Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

V6T vs V8 NA


  • Please log in to reply
236 replies to this topic

#151 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 November 2012 - 22:13

Do you think any of the team sponsors are going to even allow FIA auditors near their door?

There are relatively simple ways to make sure that suppliers deal with budget controlled FiA licensee at arms length. They get a mandatory clause in their supply contracts that require them to submit to on demand audits by independent FiA controlled auditors that are working in confidentiality. This may not be possible with sponsors but licensees would have to value sponsorship also at arms length. There is not so much concern if F1 teams make huge profits and treasure those profits or disburse them to their share holders. The concern is that they spend any profit.

Budget capping is like supply side economics, it is based on a completely false set of fundamental economic assumptions.

I don't agree. What we are discussing here is the selection of a lesser evil. F1 has several options:
1. Immediately freeze the new engines in 2014 and keep trying with chassis RRA as FOTA did
2. Introduce budget caps as announced by Mr. Todt (that's what I support)
3. Do nothing and start another cost race as in 2001-2008 (I suspect that is what you support)

I simply have a different opinion about the way ahead. If I have forgotten an option please correct me. Unless you specify how you intend to address the problem of half the grid becoming non viable we have no basis for a discussion.



Advertisement

#152 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,160 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 November 2012 - 23:15

The 'pinnacle of motorsport' should obviously be the least cost constrained motorsport formula, so yes I don't think new ideas in cost constraint are appropriate here. I have made some suggestions upthread with a greater probability of working e.g. sealed spec ex-NASCAR engines, spec chassis and/or entire cars randomly assigned to teams on Thursday of race weekend, claiming rules etc. that have no easy ways to be circumvented or gamed. Auditing by comparison is a poor option from a practical standpoint. People interested in highly cost constrained competition, as either entrants or fans, are probably not a good fit in any case for the 'pinnacle of motorsport'.

#153 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2012 - 19:51

There are relatively simple ways to make sure that suppliers deal with budget controlled FiA licensee at arms length. They get a mandatory clause in their supply contracts that require them to submit to on demand audits by independent FiA controlled auditors that are working in confidentiality. This may not be possible with sponsors but licensees would have to value sponsorship also at arms length. There is not so much concern if F1 teams make huge profits and treasure those profits or disburse them to their share holders. The concern is that they spend any profit.
-

I guess that wouldn't be much of a problem in a totalitarian haven, however, we are not quite there yet, not even with this E-USSR.

#154 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 13:27

The 'pinnacle of motorsport' should obviously be the least cost constrained motorsport formula, so yes I don't think new ideas in cost constraint are appropriate here. I have made some suggestions upthread with a greater probability of working e.g. sealed spec ex-NASCAR engines, spec chassis and/or entire cars randomly assigned to teams on Thursday of race weekend, claiming rules etc. that have no easy ways to be circumvented or gamed. Auditing by comparison is a poor option from a practical standpoint. People interested in highly cost constrained competition, as either entrants or fans, are probably not a good fit in any case for the 'pinnacle of motorsport'.

I have to admit that I prefer cost restraints on a high level and more technical freedom. With budget caps the current trend to ever narrower specs and your proposed spec components would increase. I would not like that. A series with $100m cap on chassis and $50m on engines would not be under funded. If it attracts more manufacturers it could be quite enteraining for tech geeks.


#155 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:19

I have to admit that I prefer cost restraints on a high level and more technical freedom. With budget caps the current trend to ever narrower specs and your proposed spec components would increase. I would not like that. A series with $100m cap on chassis and $50m on engines would not be under funded. If it attracts more manufacturers it could be quite enteraining for tech geeks.


What does this even mean?

You talk about technical freedom, and then two seconds later say the budget cap should be $150 million total.

Where do you think technical freedom comes from?

I'll give you a hint, budget caps will hinder it as there is less money overall to devote towards exploring potentially new technical solutions.

As far as manufacturers go, if they want to piss away untold amounts of money on losing efforts, I say have at it.

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

#156 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:24

There are relatively simple ways to make sure that suppliers deal with budget controlled FiA licensee at arms length. They get a mandatory clause in their supply contracts that require them to submit to on demand audits by independent FiA controlled auditors that are working in confidentiality. This may not be possible with sponsors but licensees would have to value sponsorship also at arms length. There is not so much concern if F1 teams make huge profits and treasure those profits or disburse them to their share holders. The concern is that they spend any profit.


Who is going to pay for all of these audits WB?

I didn't know the FIA was now changing their mission statement to become an accounting firm.

