Jump to content


Photo

Ecclestone wants to scrap 2014 engines because they don't sound good


  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

#201 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 20:54

There is an obvious solution to the problem of sustainability that was addressed by Marussia's Graeme Lowden. Even Bernie admits now that F1 cannot proceed without cost caps. So they should simply cap the sales price at initially 150% of what the customer teams pay today and reduce it to 100% over four years. The development cost of the power plant manufacturers should simply be capped at a multiple of the budget that a small low cost, low profit manufacturer like Cosworth has initially budgeted, lets say € 60m. In the following years the development cap would obviously be lower to match a multiple of what the business model of a small independent manufacturer without sponsorship could afford. All parties could live with that. And if it is still not good enough they can introduce an equivalence formula where they keep the original 2013 V8s and give them a fuel flow limit that lets them perform just under the level of the weakest turbo V6.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 02 October 2012 - 20:57.


Advertisement

#202 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 02 October 2012 - 20:58

http://en.espnf1.com...tory/79590.html



Just changing to V6s while the I4s were at an early stage cost approx. $50m


Thanks for that. So it is not hundreds of millions but $50m. Though that is interesting because in post 146 of this thread @Stanga was not even sure if the costs of switching from V4 to V6 engines cost millions. I agree that it did but I am not sure that Mercedes has spent as much as this on the V6 - quite sensibly too after being burnt over the V4. Maybe Renault increased its development costs for the V6 just as it did for the V4 but according to Mercedes two most recent financial statements, its costs went down.

#203 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 20:58

I thought the thread was about scrapping the engines because they don't sound good... :cry:

slow down, Tom.. the I4s cost F1 about $50M, on top of that you need to add the cost of developing V6s and at this point they are at a much more advanced state the I4s ever were, so god knows how much the whole thing cost but IMO very likely to be in hundred of millions... Saward also believes that: http://joesaward.wor...g-engine-rules/ so my claim is not far-fetched at all.

In any case you seem to be way too exited about this and you're already talking about Hamilton trying to go back to McLaren, says it all really..


Edited by Slowinfastout, 02 October 2012 - 21:04.


#204 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 02 October 2012 - 21:10

There is an obvious solution to the problem of sustainability that was addressed by Marussia's Graeme Lowden. Even Bernie admits now that F1 cannot proceed without cost caps. So they should simply cap the sales price at initially 150% of what the customer teams pay today and reduce it to 100% over four years. The development cost of the power plant manufacturers should simply be capped at a multiple of the budget that a small low cost, low profit manufacturer like Cosworth has initially budgeted, lets say € 60m. In the following years the development cap would obviously be lower to match a multiple of what the business model of a small independent manufacturer without sponsorship could afford. All parties could live with that. And if it is still not good enough they can introduce an equivalence formula where they keep the original 2013 V8s and give them a fuel flow limit that lets them perform just under the level of the weakest turbo V6.


Lowden makes sense but the figures do not. Below the article James Allen says that Merc have invested probably €200 million in the 2014 engines. How is this possible when in 2009 the costs of its engine division went down by £200,000 to £91.4 million with its research and development spending reducing by £11.2 million to £41.6 million. In 2010 its costs decreased by £15.9 million to £75.6 million and the amount it spent on R&D went down by a further £6.5 million to £35.1 million. This includes manufacturing and development work on the current V8 engines so the €200 million simply isn't there.
https://www.duedil.c...ited/financials

#205 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 02 October 2012 - 21:33

After all that, I just ask if it CAN, rather than if it SHOULD...

#206 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 21:35

Lowden makes sense but the figures do not. Below the article James Allen says that Merc have invested probably €200 million in the 2014 engines. How is this possible when in 2009 the costs of its engine division went down by £200,000 to £91.4 million with its research and development spending reducing by £11.2 million to £41.6 million. In 2010 its costs decreased by £15.9 million to £75.6 million and the amount it spent on R&D went down by a further £6.5 million to £35.1 million. This includes manufacturing and development work on the current V8 engines so the €200 million simply isn't there.
https://www.duedil.c...ited/financials


I agree that € 200 m must be grossly exaggerated. But the figure must be seriously exceeding the € 20m figure that Cosworth initially budgeted and every month that goes by without resource or budget restrictions on engine development will compound the problem. As Lowden and HRT are saying F1 is heading into some non sustainable engine cost race again unless the F1 commission comes up with a sensible cost curb pretty soon.

#207 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 22:11

I agree that € 200 m must be grossly exaggerated. But the figure must be seriously exceeding the € 20m figure that Cosworth initially budgeted and every month that goes by without resource or budget restrictions on engine development will compound the problem. As Lowden and HRT are saying F1 is heading into some non sustainable engine cost race again unless the F1 commission comes up with a sensible cost curb pretty soon.


