Jump to content


Photo

2013 Rules


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#301 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 November 2010 - 07:15

About half of the sales in europe are still gasoline engines. Mostly four cylinder engines and several manufacturers are today making turbocharged 1.4-2.5 liter engines in place of larger naturally aspiranted engines. Some are even using even smaller two and three cylinder engines. For 2012 european car manufacturers may not have a corporate average higher than 130 gCO2/km to avoid fines. For 2020, the yet not finalized limit is probably going to be to be 95 gCO2/km.

So with car manufacturer looking to market these small displacement, fuel efficient engines to the public, using a similar engine in F1 would suit their need well.


So, you think F1 is best served with using an engine formula that reflects what is happening in lower spec models, in the main, in Europe? Or be using the same basic configuration that will be common to many diffrent racing series?



To have an engine that produces a lot of vibrations and is difficult to package isn't not exactly what the chassis designers want even if it offers the lowest fuel consumption.


Ferrari apparently argued for a V6 because the chassis designers were not too keen on an L4.



Fuel restrictions came into effect in 1985 with a limit of 220 liters. This was reduced for 1986 to 195 liters. In 1987 a boost limit of 4.0 bar was introduced. Then in 1988 the boost limit was reduced to 2.5 bar and the fuel limit to 150 liters.

If we take the Honda RA168E which was used to win the 1988 championship it was a development of the RA163E introduced in 1983 before there were any limits. That was essentially the case for all engines, they were designed before the fuel restrictions came into effect.

If they are allowed more boost than in 1988 they will run to a slightly lower engine speed than they did back then. Probably about 20% less, which should translate into a peak power at about 10,000 rpm.


The point is Honda chose to stay with the V6, but they didn't have to.

The peak power will be less than 10,000, otherwise they'll find it really hard to use the slipstream to pass.






Advertisement

#302 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 November 2010 - 07:32

A man convinced against his will..... No thank you. It will all happen by itself. The world's biggest car market keeps buying those cars in Europe and Asia.


I have no idea what any of that means :confused:


#303 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 November 2010 - 09:31

Not being in harmony with the industry has not been a problem for F1 in 60 years, why would it now? Going to a fuel efficiency formula may not be the cleverest thinking either.

This is simply not true. F1 has always tried to be manufacturer relevant and motor sport without manufacturers is like eating in vegan restaurants only. They bring much to the sport, innovation, money, strong brands and additional fans. There is no antagonism between fuel efficiency and racing. Actually the contrary is true.

Racing formulae with constructor competition should be designed in such a way that the most efficient constructors win. No motor sport can exist without performance curbs. To use fuel limits as the major curbing mechanism rewards the best engineers like it is in the real world. Performance is still the ultimate goal but the engineers need to be forced to achieve performance by improving efficiency. If that is achieved F1 will become again a pinnacle of automotive technology.

Have a look who introduced the dominant technology to the period when we had the most exiting racing thirty years ago. Renault brought the turbo engine to F1, a manufacturer. If you do not allow manufacturers to bring their best ideas to the sport you miss quite a lot.

I have no idea what any of that means :confused:

It means I'm not going to preach to you about the issue. Time will do the job for me. In the auto markets the better technology always wins. You can look from the McLaren super sports car to the big SUVs and down to a European hatch back. They will all have down sized turbo engines pretty soon.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 27 November 2010 - 09:32.


#304 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 November 2010 - 13:40

It means I'm not going to preach to you about the issue. Time will do the job for me. In the auto markets the better technology always wins. You can look from the McLaren super sports car to the big SUVs and down to a European hatch back. They will all have down sized turbo engines pretty soon.


Every attempt to do so in the US of Americaland has failed so far and have you noticed the car sales figures in the US of Australialand for the last 50 years?

I note also that the US of Europeland has most certainly increased in the average car and engine size over the last 50 years as well as BMW, Benz etc have significantly increased their HP average availability.

I am unsure why you are quoting exotic vehicles, I don't believe they are relevant besides the new McLaren being no where near as fast as the previous F1.

#305 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 November 2010 - 16:45

Every attempt to do so in the US of Americaland has failed so far and have you noticed the car sales figures in the US of Australialand for the last 50 years?

Yep, the US have been kings wasting fuel and energy for decades. Its going to change now. Have you ever heard about peak oil?

I note also that the US of Europeland has most certainly increased in the average car and engine size over the last 50 years as well as BMW, Benz etc have significantly increased their HP average availability.