Have you ever looked at the overall number of sponsors in F1? I'd love to see how the FIA is equipped to audit dozens of sponsors from top to bottom.

Again, the FIA would have no legal standing to audit a company like say Royal Dutch Shell.


#157 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 20:07

My company just went through an audit to renew our ISO 9001/14000 status, an expensive farce, they know it and we know it.

A credible financial audit can only be done after a company has put into liquidation, if even then. Snap out of it please.

Edited by Rasputin, 01 December 2012 - 20:08.


#158 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 23:09

What does this even mean?

You talk about technical freedom, and then two seconds later say the budget cap should be $150 million total.

Where do you think technical freedom comes from?

I'll give you a hint, budget caps will hinder it as there is less money overall to devote towards exploring potentially new technical solutions.

As far as manufacturers go, if they want to piss away untold amounts of money on losing efforts, I say have at it.

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

1. I think you have got it all ass to face. There is a well known difference in the cost control strategy that we have seen for the last years and the proposed system of budget caps. If you control the budget you have no more need to control cost along a path of diminishing returns. It is one of the strategies which are currently employed by F1 rule makers that have completely and utterly failed. As a consequence the rules should be much more relaxed if you try the alternative way of restricting budgets. Already in 2009 the debate was about more technical freedom in return for budget caps. I could imagine to allow all kind of variable geometries to valves, turbo vanes and whatever else you may want to experiment with. Engineers could devise different strategies to improve efficiency and power.

2. You won't attract manufacturers with open ended bills. They want to know what they are in for and they do not want to face unlimited bills.


Who is going to pay for all of these audits WB?

I didn't know the FIA was now changing their mission statement to become an accounting firm.

Have you ever looked at the overall number of sponsors in F1? I'd love to see how the FIA is equipped to audit dozens of sponsors from top to bottom.

Again, the FIA would have no legal standing to audit a company like say Royal Dutch Shell.

Come on, not that dumb old excuse again. Sponsors would not be much of a concern. Suppliers are much more important. But all non licensed entities would eventually be controlled by private supply and sponsorship contracts that would be required for every business affiliation. The control would not be continuous as for licensees but only when something fishy is investigated. In such cases suppliers would be required to submit all the paperwork for the respective transactions. They would not be required to total and ongoing control as licensees.

The cost for auditing would be paid from the licensees who would save a lot more cost that would result from a cost race. The difference between a cost race at full tilt and a controlled formula could be between $0.5-1bn. There is enough head room to pay for some accountants. At least that is what the FiA seems to think and the majority of teams as well.

You know, there are only two brands who are currently owning teams in F1 that can contemplate to go to 2006 levels of cost. Ferrari's Gestione Sportiva has been there and have increased their budgeting power over the last six years considerably. So they could even pay for it without exceeding their revenues. The other brand is Red Bull. They are generating so much advertising value equivalence (AVE) that they are quickly catching up with Ferrari in terms of F1 team valuation. If they go on at the current rate they will generate twice the AVE for every $ they sink into the F1 budgets of their teams. They can easily afford to own their own engine company even. And who knows who owns Renault F1 these days. Mateschitz could already have a 49% minority position there without us knowing it. Goshn is well known for his creative ways of outsourcing his capital expenditure needs. If convenient and suitable Renault F1 operations could be controlled from Salzburg by 2014 or 2015. Heck the guy could be buying any engine company for less than a full years AVE.


#159 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 December 2012 - 16:33

Come on, not that dumb old excuse again. Sponsors would not be much of a concern. Suppliers are much more important. But all non licensed entities would eventually be controlled by private supply and sponsorship contracts that would be required for every business affiliation. The control would not be continuous as for licensees but only when something fishy is investigated. In such cases suppliers would be required to submit all the paperwork for the respective transactions. They would not be required to total and ongoing control as licensees.



And that will be run by the politburo in China? Or from a suite at the Kremlin?

Advertisement

#160 Charles E Taylor

Charles E Taylor
  • Member

  • 175 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 02 December 2012 - 21:24

In another form of racing, Mutually Assured Destruction Is avoided using an old well tried method.

Will F1 eventually end up Like this?





Oh Dear.....



Charlie

#161 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,160 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 02 December 2012 - 22:17

Claiming is used in horse racing because it is the simplest, smartest way and most effective way to control costs. If you really are serious about cost control you implement a claiming rule; if you on the other hand need to put on a show of cost control without actually doing anything you go with other methods like tweaking the technical regulations or hiring expensive armies of bean counters.