The engines will obviously be cost capped somehow. This will not be anything like the early 2000s.

The costs will only be unsustainable for the scrub teams and possibly Sauber if they stop getting Mexico money.

#208 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 886 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:03

I'd personally love to see a more diverse field of engines that was present in the early 90's when you had V12, V10 and V8 engines all on the same grid once again... :up:

Going back to V6 engines with a capacity of a measily 1.6 litres is cringeworthy enough, but the mention of "4 cylinder" and "F1" in the same sentence REALLY makes me shudder...

Edited by Eff One 2002, 03 October 2012 - 02:10.


#209 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 144 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:21

Going back to V6 engines with a capacity of a measily 1.6 litres is cringeworthy enough, but the mention of "4 cylinder" and "F1" in the same sentence REALLY makes me shudder...


What if I say you that a 4cylinder 1.6L turbo engine could easily humiliate a normally aspirated V8 2.4L?

Just type "f1 turbo era" on Youtube and watch.


#210 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:36

Going back to V6 engines with a capacity of a measily 1.6 litres is cringeworthy enough, but the mention of "4 cylinder" and "F1" in the same sentence REALLY makes me shudder...

I don't understand why capacity and cylinder count is always used synonymous with the performance of an engine. At least for turbo engines of a fuel restricted formula a four cylinder engine would have superior power compared to a six cylinder. Trash talking the new engine formula that way shows that people simply do not understand the technology and talk from their guts instead from their brain. The moment you blow an engine the question of how many liters or cubic inches you have becomes irrelevant. All that matters is the how much fuel air mixture you are gone cram into the engine. A 1.6L engine can easily outperform a 3L engine if you blow it hard enough. And cylinder count is equally dubious for performance when efficiency is the most important point. You can find a good example for this in the nineties. After 1997 the V12s had no chance against the V10s in performance because they were simply sucking too much gas and requiring too much pit stop time to fill up the gas tanks. So teams deserted the technology even before it became outlawed by the rules.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 03 October 2012 - 02:37.


#211 Madera

Madera
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:46

I say, let's go back to the BRMV16.


Edited by Madera, 03 October 2012 - 02:48.


#212 SPBHM

SPBHM
  • Member

  • 817 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 03:29

I'd personally love to see a more diverse field of engines that was present in the early 90's when you had V12, V10 and V8 engines all on the same grid once again... :up:

Going back to V6 engines with a capacity of a measily 1.6 litres is cringeworthy enough, but the mention of "4 cylinder" and "F1" in the same sentence REALLY makes me shudder...


30 years ago 1.5l V6s and 4cil didn't look to bad...


Edited by SPBHM, 03 October 2012 - 03:30.


#213 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:14

Yup, only then, they didn't have to last 2,5 race weekend, were not RPM capped and didn't have regeneration stuff bolted to them.

I still think the standardized engine is ridiculous and that is off-putting for additional engine manufacturers. What if a small engine builder (like Ilmor) made a revolutionary engine? They have no chance if everyone has the same number of cilinders and V-angle..

#214 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,315 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:07

Yup, only then, they didn't have to last 2,5 race weekend, were not RPM capped and didn't have regeneration stuff bolted to them.

I still think the standardized engine is ridiculous and that is off-putting for additional engine manufacturers. What if a small engine builder (like Ilmor) made a revolutionary engine? They have no chance if everyone has the same number of cilinders and V-angle..


Manufacturers were not exactly chomping at the bit to build an F1 engine before the new rules came in.


#215 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:22

Lowden makes sense but the figures do not. Below the article James Allen says that Merc have invested probably €200 million in the 2014 engines. How is this possible when in 2009 the costs of its engine division went down by £200,000 to £91.4 million with its research and development spending reducing by £11.2 million to £41.6 million. In 2010 its costs decreased by £15.9 million to £75.6 million and the amount it spent on R&D went down by a further £6.5 million to £35.1 million. This includes manufacturing and development work on the current V8 engines so the €200 million simply isn't there.
https://www.duedil.c...ited/financials

The teams agreed to the I4t in early December 2010 after lots of discussions, the rules were then adopted by the FIA WMSC some time later that month. It is unlikely substantial development work had already started before this point and a few days of development kicking in shouldn't have much of an impact on the 2010 financial accounts. 2011 and 2012 would be more interesting.

#216 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:26

I'd personally love to see a more diverse field of engines that was present in the early 90's when you had V12, V10 and V8 engines all on the same grid once again... :up:

Going back to V6 engines with a capacity of a measily 1.6 litres is cringeworthy enough, but the mention of "4 cylinder" and "F1" in the same sentence REALLY makes me shudder...