You still do not understand the issue. It is not about the market mix of hp over different markets. It is about the technology to get that horse power. Modern designs do it by downsized turbos and this trend will come to all markets due to higher quality, efficiency and better economy. The uptake is just a bit slower in "traditional" markets. You obviously never read the article of the Garret turbo expert that I linked.

I am unsure why you are quoting exotic vehicles, I don't believe they are relevant besides the new McLaren being no where near as fast as the previous F1.

Again a totally confused point. I have explained downsizing by the example of the the Porsche 4.8L V8 direct injection engine which is available in both NA and turbo version. The figures can be easily checked and confirmed. I have shown that even the modern engines with direct injection and high tech variable timing and stroke valves improve fuel efficiency by 22% if you downsize them by cylinder reduction and turbo charging. If you compare it to an ancient push rod and port injected engine you should be nearer to 30% actually. Compare a Chevette engine and a McLaren turbo engine and you find that the McLaren uses half the engine capacity, massively less weight and gives you twice the milage. It also costs twice the price but you get a real sports car with class best performance and the pinnacle of automotive technology. The Corvette just cost a ton of money and is a simple go fast gas guzzler. It is nothing to convince a man with a six digit budget who looks for quality, style and true peak performance. In a way the MP4-12C is much superior to a McLaren F1 if you consider performance per $, production standards and value for money. I could point you to a raft of smaller European cars that are all using the same downsizing mechanism made by Fiat, BMW, Renault, VW and other leading European brands but what is the point. I think any more writing on it is a complete waste of time.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 27 November 2010 - 16:49.


#306 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 November 2010 - 02:12

This is the technical forum, so we should really argue technical points. Perhaps one can shed some light by looking at the Porsche Cayenne S and Turbo engines. Both are 4.8L V8 DFI with 120 bar fuel injection pressure, so they obviously have the same injection system and basic engine except for the turbo charging. They have variable valve timing and lift. Bore × stroke: 96.00 mm × 83.00 mm

1.S-version:
Power: 294 kW @ 6,500 rpm
Torque: 500 Nm
Compression: 12.5:1
Fuel: 10.5L/100km


2. Turbo-version:
Power: 368 kW @ 6,000 rpm
Torque: 700 Nm
Compression: 10.5:1
Fuel: 11.5L/100km

In the same engine with turbo charging you see that the torque curve comes up to a maximum much earlier. The drivability is much enhanced vs the naturally aspired engine. American, Australian or European ownership of the engine will not make difference to the fact that the turbo powered engine is stronger, more drivable, more efficient and has a better power/weight ratio.

Porsche have obviously not used the option to downsize the V8 to V6 and turbo charge it to the power of the V8. So it gives a good idea what is possible with the V8 in both NA and turbo version. While the fuel consumption goes up by 9.5% the power increases by 25% and the torque goes up by 40% when the turbo is added.



Not sure that your conclusions are entirely valid.

In the test cycle used to determine fuel consumption the vehicles are run at certain speeds/loads. Since these are standardised and the car is much the same for both cases it would seem logical that the engines in both cases are making the same power throughout the test. Yet the turbo uses more fuel.

I'm not sure what the tests involve, but I doubt that the engines spend much time, if any, at maximum power.


#307 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 November 2010 - 03:47

Not sure that your conclusions are entirely valid. In the test cycle used to determine fuel consumption the vehicles are run at certain speeds/loads. Since these are standardised and the car is much the same for both cases it would seem logical that the engines in both cases are making the same power throughout the test. Yet the turbo uses more fuel. I'm not sure what the tests involve, but I doubt that the engines spend much time, if any, at maximum power.

The L/100km are measured at similar load cycles as combined mpg for city and highway mode. That means the engine is always used with the same standardized cycle. If you fit a more powerful engine it obviously consumes more petrol in a standard cycle in the same vehicle. This is not the consumption at maximum power but the consumption at the standard cycle. In the original Porsche figures the vehicle is identical except for the engine which is in one case equipped with a turbo and in the other case not. I assume you are familiar with the fact that bigger and heavier and more powerful engines take more petrol? If you would define an F1 type of load profil running the engine at an average of 75% peak power you would obvioiusly get much higher absolute L/100 km figures as you would get lower mpg figures. The saving would still be of similar proportion percentage wise although on a much higher level if the same power profile would be used for both engines. I hope this clarifies your questions.




#308 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 November 2010 - 02:46

I still feel that the rules should be very open on engine design and just give each team a fixed amount of fuel at the beginning of the race.

Why limit capacity or force the use of turbo chargers ? If this gives the best car it will be chosen by the teams anyway.

