuest
to reduce the engine capacity is alright as long as they do major rule change on the aero pack . to cut the overall downforce of 50% would be a good start

I agree. How to write the rules to reach that objective and still have "safe" cars is rather more tricky though.

But where they could and should satrt is getting rid of winglets and barge boards. I can live with single element front and rear wings and flat bottom all the way through.

Originally posted by jcbc3


I agree. How to write the rules to reach that objective and still have "safe" cars is rather more tricky though.

But where they could and should satrt is getting rid of winglets and barge boards. I can live with single element front and rear wings and flat bottom all the way through.

precisely . its possible to do a very simple set of rule and easy to enforce. a virtual flat bottom allover from the tip of the nose to the back .maximum width of100cm for eveything body and wings. and a standard back wing who create more drag then downforce . hey they want to keep there billboard . sponsors dont care about downforce what they want is a billboard.

Originally posted by Bondurand


What's History if it is not a way to understand the present?

Simon and Bondurand - I agree.

It's as if an apology inadvance has to be made before a certain person comes in to tell us off.

I NEVER EVER read 'Racing Comments' any longer because so much of it is was (still?) drivel and driven hugely by personal agendas.

If the generally more civilised folk of TNF can't talk about about modern motorsport here then I give up.

Goodness knows we have all said it here enough times , certainly lower the power but that MUST be in conjunction with the removal of both wings , all the other "sticking out junk " and a mandatory 4 " of ground clearance at all times.

Then see how quick,stable, easy to drive and fast they are through the corners.

What we would get is the sort of cornering attitudes we have become used to looking at in amazement each year at the Goodwood revival - 4 cars abreast in 4 wheel drifts scrabbling for grip.

Then we might see who has the car control.

How many boring Formula Ford or Formula Vee races do you ever see?

How many exciting 'winged' open wheeler races do you ever see?

I'm all for slowing the cars down with their current lap distances run but it has nothing to do with safety. The FIA is quite mistaken in trying to make this a sport with little danger to its participants. The danger of motor racing is one of the chief factors that attracted me to it back in the early 1960's.

The reason that the FIA should slow the cars down is that we, the paying public, can see the cars and drivers for a longer duration in each race. Monza, even with its chicanes, can now be lapped at a pace greater than the pre-chicane days of the early 1970's. The speeds now are such that any given F1 car, even a Minardi, is so quick that trackside spectators get only a fleeting glimpse of these missles. No where near the same bang for the buck as days of old.

Here's a suggestion to play to paying public. How about a new regulation for a two-hour minimum race distance? The lap count be damned.

The answer is- 4 litre 10/12 cylinders; 14k ish rev limit, manual gearbox and 'proper ' clutch,big slicks, no pit stops except in case of puncture/emergency and bugger all downforce.Oh, and 50% less TV coverage please.QED

Originally posted by Penword
"Where did it all start to go wrong for Formula 1?"

Ground effects, late seventies, I would say.

John

Originally posted by Vicuna
How many boring Formula Ford or Formula Vee races do you ever see?

How many exciting 'winged' open wheeler races do you ever see?

Actually, I've seen some fairly poor FFord Zetec races over the last few years - as the formula shrinks in the UK it's become "just another single seater formula" full of charisma-free kids fresh out of karting. Very few of them are willing to take chances. Clubbie Kent FFord, on the other hand....;)

This year, i've seen excellent racing in Champcar, IRL, GP2, A1GP, GP Masters and even World Series by Renault (neé Dallara-Nissan). All of them have sensible restrictions on aero packages -- the formulae that stink the place out from a racing point of view are F1 and particularly F3.

F3 in its current form is unsaveable. F3 races, at least in Britain, are of no interest to anyone other than the participants, their teams, and close family -- you can see the paying punters heading for a pee, a pie and a pint when they're on. It needs 300+bhp and half the downforce before it'll be anything other than the ultimate Formula Dad. The FIA had the guts to get rid of the moribund F3000 in favour of the very promising GP2; it looks like they're committed to doing something about F1 for 2008, when are they going to bite the bullet and sort out the most tedious single seater formula on the planet?

Quite simply, F3 has waaay too much downforce and not enough power. The balance was about right until the late 80s, since then it's been awful racing. I'm not going to blame Dallara for killing the racing; they're working to the same rules as everyone else...;)

(edits- purely to fix markup from HTML to BBcode, I get forgetful!)

Originally posted by Manfred Cubenoggin


Here's a suggestion to play to paying public. How about a new regulation for a two-hour minimum race distance? The lap count be damned.

I've long been of the opinion that since refuelling has been reintroduced, the spectators are being cheated with races of less than 2 hours' duration. Look at Monza, which is shorter than the average teenage-oriented feature film. Less than 90 minutes isn't a Grand Prix.

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks
OK this isn't strictly a TNF topic but it does rather echo the last engine capacity cut in F1 , which was of course back in 1961 and vastly unpopular.

Unpopular when introduced but 1961-65 produced some classic races and some classic cars -
Ferrari 156, Lotus 25, BRM P578 and P261, just to mention a few

Originally posted by JohnS


Ground effects, late seventies, I would say.