Yes, the F1 four-cylinders had that effect on people.

Posted Image

Edited by dau, 03 October 2012 - 08:38.


#217 Bartel

Bartel
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:48

Ferrari V12


Honda V12


and in my opinion, the best sounding F1 car ever


#218 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:50

Manufacturers were not exactly chomping at the bit to build an F1 engine before the new rules came in.


The rules are very strict and you cannot develop or properly roadtest the engine. Why would anyone built a F1 engine then? If it fails, you simply cannot recover.

I miss the engine development. It is cheaper too.;) Now you have 12 teams full speed on aero development, whereas you only have 3-4 engine builders developing on performance. There isn't a penny saved in F1, it just went to another departments.

#219 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 17:36

I miss the engine development. It is cheaper too.;) Now you have 12 teams full speed on aero development, whereas you only have 3-4 engine builders developing on performance. There isn't a penny saved in F1, it just went to another departments.

:up: I agree. We should have both chassis and power train development in a balanced way and with suitable budget or resource limits for both fields. It would enable to free the technical regulations from some unsavoury restrictions. We should also remember that the new engines will give us a much better way to regulate power without messing with the technical regulations as they have in the past. You simply lower the fuel flow if power rises due to spectacular advances in efficiency.


Advertisement

#220 ehagar

ehagar
  • Member

  • 6,233 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 03 October 2012 - 18:17

Only the classic Ferrari V12 (or the Lamborghini...) is truly "musical" :well:


Pretenders to the throne. The Matra V12 is the king.

#221 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,315 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 October 2012 - 18:24

The rules are very strict and you cannot develop or properly roadtest the engine. Why would anyone built a F1 engine then? If it fails, you simply cannot recover.

I miss the engine development. It is cheaper too.;) Now you have 12 teams full speed on aero development, whereas you only have 3-4 engine builders developing on performance. There isn't a penny saved in F1, it just went to another departments.


The rules are only strict for those with an already homologated engine. A new manufacturer could road test an engine as much as they desired. But even before these restrictions there was not a queue of manufacturers looking to provide an engine.


#222 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 18:32





The difference isn't even that big on these videos.


Blast, I suppose this has to be done.

Ok, here is the difference, technically:

The Lotus 98 at lowest rev is roughly the note F. At highest rev it's roughly a D above that.

In musical terms, that's called a "major 6th". Approximately 9 notes. In general, going through the gears it swings approximately a whole step, two notes, B to C#.

I am going to discount your 1993 Renault Williams example, because of the CVT transmission - and also because *it's not the pinnacle of V10 engine revs*.

Instead, Raikonnen Ferrari 2002:

Ferrari 2002


The top note here is almost an F. Almost a major 3rd higher. Not only that, but there are more than one tone and overtone, which is part of the interesting complexity of the sound. But most importantly, the musical stretch between the low gears is wider - and in turn sounds more aggressive.

Additionally I'd proffer that in the post above of the Ferrari clienti video, *the sound in the distance* can be heard; that is where the volume is most important, because the sound of the car "doing something powerful with precision at a great distance" is a novel and exotic experience.

While it may not be obvious to most, or that detailed of an experience for most, it is my belief that sound, just like music, transcends the literal cognition of the sound to something more visceral.

And entertaining.



Also the turbos will be a lot better


Ok.

and more efficient,


Turbines would be more efficient. That might be interesting to hear. Otherwise, "efficient" doesn't particularly entertain me.


as well as allow better racing since cars won't be stuck on the rev limiter.


I thought they were going to be limited to 15k, now it looks like 10,500?

There are also other benefits like possible new manufacturers, which will absolutely not happen with any NA engine.


That's non-sequiter. If they really wanted to get manufacturers involved, the formula would be:

"Aluminum versions of a manufacturer's sub-$20,000 production car engine block".

Let them try to get 1,000 hp out of that. Watch the race on sunday, go buy the motor on monday. Not an unprecedented notion; Oldsmobile road car engine blocks have been in F1.

Otherwise, it's just some bizarro-world math, and something that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with ENTERTAINMENT.

Which is what car racing is: entertainment.









#223 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 18:41

Again, the essence of it is this:

IT HAS TO BE EXOTIC.

I owned a car when I was 16 that had 450 hp. I've driven cars having upwards 600+hp. V8s. I've driven cars with turbos. I haven't driven one of those S2000s that rev over 10k, but I've heard one, pretty cool.

1,000 hp that revs to 19,000? *That* is cool and impressive. That is literally what F1 MUST be. Otherwise, let's just absorb LMS/Grand Am into F1 and call it a day, because what's the point? Their heads are sticking up out of the cockpit to get chopped off and the wheels are open? WTF?