It would be good to allow diferent types of fuel, if an acceptable way of comparing them could be agreed.

#309 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 05:12

There is concern that much freedom of design would encourage rich teams and particularly manufacturer teams to get back into a cost race which would blow up F1 at a time when there are severe budgetary problems for most teams. Eight out of twelve teams are under funded and would prefer if the four rich teams do not have the freedom to spend as much as they want. They have the voting power in the F1 commission to force the other teams to respect their view. It is not so much a question of rationality or what the fans want but a question of the political power of the teams.

#310 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 791 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 30 November 2010 - 00:43

This is simply not true. F1 has always tried to be manufacturer relevant ...

(my emphasis)

Seriously? You are either a youngster, or an oldster who is losing his (her?) memory ... Historically, all F1 has been interested in has been itself. All F1 wants (or 'needs') is one or two sources of cheap, competitive grunt. We have Ilmor (I think), Cosworth, is Megatron still around, somebody has built (or designed) the McLaren engine, those are the sort of manufacturers F1 'needs'.

#311 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 30 November 2010 - 00:49

I think any more writing on it is a complete waste of time.


Finally we agree on something.


#312 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 01 December 2010 - 02:44

Historically, all F1 has been interested in has been itself. All F1 wants (or 'needs') is one or two sources of cheap, competitive grunt. We have Ilmor (I think), Cosworth, is Megatron still around, somebody has built (or designed) the McLaren engine, those are the sort of manufacturers F1 'needs'.

And why did we have a FISA/FOCA war? F1 is the successor of European GP racing which has a combined history of more than 100 years. The FiA as the owners of the series has made big efforts over the years to accommodate manufacturers and motivate them to participate. The list of manufacturers in F1 is pretty impressive and even more so if you look at the combined history of GP racing.

Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Aston Martin, BMW, Bugatti, Cooper, Dallara, De Tomaso, Gordini, Honda, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Lancia, Lola, Lotus, McLaren, Matra, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Renault, Spyker, Talbot, Toyota.

Those are twenty four names from F1 that come to mind. I bet I can get that to fifty if I look at GP racing as well.


#313 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 December 2010 - 07:31

And why did we have a FISA/FOCA war? F1 is the successor of European GP racing which has a combined history of more than 100 years. The FiA as the owners of the series has made big efforts over the years to accommodate manufacturers and motivate them to participate. The list of manufacturers in F1 is pretty impressive and even more so if you look at the combined history of GP racing.

Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Aston Martin, BMW, Bugatti, Cooper, Dallara, De Tomaso, Gordini, Honda, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Lancia, Lola, Lotus, McLaren, Matra, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Renault, Spyker, Talbot, Toyota.

Those are twenty four names from F1 that come to mind. I bet I can get that to fifty if I look at GP racing as well.

I have not highlighted a few teams that I feel were not 'manufacturers', as my GP/F1 history is not up to much and I haven't got time to Google, but I am fairly certain that the ones I have highlighted were not manufactures in any sense, they were constructors of racing cars, pure and simple. By your deffinition every GP/F1 car ever entered was built by a manufacturer.

#314 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 01 December 2010 - 09:20

Today the F1 cars use a flat bottom between the front and rear axle,


Umm no they don't - just in case you haven't noticed you could drive a Mack truck under the front of a F1 car behind the front wheels so no, the flat bottom doesn't reach the front axle and the only reason it gets near is because it's then a splitter.

The current rules allow a massive air dam and splitter mid front car, bought about with the introduction of the high nose, thank you Jordan - that was never the intention of the flat bottom rule.

When I say flat bottom I mean flat bottom from the front of the car to the rear of the car, notice the exclusion of "axle" from that sentence, that would eliminate all of the ground effects and go back to truly wings only.

Posted Image


#315 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 December 2010 - 13:52

And why did we have a FISA/FOCA war? F1 is the successor of European GP racing which has a combined history of more than 100 years. The FiA as the owners of the series has made big efforts over the years to accommodate manufacturers and motivate them to participate. The list of manufacturers in F1 is pretty impressive and even more so if you look at the combined history of GP racing.

Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Aston Martin, BMW, Bugatti, Cooper, Dallara, De Tomaso, Gordini, Honda, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Lancia, Lola, Lotus, McLaren, Matra, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Renault, Spyker, Talbot, Toyota.

Those are twenty four names from F1 that come to mind. I bet I can get that to fifty if I look at GP racing as well.