#162 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 December 2012 - 23:12

Interesting concept indeed, a dare, a buy the shirt out of the waitress' back situtation.

Put a price tag of 1/10 of the yearly budget on any car at any given time. If one team is way too fast, like RBR have been latelly, you just buy one and check it out.

#163 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 2,680 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 December 2012 - 23:24

I have a question related to this threads title.. What would you want in a Le Mans endurance car, a twin turbo V6, or a large capacity normally aspirated V8?

#164 murpia

murpia
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 03 December 2012 - 13:28

I have a question related to this threads title.. What would you want in a Le Mans endurance car, a twin turbo V6, or a large capacity normally aspirated V8?

The one with the most power.

If you qualify the question with the implication they have the same power, then the lightest one.

If you further qualify the question with the implication they are equal weight, then the one with the least heat rejection to coolant.

Regards, Ian

#165 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 14:04

Thats enough cost talks for now think.

We have info enough to crunch numbers to get comparison graphs with lap times.

#166 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 2,680 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 December 2012 - 19:59

The one with the most power.

If you qualify the question with the implication they have the same power, then the lightest one.

If you further qualify the question with the implication they are equal weight, then the one with the least heat rejection to coolant.

Regards, Ian

Thank you for the reply.

As you probably know, maximum power would be about the same as it is a restrictor series.

This leaves us torque. I'm no good at figuring this out, I just theorize with little education on the matter. We are allowed a 5.5 liter N/A engine. Lets say we consider a 3.5 liter TT V6. I guess we'd need to boost it to 1.6 atmos to match the torque output of the 5.5. I could be out to lunch as I doubt it is such a straightforward calculation.

I know we cant know some important variables such as total weight (meaning including extra coolers, fluids, pipes etc.) and center of gravity, the additional drag of intercoolers etc..

I guess what I'm searching for is at wide open throttle, which Le Mans mostly is, and hell during part throttle situations, producing roughly the same HP which is going to use less fuel?

Edited by Nathan, 05 December 2012 - 20:00.


#167 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 2,680 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 December 2012 - 20:00

Thank you for the reply.

As you probably know, maximum power would be about the same as it is a restrictor series.

This leaves us torque. I'm no good at figuring this out, I just theorize with little education on the matter. We are allowed a 5.5 liter N/A engine. Lets say we consider a 3.5 liter TT V6. I guess we'd need to boost it to 1.6 atmos to match the torque output of the 5.5. I could be out to lunch as I doubt it is such a straightforward calculation.

I know we cant know some important variables such as total weight (meaning including extra coolers, fluids, pipes etc.) and center of gravity, the additional drag of intercoolers etc..

I guess what I'm searching for it at wide open throttle, which Le Mans mostly is, and hell during part throttle situations, producing roughly the same HP which is going to use less fuel?



#168 murpia

murpia
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 13:34

I guess what I'm searching for is at wide open throttle, which Le Mans mostly is, and hell during part throttle situations, producing roughly the same HP which is going to use less fuel?

The one with the biggest development budget, probably...

You can never get a black and white answer to these kind of questions. Even assuming that a 'restrictor series' implies equal power is suspect. What about friction?

Historically, at Le Mans, a boosted engine has won the race every year since 2000. Those were all works engines with healthy budgets. So which factor is the key, the boosting or the budget?

A boosted engine has 2 sources of airflow management: boost pressure & revs. A normally aspirated engine has one: revs. That in itself implies an extra flexibilty in race management.

Regards, Ian

#169 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 17:14

The boost would surely be at max allways? better to short shift if fuel management is important.

Edited by MatsNorway, 07 December 2012 - 17:15.


#170 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 17:38

Thank you for the reply.

As you probably know, maximum power would be about the same as it is a restrictor series.

This leaves us torque. I'm no good at figuring this out, I just theorize with little education on the matter. We are allowed a 5.5 liter N/A engine. Lets say we consider a 3.5 liter TT V6. I guess we'd need to boost it to 1.6 atmos to match the torque output of the 5.5. I could be out to lunch as I doubt it is such a straightforward calculation.
...

"Engine torque" is actually rather irrelevant, as long as you have the same power, the gearbox and final drive will make sure that they will all have the same torque on the wheels, which is where it counts.

The FIA's aim is obviously to have the engine builders to compete with efficiency and whatever recovering gizmos. Pretty boooring if you ask me.


#171 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 18:45

That's very dangerous ground you're stepping there Rasputin, torque x power arguments tend to ruin threads around here.