It's kind of endemic of the 21st century. The record companies thought "hey, why are we paying these "bands" so much money, and these A&R guys so much money to find these "bands", when we can just make the product ourselves? We're CEO's, so surely that means WE know what our business is about!

Yeah, that worked out really well for the music industry - Gangnam Style is the Dark Side of the Moon for this decade. Race cars don't need to be loud, powerful neat looking and impressive - OK, good luck with that. I suggest cardboard boxes with lawnmower engines, dirt ovals and a $10,000 budget cap, that's all that's really needed to go "racing".

/ I guess people have to pay for their bagel head operations somehow.

#224 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:25

Turbines would be more efficient. That might be interesting to hear. Otherwise, "efficient" doesn't particularly entertain me.

I think you are plainly wrong there. Mobile turbo engines do not even come near the efficiency of well designed piston engines. They do have higher power to weigth ratio which is the reason they are used in aircraft. But for ground transportation that is not quite so important as for air traffic. A good example for this is the turbine powering of ships and tanks. It is not a very common thing to do unless you have particular reasons. All the high efficiency tanks and ships are driven by piston engines.

Regarding your entertainment point I would say that F1 has also business and sporting aspects. And both require the consideration of other points like same rules and opportunities for all and sustainability. On top the sport is owned by the FiA which makes it necessary to observe their objectives and directives. They include safety and environmental objectives as we know. If the sport was about entertainment only you could very well organize a death race with armor plating, machine guns, oil dispensers and ejection seats.

#225 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 144 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:39

Im a sound lover and V10s were the most impressive engines I've heard in F1. BUT sadly they're not going to come back. What we have now are V8s that sound like a giant and annoying mosquito.

Edited by morrino, 03 October 2012 - 19:40.


#226 ocp

ocp
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:53



I've posted this before.

I don't know what can match that so basicly I don't care...

I would like NA though.

#227 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:02

Aggressive and loud engine noise is the most over rated feature of F1 entertainment. For everyone who wants as much noise as possible there are also fans who would accept more moderate and different engine sounds.

#228 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,166 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:34

Yeah, that worked out really well for the music industry - Gangnam Style is the Dark Side of the Moon for this decade. Race cars don't need to be loud, powerful neat looking and impressive - OK, good luck with that. I suggest cardboard boxes with lawnmower engines, dirt ovals and a $10,000 budget cap, that's all that's really needed to go "racing".


You'd be surprised at how entertaining that can be. Much more so than just increasing the noise level.

#229 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,793 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:50

Aggressive and loud engine noise is the most over rated feature of F1 entertainment. For everyone who wants as much noise as possible there are also fans who would accept more moderate and different engine sounds.


It isn't overrated at all. When I went to my first race, I wasn't really thinking too much about the sound. After it, I very much was and I enjoyed it.

People are entitled to consider it a major part of the experience, even if you don't.

#230 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 22:27

You obviously seem to know more about sounds than me, however all I was trying to show is that the difference is really not that noticeable, especially on TV. Live yes, but F1 is a once in a year event, nobody will miss it just because the sound isn't as good as it used to be.

The smaller V6t's will also give something for the common folk to relate to, how many people drive V8s and V10s compared to turbos?

I thought they were going to be limited to 15k, now it looks like 10,500?


The rev limit is at 15k though they won't be going that high. However the importance is that, you they won't be reaching the actual rev limiter, so when you're in another cars' slipstream you won't stall out, and will instead be able to pass. The new gearboxes are also developed with the same pretense, to allow more slipstreaming and passing.

That's non-sequiter. If they really wanted to get manufacturers involved, the formula would be:

"Aluminum versions of a manufacturer's sub-$20,000 production car engine block".

Let them try to get 1,000 hp out of that. Watch the race on sunday, go buy the motor on monday. Not an unprecedented notion; Oldsmobile road car engine blocks have been in F1.

Otherwise, it's just some bizarro-world math, and something that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with ENTERTAINMENT.

Which is what car racing is: entertainment.


Come on, you know that F1 will not race with production blocks. There needs to be a balance between prestige and factory support.

Developing new technology that can be passed down to street cars is still possible. Of course it wont be the entire engine, but manufacturers can still use the experience gained from the design of specific processes inside the engine to eventually improve their main products.

#231 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,817 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 22:43

(...)
Come on, you know that F1 will not race with production blocks. There needs to be a balance between prestige and factory support.
(...)


BMW M12. Not only was this based on a rather old production block design, they actually used blocks that had run in regular cars - something about the heat cycles.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 October 2012 - 22:45.