I have not highlighted a few teams that I feel were not 'manufacturers', as my GP/F1 history is not up to much and I haven't got time to Google, but I am fairly certain that the ones I have highlighted were not manufactures in any sense, they were constructors of racing cars, pure and simple. By your deffinition every GP/F1 car ever entered was built by a manufacturer.


Cooper, Dallara, Lola and McLaren were not manufacturers, though McLaren is moving into that area now. Matra were a small manufacturer, which used (mainly) Renault engines.

Lotus was also a small manufacturer that used engines from other manufacturers, but the racing operations weren't the same company.

Many of the others in the list had short term involvement without success in F1.

#316 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 December 2010 - 16:36

Lotus was also a small manufacturer that used engines from other manufacturers, but the racing operations weren't the same company.

Which is why I highlighted Lotus! There is a grey area when racing cars were built and raced as an advertisement for road cars of the same name - all I am saying is that several of the names on WhiteBlue's list don't belong there, and I wanted to understate the case rather than overstate it. It's just the way I am...

On this Forum you have to be precise and accurate about engineering, on TNF the same applies to historical facts, names, dates and places. It's a bleedin' minefield!

#317 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,535 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 01 December 2010 - 20:21

I think describing Lotus as a manufacturer that used other people's engines is underegging that pudding. Matra had a long history of niche cars, including the first successful faux off roader, and they did a lot of the design and manufacture of the original Espace.

#318 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 December 2010 - 06:54

Which is why I highlighted Lotus! There is a grey area when racing cars were built and raced as an advertisement for road cars of the same name - all I am saying is that several of the names on WhiteBlue's list don't belong there, and I wanted to understate the case rather than overstate it. It's just the way I am...
On this Forum you have to be precise and accurate about engineering, on TNF the same applies to historical facts, names, dates and places. It's a bleedin' minefield!

To be an automotive manufacturer you don't have to make your own engines. Companies like Dallara, Lola or Group Lotus in my view earn the same distinction as the Spyker, Karman or Morgan brand. If you successfully sell a unique product line and create a substantial business with your chassis using purchased engines you are still a manufacturer.


I think describing Lotus as a manufacturer that used other people's engines is underegging that pudding. Matra had a long history of niche cars, including the first successful faux off roader, and they did a lot of the design and manufacture of the original Espace.

Gordini also was more of a chassis designer and engine tuner. So the definitions are fluctuating. I have tried to drop all the pure race chassis manufacturers who never went beyond one or two chassis series. I think that McLaren will truly deserve the manufacturer label with the MP4-12C. I'm not sure that they will become the British Ferrari but they will will become something in their own right.


#319 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 December 2010 - 07:51

I think that McLaren will truly deserve the manufacturer label with the MP4-12C. I'm not sure that they will become the British Ferrari but they will will become something in their own right.

In other words, any small business that enters F1 is a manufacturer on the assumption that 40 years later they might produce a run of road cars. As I said, by your definition every one is a manufacturer.

Advertisement

#320 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 December 2010 - 09:46

Lotus was also a small manufacturer that used engines from other manufacturers,


I would suggest that the Lotus Twin Cam was enough Lotus engine to be called Lotus. In modern history I believe Skoda is the only one that can claim to be their own manufacturer. Up until the 70's everything, and I mean everything was made by themselves including the Barum tyres.

Probably Ford outsourced nearly as much of their pushrod engine as Lotus did the Twin Cam?

So what are we defining as a manufacturer anyway - ???.

Edited by cheapracer, 03 December 2010 - 09:55.


#321 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,670 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 03 December 2010 - 21:56

This V6 vs L4 thinking is emotional and not rational. For packaging and rigidity one can use a V4 instead of the L4. It is a bit more expensive due to more parts and the packaging advantages would have to justify the increased weight and cost.



Good one.

Just tell me what IS rational about laying gaziilions of dollars on racing upside down airplanes around a 2 mile long oval track. Or along the streets of Monaco.

#322 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 04 December 2010 - 02:41

To be an automotive manufacturer you don't have to make your own engines. Companies like Dallara, Lola or Group Lotus in my view earn the same distinction as the Spyker, Karman or Morgan brand. If you successfully sell a unique product line and create a substantial business with your chassis using purchased engines you are still a manufacturer.


I think the term manufacturer usually refers to companies that build and sell road cars. Dallara and Lola don't really count, but Lotus does.


#323 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 December 2010 - 10:49

Good one. Just tell me what IS rational about laying gaziilions of dollars on racing upside down airplanes around a 2 mile long oval track. Or along the streets of Monaco.