John

I almostr agree. My humble opinion is that there is also something to do with Concorde Agreements. The way the F1 is managed since that date stinks. Maybe I'm biaised by my preference to privateers, local entrants and underdogs but I'm getting bored since 1982...

Originally posted by Bondurand


I almostr agree. My humble opinion is that there is also something to do with Concorde Agreements. The way the F1 is managed since that date stinks. Maybe I'm biaised by my preference to privateers, local entrants and underdogs but I'm getting bored since 1982...

Yes, 1982 and the beginning of the 'closed shop' started to take the shine off. Fortunately the racing once the cars got back to flat bottoms was OK, and the influx of new teams when normally-aspirated came back in '87 kept some interest alive. By the time F1 had died back down to less than 26 cars the cracks were very evident again.

Perhaps we need to consider exactly we want F1 to be, and then start drafting regulations to met those ends. By "we" I mean spectators, drivers and team owners - everyone else is peripheral.

The best racing (i.e the closest and most exciting) - definitely. The best drivers - again, definitely. The best technology - not necessarily, if it spoils the racing. State of the art circuits - no. Participation of major motor manufacturers - not essential, and certainly not to the point where they become a dominant factor. Glamour - don't give a proverbial. Opportunities for marketing by multinationals - that's another proverbial that I don't give.

So - how do we go about this?

Originally posted by ian senior
Perhaps we need to consider exactly we want F1 to be, and then start drafting regulations to met those ends. By "we" I mean spectators, drivers and team owners - everyone else is peripheral.

The best racing (i.e the closest and most exciting) - definitely. The best drivers - again, definitely. The best technology - not necessarily, if it spoils the racing. State of the art circuits - no. Participation of major motor manufacturers - not essential, and certainly not to the point where they become a dominant factor. Glamour - don't give a proverbial. Opportunities for marketing by multinationals - that's another proverbial that I don't give.

So - how do we go about this?

I've never been too sure about F1 having to be the "closest" racing. I want it to be the best drivers on the most demanding circuits, displaying the ultimate in car control -- I want it to be about one man and his machine, not one man, half a dozen race engineers, 25 CFD engineers, 50 software blokes, 75 ECUs in the car, 20 mechanics over the pit-wall.... oh and 100 PR wastrels and a bunch of C-list 'celebrities'.

And as for the design of the cars - that's simple - bear one criterion in mind, Tony Brooks' wish that a car should always have a little more power than the chassis could handle and everything else follows from there.

Originally posted by Dave Wright


Unpopular when introduced but 1961-65 produced some classic races and some classic cars -
Ferrari 156, Lotus 25, BRM P578 and P261, just to mention a few

Very true but it really WAS very very unpopular in many quarters when introduced (drivers, designers, organisers...everyone except the FIA it seems!) and the "return to power" was, by contrast, heartily welcomed by everyone involved . The 3 litre formula in it's first few years also produced possibly the most attractive era of all - 400bhp, big tyres (but not yet slicks), some truely beautiful looking cars that slid around , a real mix of engines from 4 to 16 cylinders and all the glorious sounds that go with such diversity...... wonderful.....

Simon Lewis

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks

The 3 litre formula in it's first few years also produced possibly the most attractive era of all - 400bhp, big tyres (but not yet slicks), some truely beautiful looking cars that slid around , a real mix of engines from 4 to 16 cylinders and all the glorious sounds that go with such diversity...... wonderful.....

Simon Lewis

Difficult to argue with that, the decade starting in '66 is quite easy to think of as the zenith of F1 inasmuch as the balance between drivers, cars, circuits, and the whole 'status' of the sport was concerned. The people now seem too 'sanitised', the cars too high-tech, the circuits too emasculated and the self-importance too much to bear....

Originally posted by Dave Wright


Unpopular when introduced but 1961-65 produced some classic races and some classic cars -
Ferrari 156, Lotus 25, BRM P578 and P261, just to mention a few

The classic races came from some brilliant drivers. I do not regard the cars as classic. They are only classic because they passed into history as winning cars. They were not the sort of cars that made you think, "Oh wow!" either in the flesh or in portrayal. Pretty, but not 'Oh wow'.

As an example, I am thinking of a W154 Mercedes. The 'Oh wow' factor of that one rates pretty high. When a world chamion from the 1.5l era describes it as the most terrifying car he has ever driven after some laps on the old Nordschliefe, the 'oh wow' factor goes through the roof.

Thinking of the W154, wasn't that built to a formula with smaller engines than one preceeding it?