#172 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 19:29

That's very dangerous ground you're stepping there Rasputin, torque x power arguments tend to ruin threads around here.

Ooops, thanx for the warning saudso, I guess the engineer in myself got the better of me for a thoughtless moment there?

#173 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 21:41

;) I've just nearly trashed a perfectly good thread with this matter in the near past...

#174 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:39

;) I've just nearly trashed a perfectly good thread with this matter in the near past...

What the h*ll, this here thread is already trash anyways?

Power comes from speed, force without speed is nothing and so is torque without rpm. Power can also be geared, trade rpm for torque and vice versa.

Give me a decent pipe-wrench and I can easily produce more torque than any F1 engine ever done, but it will be good for nothing as it has no rpm.

#175 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 08 December 2012 - 16:50

What the h*ll, this here thread is already trash anyways?

Power comes from speed, force without speed is nothing and so is torque without rpm. Power can also be geared, trade rpm for torque and vice versa.

Give me a decent pipe-wrench and I can easily produce more torque than any F1 engine ever done, but it will be good for nothing as it has no rpm.


....and what ICE runs at zero RPM out on a race track? Oh, that's right....a sprint car engine! :)

#176 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 20:26

....and what ICE runs at zero RPM out on a race track? Oh, that's right....a sprint car engine! :)

Running at zero Rpm, not a bad feat I'd say?

#177 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 January 2013 - 21:04

http://www.auto-moto...ta-6329474.html

Ferrari estimates their fuel tank to be at 135L in 2014.

#178 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 January 2013 - 22:42

http://www.auto-moto...ta-6329474.html

Ferrari estimates their fuel tank to be at 135L in 2014.

Google translate inside but isn't domenicalli saying that on some tracks they will have to take away some HP to make the distance?

#179 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 January 2013 - 23:18

Google translate inside but isn't domenicalli saying that on some tracks they will have to take away some HP to make the distance?


Isn't that what they do now?

Advertisement

#180 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:51

Isn't that what they do now?


They do yes. But now they fill them short on fuel i think. It could be that they have smaler fuel tanks and want to push things to the extreme. Full tank and still have to short shift. (Better on aero)

Its risky. But it makes sense to me. your not making a good car for all tracks but for most of them. Monza will be a challenge. But then again. Perhaps all teams do this.

#181 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 January 2013 - 16:37

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105080
Posted Image
So what do you guys think? Any surprices?

For me the big "hu" moment was seeing those large carbonfiber boxes on the intakes. Are they runnning very long intakes? What are they doing?

I also find the turbo housings to be of interesting shape.

#182 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 16:59

I found this quick picture of the Renault EF15B turbo from the mid-80s just for a comparison to the above picture of the Mercedes engine.

Posted Image

Another of the TAG turbo used in the McLarens...

Posted Image

#183 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 January 2013 - 21:24

Great stuff. Thats what im talking about. The older turboes are sized alot more towards High boost application. I am a bit rusty but higher boost turboes got a bigger size difference as the compressor got a greater dia compared to the exhaust turbine.

Do they have even bigger exhaust vanes/exhaust turbo to increase the energy recovery?

by doing so they have to rely more on the turbo KERS to get the thing spinning until they got the rpm up.

Edited by MatsNorway, 11 January 2013 - 21:25.


#184 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 00:21

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105080
Posted Image
So what do you guys think? Any surprices?

For me the big "hu" moment was seeing those large carbonfiber boxes on the intakes. Are they runnning very long intakes? What are they doing?

I also find the turbo housings to be of interesting shape.


The distance between the turbine and the compressor must be for the MGU.

I'm not sure that the carbon fibre boxes will be the final shape. They certainly look huge!



#185 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,160 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 00:22

I found another angle,

Posted Image

#186 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 00:26

Do they have even bigger exhaust vanes/exhaust turbo to increase the energy recovery?

by doing so they have to rely more on the turbo KERS to get the thing spinning until they got the rpm up.


Yes, they are probably using a larger turbine than would be necessary to drive the compressor, enabling it to recover more energy. The MGU can be used to spin up the turbo if need be.

#187 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 00:28

I found another angle,

Posted Image


The compressor outlet is not connected. I suppose that means that the air will be sent to an intercooler which is not part of the engine package.

#188 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 00:35

A Renault rendering (not sure from when).

What will 2014 F1 Engine look like

The M-B engine seems to have a single entry turbine (pointing down), while the Renault rendering has twin entries to the sides - possibly making it easier to connect the exhausts.