People watch it and that is reason enough. What is rational about 22 guys running around for 90 minutes kicking a ball. We still discuss endlessly how to make things better for our team, the players or how to improve the referee job. Why not do the same with F1. We should accept that F1 is there and that people will try to conserve the good and improve on the not so good aspects. The technology is something that is open to rational discussion between engineers or technically minded people.

I think the term manufacturer usually refers to companies that build and sell road cars. Dallara and Lola don't really count, but Lotus does.

I don't really care if you end up with 24 or 20 manufacturers that have participated in F1. Fact is we had quite a few and they contribute massively to the fan interest. Their view should be considered and they should be encouraged to remain in F1. More manufacturers should be attracted as long as they agree not to take over the sport and kill it with a spending race.

I think it is time to come back to the issue of the 2013 rule change. Craig Scarborough posted some pretty exciting details of what is to come on Twitter and on his old web page.

http://twitter.com/scarbsf1
I'm hearing the 2013 engine rules are: mandated 1.6l I4 turbo, 88mm bores, direct injection, 100kg\h fuel flow rate.


Source
December 2, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Reply
I think the 500-600hp mark is what the FIA were aimiing for. I’ve heard that utrbo compounding is allowed and a significant boost will come from KERS (front and rear) and TERS. We’ll end up with the same peak power, when the KERS boost comes in. The engines will be sophisticated bits of kit, certainly compared the the the highly developed but intrinsically simple NA V8s.
scarbsf1


Some discussion followed in the Racing Comments section here on Autosport BB. Personally I'm very surprised that there are so very few people who are enthusiastic over the prospect of getting a lot more mechanical and electric technology into the cars. I find all the new stuff that we are going to have extremely exciting.

The fuel mass flow restriction to 100 kg/h (27.8 g/s) will be the biggest game changer that we ever had in F1. They tell us that we cannot have more than 540-600 hp from the engine depending how good the efficiency is. On the other hand you can probably add 100 hp by turbo compounding and another 160 hp by brake energy recovery on all four wheels. It is going to be a huge playground for the tech people and not restricted to the aero engineers.


#324 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 December 2010 - 11:10

Manufacturer's view should be considered and they should be encouraged to remain in F1.


Not above anyone else's view they shouldn't.

F1 has survived with great popularity with and without manufacturers, the only single thing manufacturers add is reliablity with their sizeable R&D abilities.



#325 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,670 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 December 2010 - 11:35

People watch it and that is reason enough. What is rational about 22 guys running around for 90 minutes kicking a ball. We still discuss endlessly how to make things better for our team, the players or how to improve the referee job. Why not do the same with F1. We should accept that F1 is there and that people will try to conserve the good and improve on the not so good aspects. The technology is something that is open to rational discussion between engineers or technically minded people.



Technology is, the show shouldn't. When Ferrari, Porsche, Bugatti and the likes give up on multi cylinder engines this L4 talk might make sense. Not now. Most dream cars are V8s 10s and 12s, so the Pinnacle of Motorsport should sound alike.

This 'road relevance' and 'we need the big car manufacturers' talk is a huge PITA and is not the in the best interest of the show.


#326 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 04 December 2010 - 12:02

How many dream cars do they sell? What's the profit margin on those? They already have 'halo' supercars for branding purposes, you have to sell the board of a car company that a racing program is relevant.

#327 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,670 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 December 2010 - 12:23

How many dream cars do they sell? What's the profit margin on those? They already have 'halo' supercars for branding purposes, you have to sell the board of a car company that a racing program is relevant.



Pretty much as many guys have the Cindy Crawfords and Linda Evangelistas around the world. That does not stop us from wanting the them.

We have the Clio Cup already. There you can see all the 1.5 L4 engines you want.

F1 and road relevance is utter bull s**t. Fast expensive bill boards that will carry whatever message you print on them. Marlboro still pays the bill at Maranello.

Edited by saudoso, 04 December 2010 - 12:26.


#328 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 04 December 2010 - 12:45

Road relevance, even perceived, is the only thing keeping racing alive. Hell, even your aspirational argument comes under it.

#329 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 December 2010 - 13:21

Road relevance, even perceived, .


4 wheels and a steering wheel does it.

Not sure that FIAT's sponsorship of Yamaha/Rossi is worthwhile.

#330 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 04 December 2010 - 13:25

FIAT is a funny one, they're trying to be a lifestyle brand instead of just a car company. Not lifestyle in a Louis Vitton sort of way, but in a relaxed fun way.