#232 SPBHM

SPBHM
  • Member

  • 817 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 23:29

the original V6 turbo engine (from Renault) was based on a production engine to, I think?

#233 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,759 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 23:40

I am going to discount your 1993 Renault Williams example, because of the CVT transmission - and also because *it's not the pinnacle of V10 engine revs*.


Just to nitpick, the video was of the standard semi-automatic gearbox of the FW15C.

I would also say that, whilst basic pitch is important to the sound of a racing engine, there are two caveats: (a) the existence of harmonics, overtones and undertones which make the engine sound more interesting (the BRM V16 that has already been linked is a good example, and is probably my favourite of all the F1 engine sounds that is linked to whenever this type of discussion occurs), and (b) the pitch shift caused by the Doppler effect experienced by spectators at the circuit and TV viewers through static trackside cameras both make the absolute pitch less important than it otherwise might be.

Finally, I'm impressed that you can identify notes from the engine sounds! I have perfect pitch but the sounds are too complex for me to pick out pitches at any given moment. :)


#234 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 23:40

However, I hope it's not Ferrari being behind schedule on their engine and playing games to delay the introduction.

Don't be an idiot, they already have theirs on the dyno.

#235 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 00:17

BMW M12. Not only was this based on a rather old production block design, they actually used blocks that had run in regular cars - something about the heat cycles.

the original V6 turbo engine (from Renault) was based on a production engine to, I think?


I'm talking about contemporary F1 and the future. I know they've used production blocks before but it's unlikely that it will happen ever again.

Edited by BigCHrome, 04 October 2012 - 00:29.


#236 404KF2

404KF2
  • Member

  • 2,260 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 04 October 2012 - 00:43

For me, the last great sounding racing engine was the 3 Litre Matra-Simca V-12, with the Porsche 917's flat 12 4.9 Litre as a very close second.

#237 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:48

The teams agreed to the I4t in early December 2010 after lots of discussions, the rules were then adopted by the FIA WMSC some time later that month. It is unlikely substantial development work had already started before this point and a few days of development kicking in shouldn't have much of an impact on the 2010 financial accounts. 2011 and 2012 would be more interesting.


@Dau, you said in post 126 that you don't think the V4s ever even left the concept phase, so it didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. @stanga took the same view in post 146 and asked for it to be substantiated that the switch to the V6 engine led to incremental costs amounting to millions. In fact, Renault Sport managing director Jean-Francois Caubet admitted that 'we have blown nearly 50 million for nothing.' So it is clearly not accurate to say that the switch to the V6 didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. The truth is that the FIA's change of the regulations to the V6, following Ecclestone's criticism of the V4, led to at least $50m of lost money for the manufacturers. This is direct proof that the FIA would not hesitate to change the regulations even if it means that the manufacturers lose huge amounts of money.

Anyone who says that the FIA would not stop the 2014 engines now because the manufacturers have spent too much on them needs to look at the facts. How much have they really spent on the 2014 engines? In the Marussia article James Allen says Merc has spent €200 million in developing the new engines but this is just not possible. Here are the research and development figures for Merc's engines department. 2009 £41.6 million, 2010 £35.1 million, 2011 £52.4 million. The 2009 numbers can be ruled out because they come with the disclaimer that "due to the FIA uncertainties with regard to regulations and pressure on cost we have not undertaken future development at this time." That leaves us with 2010 and 2011 which comes to a total of £87.5 million but also includes spending on the cuurrent V8 engines as well as KERS.

€200 million is approx £160 million which is double Merc's total R&D spending and this also includes all its non-V6 engine development. if we assume that Merc spent just 10% of the £87.5 million on non-V6 development (it is likely to be much much more) then that means it ploughed in £78.75 million into the V6s over 2010 and 2011 and would have had to invest more than that in the first nine months of this year to get to the claimed €200 million figure. As @dau says, the V6 was only given the go ahead in late December 2010 so the amount invested that year would be tiny. So let's say Merc invested all of the £52.4 million into the V6s in 2011 as well as 10% of the 2010 R&D spending. This would still mean that Merc must have spent over £100 million on the V6 engines over the past nine months even though it invested 'only' £52.4 million last year. It obviously didn't do this which demonstrates that the amount spent on the V6 engines is nowhere near as much as €200 million.

Given how late the V6 engines were introduced in 2010, it seems fair to say that it spent at most 10% of its R&D spending on them that year. This comes to £3.5 million. It also seems reasonable to say that development of Kers, the V8s etc comprised 15% (to be conservative) of the 2011 R&D figure, this leaves £44.5 million for the V6s and along with the 2010 amount gives a total spending of £48 million. That comes to around $75 million. Say Merc spent another $25-$30 million this year so far that gives a total of around $100 million - double the amount Renault spent on the V4. Given that Bernie's original criticism led to the the FIA switching from the V4 which left Renault wasting $50 million I certainly do not think it is out of the question that the FIA would be worried about Renault/Merc wasting $100m on the V6. It has already set the precedent.

