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

#251 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,698 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 15:20

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.


The Ferrari 412T2 had a 3.0 V12.

Also, 22,000rpm? These things are getting more mythical by the day. The BMW V10 broke the 19,000rpm barrier at Monza in either 2002 or 2003 - I can't remember which. The V10s never exceeded 20,000rpm in the vehicles. The highest the V8s ever reached was about 20,500rpm.



Advertisement

#252 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 15:24

@SenorSjon

Yeah, I actually knew what you meant but used it as an excuse to post some of my favourites :p

I like how lovely the old 3 liters engines from late '60s to turbo era sounded, especially the 12s.. but I think for pure wow factor the last V10s were hard to beat. For someone who's not into F1 and has never heard one in person, I think these would bring the biggest 'WTF' reaction.

These days the whole costs issue and the 'green' sticker of approval everything has to have has ruined any prospect of returning to something more fun.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 04 October 2012 - 15:25.


#253 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 21:27

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.


It is only about much less money then than it is now according to your theory which assumes that Caubet is lying. No disrespct to you but I would rather trust a direct quote from Caubet than your argument and I would say the same of anyone here. Likewise, I would rather trust a direct quote from Ecclestone saying that the FIA will ditch the V6 engines than trust the theory that the FIA would never cause the manufacturers to waste money producing engines which are not used. The fact that they dropped the V4/I4 engine is the precedent which disproves this theory. Ecclestone criticised the new engine regulations from the very start so any changes made by the FIA literally did follow his complaint.


#254 TheUltimateWorrier

TheUltimateWorrier
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 21:42

If the noise of the engines are that much of an issue, then Bernie should just hire Karl Pilkington to sort out the problem.

#255 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 23:29

Likewise, I would rather trust a direct quote from Ecclestone saying that the FIA will ditch the V6 engines than trust the theory that the FIA would never cause the manufacturers to waste money producing engines which are not used. The fact that they dropped the V4/I4 engine is the precedent which disproves this theory.

How ignorant can you be to believe that the FiA is making the rules. The FiA is only there to enforce the rules that are decided by the F1 commission! That was explained at width in this thread. And it is rather unpredictable what the F1 commission will decide behind closed doors. Those decisions are massively influenced by politicking and we know who is the master at that game. There is very little that money cannot buy and the team principals are usually not among those as the Sky deal in the UK shows. They will sell out F1 for very little. So although they have twice agreed to the new engines it is not beyond them to make another volte face. They have done it twice. I just hope that another solution will be found.


#256 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 October 2012 - 00:01

Although they have twice agreed to the new engines it is not beyond them to make another volte face. They have done it twice. I just hope that another solution will be found.


I agree with this conclusion for sure. I would also add though that there are means and ways for Todt to propose ditching the regulations - it certainly doesn't just come down to the teams and Bernie.

#257 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 01:57

I would also add though that there are means and ways for Todt to propose ditching the regulations - it certainly doesn't just come down to the teams and Bernie.

Jean Todt has no interest whatsoever to ditch the turbo engines. He has worked very hard to make them possible. He brought his old pal Simon from Ferrari to the FiA to push the engines and he pushed mightily to get more manufacturers into F1. He even convinced the ECO to change the LMP rules to enable F1 engine manufacturers to run the turbo F1 engines at Le Mans as well. The poison dwarf may be able to buy many votes but I cannot imagine that he will be able to buy Todt.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 05 October 2012 - 02:02.


#258 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,811 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:11

He even convinced the ECO to change the LMP rules to enable F1 engine manufacturers to run the turbo F1 engines at Le Mans as well.


No he didn't, the LMP rules were changed so that the only regulation regarding the engine is the amount of energy allowed per lap. Since engines are free, this would (in theory) allow F1 engines, but it most likely won't happen, since LMP engines will generally have to be integrated with far more powerful energy recovery systems than in F1 (the maximum storeable energy for 2014 LMPs is probably about 15 times the one currently allowed in KERS in F1). And they'll have to be able to run over 5000 km in one go.

#259 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:49

Jean Todt has no interest whatsoever to ditch the turbo engines. He has worked very hard to make them possible. He brought his old pal Simon from Ferrari to the FiA to push the engines and he pushed mightily to get more manufacturers into F1. He even convinced the ECO to change the LMP rules to enable F1 engine manufacturers to run the turbo F1 engines at Le Mans as well. The poison dwarf may be able to buy many votes but I cannot imagine that he will be able to buy Todt.


Maybe that could depend on how much more money the FIA gets paid by FOM...Ever wondered why anyone would want Formula 1 engines to be used in Le Mans? If Formula 1 engines are used in Le Mans then that weakens the strength of the F1 trademark since it could cause confusion. For example, the last thing that Dyson wants is for one of its products to be used in something known as a 'Hoover competition' because Dyson and Hoover are rival trademarks. Now who is it who owns the F1 trademark.....?

Advertisement

#260 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:57

No he didn't, the LMP rules were changed so that the only regulation regarding the engine is the amount of energy allowed per lap. Since engines are free, this would (in theory) allow F1 engines, but it most likely won't happen, since LMP engines will generally have to be integrated with far more powerful energy recovery systems than in F1 (the maximum storeable energy for 2014 LMPs is probably about 15 times the one currently allowed in KERS in F1). And they'll have to be able to run over 5000 km in one go.

Allow me to interpret the rules slightly different. The amount of fuel per lap is controlled by the same technology as the fuel rate in F1 and the fuel rates are quite similar considering the different style of racing. The objective is the same. They want to significantly drop the fuel utilization. And F1 will also get much bigger energy recovery in 2014 according to the plan. Most observers have noticed that the FiA was behind those similarities which will help to bring both top racing series closer in technology. That can only help to involve more manufacturers in both series because it will become easier to switch between the two series to suit the particular manufacturers marketing needs.

Maybe that could depend on how much more money the FIA gets paid by FOM.

Maybe, but I take that as a red herring by Ecclestone. Money is another issue which is not likely to influence the question of sustainability at the FiA. The issue simply has top priority for the federation.

Ever wondered why anyone would want Formula 1 engines to be used in Le Mans? If Formula 1 engines are used in Le Mans then that weakens the strength of the F1 trademark since it could cause confusion.

I have covered that issue above. The FiA are not primarily concerned about the commercial value. Ecclestone is because he wants to keep his pinnacle moniker. But he forgets that he his on the best way to loose the status in some years with the old technology that is employed in the V8s.

Now who is it who owns the F1 trademark.....?

The FiA does through the ownership of the FiA Formula 1 world championship. Ecclestone's employer just owns the right to exploit it for 100 years.

#261 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,865 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:18

The solution to lousy exhaust note is sound actuator which are broadly featured in many new turbo charged cars.

#262 Tommorris747

Tommorris747
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:22

The FiA does through the ownership of the FiA Formula 1 world championship. Ecclestone's employer just owns the right to exploit it for 100 years.


This could be the misunderstanding at the heart of your theory. Actually Ecclestone's employer owns the trademark. The filings are publicly accessible. This is most probably because, as with property, 100 years is considered as good as owning something outright. So why would Todt want to weaken Ecclestone's trademark. Nothing to do with the fact that the FIA wants money. Surely, it couldn't be....?