#331 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 December 2010 - 15:21

When Ferrari, Porsche, Bugatti and the likes give up on multi cylinder engines this L4 talk might make sense. Not now. Most dream cars are V8s 10s and 12s, so the Pinnacle of Motorsport should sound alike.

They are all downsizing and making the engines more efficient. Practically every new project comes out with a lower cylinder count compared to the previous. That is even true for Ferrari and McLaren. On top you can't compare luxury and race cars. If you go for top luxury cylinder numbers make sense. If you go for competitiveness in a race car formula you need to optimize your performance. With fuel limits from 2013 this will not work with high cylinder counts. Too much friction, not enough power.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 04 December 2010 - 15:28.


#332 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 04 December 2010 - 18:37

They are all downsizing and making the engines more efficient. Practically every new project comes out with a lower cylinder count compared to the previous.


Lamborghini reveals 2011s new V12 supercar engine

You may got a little bit too much ahead of yourself here.
While the second part of your statement (improved efficiency) is true, the first one is certainly not.

Edited by TC3000, 04 December 2010 - 18:38.


#333 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 December 2010 - 19:10

You may got a little bit too much ahead of yourself here.
While the second part of your statement (improved efficiency) is true, the first one is certainly not.


Don't mention the new models 599 and 458, the most powerful Ferrari's ever made nor especially the BMW M3 :lol:

#334 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 00:23

They are all downsizing and making the engines more efficient. Practically every new project comes out with a lower cylinder count compared to the previous. That is even true for Ferrari and McLaren. On top you can't compare luxury and race cars. If you go for top luxury cylinder numbers make sense. If you go for competitiveness in a race car formula you need to optimize your performance. With fuel limits from 2013 this will not work with high cylinder counts. Too much friction, not enough power.


Ferrari hasn't, as yet, downsized any engines - in fact, they keep getting bigger, and all are V8s and V12s.

The McLaren MP4-Maybe-this-one-will-actually-sell has a twin turbo V8. I suppose you could argue it has downsized from the V12, but the reality is that it is competing with a V8, the 458, so one could also argue that for your point to be true the McLaren would have a V6....or a 4.

#335 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 00:43

Road relevance, even perceived, is the only thing keeping racing alive. Hell, even your aspirational argument comes under it.


What about other racing series?

NASCAR - 4 manufacturers using essentially the same chassis and body. All using an iron block pushrod OHV engine - only Chev and Dodge currently have pushrod OHV engines in their passeneger car lineup, both of which are all alloy blocks. The engines use carbies, the manufacturers all have exclusively fuel injected engines for the road. They also use a 4 speed manual gearbox. Three of the 4 cars (Fusion, Camry, Impala, Charger) are front wheel drive. None use a live rear axle, nor are they tube framed. As far as I am aware, none of them are available as a 2 door coupe.

Aussie V8s - 2 manufacturers using standardised suspension, wheel base and track dimensions. Pushrod OHV engines, again, but this time with fuel injection. They use a live rear axle, which Ford hasn't used since 2002 and Holden from the late 1990s. The axles are located by Watts linkage, which Fords used from 1980 until 2002, but Holden have never had a road car equipped with a Watts Link. Front suspension is by double wishbones, which Holden have never had on their Commodore. The wheelbase is standardised, which means the Holden has to be shortened by more than 100mm, and I believe the Ford also has to be shortened.

GP2 - Standarised Dallara chassis, open wheel, pushrod operated inboard springs and dampers. Single seat wihout windscreen or roof. Big wings front and rear. Renault 4.0l V8. So road relevant!



#336 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 00:45

How many dream cars do they sell? What's the profit margin on those? They already have 'halo' supercars for branding purposes, you have to sell the board of a car company that a racing program is relevant.


How many 4 cylinder turbos does Ferrari sell?

#337 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 01:12

Some discussion followed in the Racing Comments section here on Autosport BB. Personally I'm very surprised that there are so very few people who are enthusiastic over the prospect of getting a lot more mechanical and electric technology into the cars. I find all the new stuff that we are going to have extremely exciting.


Most of the posters in Racing Comments are not tech-heads or boffins. They are, however, fans.

I'm not surprised that the new engine rules aren't at all popular.


#338 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,663 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 December 2010 - 02:52

I believe it was in the totally engaging Victory By Design series narrated by Alain de Cadenet that stated something to the effect that Ferrari are (or were), first and foremost a racing operation, not a car manufacturer. Building cars to sell to the punters is how they pay for racing - not the other way around. I don't know how well that philosophy survives today, but I've always admired that position.