#238 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 886 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:48

What if I say you that a 4cylinder 1.6L turbo engine could easily humiliate a normally aspirated V8 2.4L?

Just type "f1 turbo era" on Youtube and watch.


I'd say that's largely irrelevant to me. I'm well aware of the fact that F1 used to have turbos. I've been following the sport since 1985. The difference is that back then, they were amoungst other, varied engine types. Now we'll have these homogeneous engines that are all pretty much the same apart from the badge, will more than likely sound like shit and they'll be in the back of EVERY car.

#239 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:12

Talking of the FiA making all these decisions is very misleading. The FiA (in particular the FiA WMSC) does not make decisions of that kind. They are made by the F1 commission which is dominated by the teams and by the promoters association. There are a few other votes such as Ecclestone, Todt and some industry representative that do not make difference if the teams are all on one side. Once the F1 commission has approved a deal between its members (mainly the teams) the FiA only rubber stamps the result or potentially and very seldom vetoes it. But on the engine decision the FiA WMSC has no power to make regulatory decisions on their own initiative. They can only do that on safety issues which the engines are not. What I have described above is the situation that usually applies when there is a valid concord agreement in place. But one has to consider that this year could run out and no concord agreement may be in effect that involves the FiA. In that case the FiA president may feel the need to act on his own initiative as Max Mosley did in 2009 when also no valid Concord Agreement was in place. But I have very serious doubts that Jean Todt would be doing such a thing. During his whole presidency he had a very hands off policy abou the running of F1 and I do not believe that he will change that stance. On top he has no interest whatsoever to kill off the 2014 engine plan which is essentially his brain child.

If we see a change of plan or another delay it will surely come from Bernie and the promoters supported by a vast majority of the teams. They all would have to carry the can for pissing off the existing and any future manufacturers big time. They would be very foolish in my mind if they were to take such action. It would be much better to stick to the plan and safeguard the introduction by ensuring a transfer prices cap for customer engines. To balance the competitiveness of manufacturer teams and private teams there also needs to be some development cost capping. That actually is a very urgent issue as practically everyone in F1 is telling us these days. Realistically F1 cannot afford to loose any manufacturers. Actually they need to pull out all the stops to get more manufacturers involved. The way to do it is not delaying the modern technology that is applied in the automotive industry. The proper way to do it is by giving the power plant producers enough ongoing innovation to grant them some influence on the competitiveness of the package again. Today they do not have that and they will not invest unless they get it. Keeping the old engines would be a very serious mistake that could damage F1 in more ways than we can imagine now.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 04 October 2012 - 03:21.


Advertisement

#240 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:34

@Dau, you said in post 126 that you don't think the V4s ever even left the concept phase, so it didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. @stanga took the same view in post 146 and asked for it to be substantiated that the switch to the V6 engine led to incremental costs amounting to millions. In fact, Renault Sport managing director Jean-Francois Caubet admitted that 'we have blown nearly 50 million for nothing.' So it is clearly not accurate to say that the switch to the V6 didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. The truth is that the FIA's change of the regulations to the V6, following Ecclestone's criticism of the V4, led to at least $50m of lost money for the manufacturers. This is direct proof that the FIA would not hesitate to change the regulations even if it means that the manufacturers lose huge amounts of money.

Anyone who says that the FIA would not stop the 2014 engines now because the manufacturers have spent too much on them needs to look at the facts. How much have they really spent on the 2014 engines? In the Marussia article James Allen says Merc has spent €200 million in developing the new engines but this is just not possible. Here are the research and development figures for Merc's engines department. 2009 £41.6 million, 2010 £35.1 million, 2011 £52.4 million. The 2009 numbers can be ruled out because they come with the disclaimer that "due to the FIA uncertainties with regard to regulations and pressure on cost we have not undertaken future development at this time." That leaves us with 2010 and 2011 which comes to a total of £87.5 million but also includes spending on the cuurrent V8 engines as well as KERS.

€200 million is approx £160 million which is double Merc's total R&D spending and this also includes all its non-V6 engine development. if we assume that Merc spent just 10% of the £87.5 million on non-V6 development (it is likely to be much much more) then that means it ploughed in £78.75 million into the V6s over 2010 and 2011 and would have had to invest more than that in the first nine months of this year to get to the claimed €200 million figure. As @dau says, the V6 was only given the go ahead in late December 2010 so the amount invested that year would be tiny. So let's say Merc invested all of the £52.4 million into the V6s in 2011 as well as 10% of the 2010 R&D spending. This would still mean that Merc must have spent over £100 million on the V6 engines over the past nine months even though it invested 'only' £52.4 million last year. It obviously didn't do this which demonstrates that the amount spent on the V6 engines is nowhere near as much as €200 million.