Edited by Wuzak, 12 January 2013 - 11:51.


#189 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,424 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:02

It is likely the MB turbine is also twin-entry, in this case via a divided flange and two axially seperated passages, impinging the turbine wheel around the entire circumference. The Renault unit has two circumferencially seperated passages, each applied to only 180 degrees of the turbine wheel's circumference.

#190 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:40

The Renault sertainly isnt a ready to go design.

If thats the configuration.. The intake duct for the turbo will be much smoother and flowing. It will instead of just becoming narrower also become wider and fill inn on the sides.

Im guessing it is reasonable to expect the intake opening to become smaller due to the increased efficiency. Talking about the intake opening on the roll hoop here.

Edited by MatsNorway, 12 January 2013 - 09:40.


#191 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 January 2013 - 15:42

I found another angle,

Posted Image


I'm struggling to see what that large box is for. In some sense, a Water Charged-Air Cooler is the best setup for effectiveness and throttle response but then you have the issue with a water-filled mass directly above the engine.

#192 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 17:46

On the mercedes it also seems to be one inlet pr valve. rather than the more normal one big inlet into two valves.

Or its one oval or squareish intake.

I think its reasonable to guess that the intake for the exhaust turbo will be either on the side or top as the gearbox will be underneath and will make access/entry piping troublesome.


Edited by MatsNorway, 13 January 2013 - 18:10.


#193 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 18:56

I'm struggling to see what that large box is for. In some sense, a Water Charged-Air Cooler is the best setup for effectiveness and throttle response but then you have the issue with a water-filled mass directly above the engine.

Isn't it the air filter box? The cover is just for decoration, in the car the air duct will be there instead.
The turbo inlet is the pipe just blow. AFAIK the intercooler needs to be after the turbo.

#194 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 January 2013 - 21:12

Isn't it the air filter box? The cover is just for decoration, in the car the air duct will be there instead.
The turbo inlet is the pipe just blow. AFAIK the intercooler needs to be after the turbo.


Well obviously the CAC is after the turbo but t would be a great place to have it in terms of installation. It wouldn't be best for CoG though.

#195 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 22:47

Well obviously the CAC is after the turbo but t would be a great place to have it in terms of installation. It wouldn't be best for CoG though.


CAC?

#196 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,424 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 23:44

CAC = Charge Air Cooler (Intercooler)

#197 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:04

The distance between the turbine and the compressor must be for the MGU.

Yep, and you can see that it is liquid cooled. There are even the pipes for conneting the cooling in the picture. I reckon that will be a common design feature on all MGU-H.

The Magneti Marelli customers will probably be sweating bullets by now. If their alternator dies how will their MGUs survive. Its a much tougher job and you only have 5 power units in 2014. 2015 will be even harder with only 4 power units per season. Any failure on the MGU or its inverter electronics and you have lost a unit.

Reliability will probably be playing the same role as performance next year. We are not used to that any more. Plus they are not planning to do any track testing before the 2014 winter testing. That will be fun to watch. Last time we had this 2006 with the eight cylinder engines and the package was very simplistic compared to what we will have next year. Then the manufacturers were doing track tests half a year before they had to show up in a GP.

These new power units will be specified for a similar distance as Le Mans btw. They should be good for 5000 km. I would love to see some of those dinky F1 toys take the fight to the greatest race on earth.


#198 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:42

Might look like pipes but i think they are supposed to be wires. Hence three of them. Makes noe sense to have the coolant go inn and out on the same place either.

#199 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:00

The Magneti Marelli customers will probably be sweating bullets by now. If their alternator dies how will their MGUs survive.


Would they?

Magneti Marelli supplies both Renault and Ferrari, and it was only the Renault that had problems, and only this past season. And only in RBR and Lotus cars, IIRC.


Advertisement

#200 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 14 January 2013 - 18:04

Might look like pipes but i think they are supposed to be wires. Hence three of them. Makes noe sense to have the coolant go inn and out on the same place either.

I'm 99% confident that you must have liquid cooling for the kind of compactnes that we see here. Mind you that there may be more than one cooling circuit.

Would they?
Magneti Marelli supplies both Renault and Ferrari, and it was only the Renault that had problems, and only this past season. And only in RBR and Lotus cars, IIRC.

Perhaps they will get it wrong for another customer this time. And you do only need one failure to ruin a closely fought season. I remain convinced that reliability will play a much bigger role in 2014 than it did last year or even will this year.