#339 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 04:16

The fuel mass flow restriction to 100 kg/h (27.8 g/s) will be the biggest game changer that we ever had in F1. They tell us that we cannot have more than 540-600 hp from the engine depending how good the efficiency is. On the other hand you can probably add 100 hp by turbo compounding and another 160 hp by brake energy recovery on all four wheels. It is going to be a huge playground for the tech people and not restricted to the aero engineers.


According to the BBC article posted in the RC forum, the engine specs for 2013 are:

F1 ENGINE RULES FROM 2013
1.6-litre, four-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s
Fuel efficiency to increase by a target of 50%
Overall power to remain same at approx 750bhp
Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable
Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years
Power of Kers energy recovery systems to increase from 60kw in 2011 to 120kw in 2013


That means that there will be no turbocompounding for 2013. There is also no mention of the storage for KERS.

That means that for 2013 there will be likely about 700-720hp on offer, compared with 830-850hp available with the current V8s equipped with KERS.

The engine development will likely be frozen before the first race of 2013, so I can't see it being a "playground" for the technical people - except maybe the KERS engineers - the other systems will be frozen, and very limited development will be allowed.

Advertisement

#340 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 04:24

Ferrari and Mercedes were, according to the BBC Article, opposed to the new rules until recently. Mainly due to cost.

That leaves Renault and Cosworth being in favour, and of course the still uncomitted VW group.

The basic engine is very close to the GRE. Which may suit Renault, it would allow Cosworth to try to sell its engine to other categories or to other manufacturers. It would be useful to Mercedes Benz if they contemplate going back into touring cars, or whatever.

But what of Ferrari? They do not race in other categories. They do not build 4 cylinder cars. Will it mean that they will base an engine off a FIAT or Alfa GRE? Or will their engine be the basis of an Alfa (touring car) or FIAT (WRC) engine?

#341 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 04:25

I believe it was in the totally engaging Victory By Design series narrated by Alain de Cadenet that stated something to the effect that Ferrari are (or were), first and foremost a racing operation, not a car manufacturer. Building cars to sell to the punters is how they pay for racing - not the other way around. I don't know how well that philosophy survives today, but I've always admired that position.


I don't think it applies today.

But F1 is very much Ferrari's marketing department. As I understand it they do not advertise themselves in any other way.

#342 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 07:49

People watch it and that is reason enough. What is rational about 22 guys running around for 90 minutes kicking a ball. We still discuss endlessly how to make things better for our team, the players or how to improve the referee job. Why not do the same with F1. We should accept that F1 is there and that people will try to conserve the good and improve on the not so good aspects. The technology is something that is open to rational discussion between engineers or technically minded people.


People watch fuel guzzling V8s that are extremely loud and make great noises. The cars have little or no relevance to road vehicles. But they watch F1 nayway.

The engines may be technologically simple by todays standard - but they are exotic compared with the cars the average punter drives - which is a 4 cylinder.

Going to a fuel economy formula (fuel flow plus tank size restriction) using a 4 cylinder engine of improved efficiency may not retain F1 fans. You certainly won't pick up any greenie fans - no new fans will be attracted to the sport.

One argument for the improved efficiency is that more sponsors would be interested. Of course they may not be so interested if fan support drops off....


#343 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 05 December 2010 - 08:08

What about other racing series?

NASCAR -


But what are they racing? Variations of cars they're selling on the road. In tech specs they arent, but race fans either don't care or are aware the characteristics of the Dodge NASCAR is based on the rulebook of the series rather than the model available in the showroom. Most manufacturers prefer more production based racing, ie WTCC/BTCC than silhouet series. But NASCAR is so hugely popular in America you *have* to be in it. It's about getting the Chevrolet name out there as much as selling the individual car. In that respect it's little different than Chevrolet sponsoring a college football game.

Aussie V8s -


Similar to above. It's partly the Ford vs GM rivalry (which obviously is a branding issue), part of it is selling a model type rather than a specific version, but mainly it's because that's the biggest show in Australian motorsport, and pretty big amongst Australian sport period. Like NASCAR it's as much about pure advertising as product development or showcasing.

GP2 -


There's no manufacturer present. Sure you get Renault badged Meccachromes, but that's like saying the Neil Brown Mugen/Hondas in F3 are factory engines. GP2 has very little awareness even amongst F1 fans, you really think anyone is using it to appeal to the general public?