Given how late the V6 engines were introduced in 2010, it seems fair to say that it spent at most 10% of its R&D spending on them that year. This comes to £3.5 million. It also seems reasonable to say that development of Kers, the V8s etc comprised 15% (to be conservative) of the 2011 R&D figure, this leaves £44.5 million for the V6s and along with the 2010 amount gives a total spending of £48 million. That comes to around $75 million. Say Merc spent another $25-$30 million this year so far that gives a total of around $100 million - double the amount Renault spent on the V4. Given that Bernie's original criticism led to the the FIA switching from the V4 which left Renault wasting $50 million I certainly do not think it is out of the question that the FIA would be worried about Renault/Merc wasting $100m on the V6. It has already set the precedent.


First of all, they are I4's, not V4's. Second of all, Caubet said that the manufacturers combined had spend around 50M, or about 15-17M per manufacturer.

As you can see, they've increased spending by 50% from 2010 to 2011, some of which is most likely for the engine mappings and the rest for the V6t. This obviously shows that they're ramping up R&D for the new engines, and are not planning for any delay in their introduction.

#241 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:51

I like this old arrows.



#242 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:29

First of all, they are I4's, not V4's. Second of all, Caubet said that the manufacturers combined had spend around 50M, or about 15-17M per manufacturer.

As you can see, they've increased spending by 50% from 2010 to 2011, some of which is most likely for the engine mappings and the rest for the V6t. This obviously shows that they're ramping up R&D for the new engines, and are not planning for any delay in their introduction.

You are right about the 50m being combined (I cannot see one bit why it matters in this discussion whether they are known as I4s, V4s or Z4s though). So, if Renault and Ferrari have also spent $100m like Merc then the question is will the FIA decide not to risk annulling the 2014 regs simply because it will waste $300m? They were perfectly happy about wasting $50m on the I4/V4 so can any of us be sure where their limit is? None of this changes the fact that Merc has not spent €200m on the V6 engines and the FIA hyas already wasted tens of millions by changing the regs so could do so again. It has set a precedent.

I agree with WhiteBlue that if there is a change of plan or another delay it will surely come from Bernie and the promoters supported by many teams. Marussia so far is the only other one to speak out (and they are against 2014) since Ecclestone's forecast about the FIA annulling the regs. It will be interesting to see which team comments next...

#243 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:36

Marussia are not against 2014. They are against an unsustainable cost race over engines. If they get affordable sales prices for v6 customer engines or equivalent V8s they would probably accept the new regulations. So the sensible thing is to provide engines with affordable prices to them.

#244 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:26

@Dau, you said in post 126 that you don't think the V4s ever even left the concept phase, so it didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. @stanga took the same view in post 146 and asked for it to be substantiated that the switch to the V6 engine led to incremental costs amounting to millions. In fact, Renault Sport managing director Jean-Francois Caubet admitted that 'we have blown nearly 50 million for nothing.' So it is clearly not accurate to say that the switch to the V6 didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. The truth is that the FIA's change of the regulations to the V6, following Ecclestone's criticism of the V4, led to at least $50m of lost money for the manufacturers. This is direct proof that the FIA would not hesitate to change the regulations even if it means that the manufacturers lose huge amounts of money.


I stand by what i said about the I4s never having left the concept phase and that the initial switch didn't cost them much. I find Caubets' "10-15m" hard to believe to be honest. It should be noted that he mentioned it when he was asked about Renault's stance on the engine's introduction in 2014, so he could be deliberately overstating figures to lobby for the engine plan to go ahead. Renault was the sole supporter of the new engine formula and they made it very clear they are radically opposed to any further delays. I also remember Haug saying that the switch to V6 is not much of a problem because no one was far advanced in their development of the I4. Can't find the quote right now.

Just for the record: I doubt that $200m figure from Allen as well. This article (which traces back to a BILD article though) puts Renault's estimated development costs for the V6 at €50m. Even with the usual 100% surcharge for unforeseen development problems, this wouldn't be close to what Allen said Merc has already spent. Still, i would expect Merc's development costs, regardless of how high they actually are, to show mainly in their 2011 and 2012 financial accounts, which are sadly not available yet from that site you linked.