In 1958, Peter Collins and Tony Brooks were let loose at Oulton Park (iirc) in a pair of pre-WWII
Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix cars, a 3-litre and a 5.6 litre. Afterwards, Collins was quoted as saying that given a couple of days of acclimatisation at the Nurburgring with nobody watching his initial mistakes, he would set a lap record that would stand for some time! This was, of course, previous to Moss annihilating Fangio's "impossible" lap record from 1957, and, sadly, to Collins' fatal mistake at the Pflanzgarten. So Collins was certainly not thinking that the 5.6 liter supercharged monster was an awful car to drive...but then, by the time of the 1.5 liter F1, Grand Prix cars had changed dramatically. Only four short years between the Dino 246 and the Vanwall, and the Lotus 25....
Cannot remember the reasons for the M-B sortie to Oulton in 1958, but I believe there was a Stanley Schofield vinyl recording made of the Mercedes baaarp-barping their way around Oulton, with long quiet periods off the throttle...presumably with the drivers reviewing their life insurance
policy details in between burst of supercharged power.

Originally posted by doc knutsen
In 1958, Peter Collins and Tony Brooks were let loose at Oulton Park (iirc) in a pair of pre-WWII
Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix cars, a 3-litre and a 5.6 litre. Afterwards, Collins was quoted as saying that given a couple of days of acclimatisation at the Nurburgring with nobody watching his initial mistakes, he would set a lap record that would stand for some time! This was, of course, previous to Moss annihilating Fangio's "impossible" lap record from 1957, and, sadly, to Collins' fatal mistake at the Pflanzgarten. So Collins was certainly not thinking that the 5.6 liter supercharged monster was an awful car to drive...but then, by the time of the 1.5 liter F1, Grand Prix cars had changed dramatically. Only four short years between the Dino 246 and the Vanwall, and the Lotus 25....
Cannot remember the reasons for the M-B sortie to Oulton in 1958, but I believe there was a Stanley Schofield vinyl recording made of the Mercedes baaarp-barping their way around Oulton, with long quiet periods off the throttle...presumably with the drivers reviewing their life insurance
policy details in between burst of supercharged power.

The long off-throttle moments were caused, according to Tony Brooks on the record, by the tyres being very new, hard and 'round' so had no grip at all and resulted in massive wheelspin. I think the quote was something like

"First time round I couldn't understand what all this vibration was at about 5000rpm...then on the next lap I could see all these tyre marks ! It was wheelspin everywhere!"

And he then went on to say it was the most exciting car he'd ever driven and Oulton Park would never seem quite the same again.

Todays drivers might well say "the car is totally undrivable" but Brooks obviously relished the experience and the challenge of all that power and so little grip.

Simon Lewis
Transport Books
www.simonlewis.com

Bet you Gilles would have loved it!;)

Originally posted by doc knutsen
Bet you Gilles would have loved it!;)

And Ronnie.

Phil Hill did not say the W154 was awful to drive. I seem to remember him commenting that different things seemed to be happening at each corner of the car. Bear in mind, this was on the swoops and bumps of the Nurburgring. There was a lot to occupy a driver's attention to put in a fast lap, let alone go racing. I read the "terrifying" in the sense of "Holy Mackerel", rather than awful.

As to Peter Collins' thoughts about the potential of the W125 on the Nurbugring, the W154 proved faster in racing, despite being heavier and down by 150 bhp or so. IIRC, Brooks commented on the better handling of the W154.

Probably not a small factor in the wheelspin on the W125s was that the power was coming in at the rate of more than 100 bhp per 100 rpm.

Originally posted by oldtimer
Phil Hill did not say the W154 was awful to drive. I seem to remember him commenting that different things seemed to be happening at each corner of the car. Bear in mind, this was on the swoops and bumps of the Nurburgring. There was a lot to occupy a driver's attention to put in a fast lap, let alone go racing. I read the "terrifying" in the sense of "Holy Mackerel", rather than awful.

As to Peter Collins' thoughts about the potential of the W125 on the Nurbugring, the W154 proved faster in racing, despite being heavier and down by 150 bhp or so. IIRC, Brooks commented on the better handling of the W154.

Probably not a small factor in the wheelspin on the W125s was that the power was coming in at the rate of more than 100 bhp per 100 rpm.

Wasn't Hill on the sadly departed Sudschlieffe circuit when he ran the W154?
I think that still retained much of it's pre-war character at the time, more so than the Nordschlieffe which had been modernised a bit in order to keep it to FIA standards. The experience must have been very authentic, not like running a car of this era around a modern track without the proximity of trees and hedges and a sliky smooth surface to reduce the sensation of raw speed.
Sadly the track was mostly bulldozed to makeway for the New Nurburgring. Is anything left??

Simon Lewis
Transport Books
www.simonlewis.com

Originally posted by oldtimer
Phil Hill did not say the W154 was awful to drive.

If you listen to any of the SOUNDS OF SEBRING records, Phill says just about EVERY car he drives is awefull. Even the ones he wins with!
It was almost a catch-phrase.


Simon lewis

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks



Sadly the track was mostly bulldozed to makeway for the New Nurburgring. Is anything left??

Simon Lewis
Transport Books
www.simonlewis.com

Rob Semmeling has an excellent website on the history of the Südschleife and it's current condition. http://sudschleife.8...com/history.htm My day job is race preping the car that holds the all time lap record of the Südschleife, the March 707 previously driven by Helmut kelleners.