In the vast majority of countries, after F1 the most popular series is touring cars. Even ahead of other open wheel series. British F3 doesn't get a 10th of the audience that British Touring Cars do. F1 specifically is very popular but in direct comparisons racing with a roof tends to beat everything else.



#344 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 08:39

Like NASCAR it's as much about pure advertising as product development or showcasing.


Isn't F1 the same? It has the same level of road relevance.



There's no manufacturer present. Sure you get Renault badged Meccachromes, but that's like saying the Neil Brown Mugen/Hondas in F3 are factory engines. GP2 has very little awareness even amongst F1 fans, you really think anyone is using it to appeal to the general public?


Nope, I don't. But it is road car relevant as F1 is and will be under the new engine rules. That is, it isn't relevant at all.







#345 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,525 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 05 December 2010 - 09:31

Eh? There's lots, LOTS, of inline 4s in the automotive world. Even with turbos. Both Honda and VAG have made noises about being interested in the proposed regs.

#346 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 December 2010 - 10:50

Eh? There's lots, LOTS, of inline 4s in the automotive world. Even with turbos. Both Honda and VAG have made noises about being interested in the proposed regs.


There are quite a lot of V8s too.

#347 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 December 2010 - 11:46

I have a 24-year-old car with a turbocharged in-line four cylinder engine, and Cosworth cast in the camshaft covers. I'm not going to be particularly impressed by an F1 car with a similar engine. I'll watch it if the racing is close, but not with the excitement that earlier, apparently 'cruder' engines generate, and whilst KERS is an interesting engineering challenge, if I can't see it or hear it on the track, quite frankly I couldn't care less.

#348 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,670 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 December 2010 - 13:37

I have a 24-year-old car with a turbocharged in-line four cylinder engine, and Cosworth cast in the camshaft covers. I'm not going to be particularly impressed by an F1 car with a similar engine. I'll watch it if the racing is close, but not with the excitement that earlier, apparently 'cruder' engines generate, and whilst KERS is an interesting engineering challenge, if I can't see it or hear it on the track, quite frankly I couldn't care less.



Let's just hope, if this L4 talk goes on, that there is enought of F1 to recover from the tumble.

#349 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,663 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 December 2010 - 14:03

A spec engine isn't interesting to a techno-nerd - not for very long anyway. In my perfect engine formula, you are permitted a specific caloric value of whatever fuel you chooseto run, at whatever rate, in whatever engine config you like. At least there'd be some variations and experiments.

#350 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 December 2010 - 14:35

Ferrari hasn't, as yet, downsized any engines - in fact, they keep getting bigger, and all are V8s and V12s. The McLaren MP4-Maybe-this-one-will-actually-sell has a twin turbo V8. I suppose you could argue it has downsized from the V12, but the reality is that it is competing with a V8, the 458, so one could also argue that for your point to be true the McLaren would have a V6....or a 4.

Downsizing isn't an issue of the power level. It can be done to monster engines and small engines alike. There is a significant difference between luxury cars and race cars. Luxury cars and that includes sports cars will always have the highest cylinder counts.

How many 4 cylinder turbos does Ferrari sell?

Ask me again in 5 years again. People thought Ferrari would never sell 6-cylinders, but the Dinos were a huge success.


According to the BBC article posted in the RC forum, the engine specs for 2013 are:

F1 ENGINE RULES FROM 2013
1.6-litre, four-cylinder turbos with energy recovery and fuel restrictions to replace current 2.4-litre normally aspirated V8s
Fuel efficiency to increase by a target of 50%
Overall power to remain same at approx 750bhp
Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable
Plan for advanced 'compound' turbos to be introduced in subsequent years
Power of Kers energy recovery systems to increase from 60kw in 2011 to 120kw in 2013


That means that there will be no turbocompounding for 2013. There is also no mention of the storage for KERS.

That means that for 2013 there will be likely about 700-720hp on offer, compared with 830-850hp available with the current V8s equipped with KERS.

The engine development will likely be frozen before the first race of 2013, so I can't see it being a "playground" for the technical people - except maybe the KERS engineers - the other systems will be frozen, and very limited development will be allowed.

The Benson piece by the BBC was pure rubbish. The guy obviously doesn't understand the technology. I would give Craig Scarborough tons more credit to get it right. I would not bet the farm for no turbo compounding in 2013. They could be doing a spec design to keep the cost down and open that technical competition field only in 2014.

You also missed the bit on homologation published some months ago. The intention was to homologate some key data like four cylinder inline, 88 mm bore of the bottom end of the engine for five years. The top end will be homologated for one year only, so that development for efficiency can take place.