Also, it is incorrect to say the FIA changed the regulations following Bernie's criticism. They didn't. The teams found a compromise between the I4 that was forced on them by Mosley and the V8 that nobody apart from Ferrari was really keen on keeping. They then probably went the usual way from TWG via the F1 Commission to the FIA WMSC that adopted the new regulations. Other than by arguing that no Concorde Agreement exists for 2013 like Mosley originally did, the FIA can't change any non-safety-related regulations on their own or even with FOM's help. It is not a question of the FIA caring about the teams' losses or not, the teams themselves would have to agree to accept losing money like they already did in 2011. But, coming back to my original point, it was about much less money then than it is now.

#245 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:20

Within this thread there has been a lot of negative sentiments about fourcylinders.

It is a bit funny since nowadays we have these 2.4 liter V8s but in the past there had been 2.5s (1954-1960) and a number of those were 4's. I guess that a number of older British fans out here will still go beserk about the "British Racing Green"Vanwalls and their 4 banger. Or the BRM and the Climax powered cars...

And as stated; in the first F1 turbo era it was indeed a Fourbanger that was one of the two strongest engines ever in F1. Curiously, in Indycars when turbos were permitted and unrestricted it was also a fourbanger (Offy) that outperformed a multi-cylinder engine quite convincingly.


I also wonder about that sound obsession of some out here. Must it be melodious (like V12s) or just plain as loud as it can be? (V10s and Detroit Iron)
What I think to be so curious is that some out here still dwell about the V12s of the past while these rarely reached the RPM level of today. I wonder if a V12 at 18000 rpm is still so nice to her as the elder ones at 10500 or so rpm....

I have heard the turbo V6 F1 cars of the eightties and I found them nice to hear. The current generation of fans will probably dismiss them because of being so silent compared with those 20000 rpm devices of recent years. But at Indy I've heard the Buick V6s, more then twice as much capacity as the F1 V6s but slower revving Hearing those reminded me about the F1 V6s but the Buick was so loud!!! While that Mercedes 500I V8 engine in the 1994 Penskes, (Like the Buicks 3.44 liter) was much less loud.

So if it is about engine noise: is it for the sound, and is loudness less important or about the loudness, no matter how it sounds?


Having heard those slow revving locomotove engines of the Edwardian age, I take those any time over the current screamers. There's much moreto smell too with those leviathans to add to the experience....



Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 04 October 2012 - 10:24.


#246 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,696 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:36

For me it's the actual melody of the sound and it needs to be a sharp sound. The V10s and V12s of the 3 litre era were glorious to listen to - they played a music that bounced off the walls of the buildings and off the hills that surrounded the circuits.

The V8s, whilst being pretty much as loud (over 130dB still) just don't sing the same song.



#247 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 13:56

There was no 3,0 V12. In my memory the last V12 was the 3,5l engine. It was a gorgeous beast.

The rev limit is one of the things that should go. Remember the BMW V10 @ Monza breaking 22k(?) RPM. IMO that is fantastic engineering. Not a rev limit safely under that. In that day the performance differences between engines was much bigger.



#248 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:32

There was no 3,0 V12. In my memory the last V12 was the 3,5l engine. It was a gorgeous beast.

The rev limit is one of the things that should go. Remember the BMW V10 @ Monza breaking 22k(?) RPM. IMO that is fantastic engineering. Not a rev limit safely under that. In that day the performance differences between engines was much bigger.




Feeling like a priest in Mekka during the Hadj.....

fascinating as 22000 rpm might be, it only results into insane amounts of power for a given capacity. Seems that the current generation of fans prefers dragster type of racing with insanely powerful cars that, because of their power, can carry all that aero shit that increases the downforce, thus cornerspeeds, thus making overtaking even more difficult.
With the current capacity engines you need to keep RPM's under control, to keep power under control. Unlimited RPMs are only possible on very small capacity engined.

I rather see a return to the kind of engines of 20 years ago, with a maximum of, say 12000 rpm. Reduces their power (great for reducing aero) but if they becom more longstroke engines like in the past they become more torquey which improves acceleration and makes the cars more driveable too.
Besides that, on lower rpms the engines sound better then screaming on 22000 rpm.

Henri




#249 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:36

There was no 3,0 V12.


Hello? Planet earth to SenorSjon?



http://www.dailymoti...days-2012_sport



and the boss:


Edited by Slowinfastout, 04 October 2012 - 14:43.


#250 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 15:12

He said: "the 3.0 litre era" To me that is 1995>2005. I misunderstood, I thought it was 1996 when Ferrari also built the V10 when they only could have 3.0 litre engines. But the limit was a year earlier than I remember.

You posted engines 15 years before I was born...

Much gems are posted here: http://en.wikipedia....ula_One_engines Also the rules are getting more and more. :(