Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 9 votes

2014 Power Units


  • Please log in to reply
1459 replies to this topic

#51 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,040 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:56

That's theoretically a disadvantage to Red Bull's* notoriously unreliable KERS and advantage to Ferrari and Mercedes.. .tend to think Bernie would want that rule to stay then!

*(though they will switch to Renault KERS right ??? - well it be a lot more complicated than KERS - and probably be a "customer" - or rather lead works - team with priority one Renaults better than the other Lotus customer team...)


I wonder if these engines will really do 15000 rpm, or instead run at ~12500 ish with the fuel etc restrictions ?

there will be no red bull KERS anymore, engine+ERS=power unit (at least that's how I understood it) so it will be made by renault just like the engine.
the post you replied to also says/implies this: "One important aspect of change will be to see the power unit as a whole entity"

Advertisement

#52 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,670 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:11

I predict people will either praise them or harshly criticise them initially, people will get used to them (ie. the ugly 2009 cars and the 2012 step noses) and then life will go on.


No ,we don't get used. We keep hoping someday it will get fixed.

#53 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,913 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:15

Apologies if already mentioned but does anybody actually know how the ERS deployment will be triggered? Will we have drivers pressing a button for half a lap? How does using a pedal like some teams do actually work? Is there scope for an 'active' system where it's automatically deployed for a driver or is that covered under a rule clause to say it must be 'driver operated'?

If nothing changed, it will be operated via the throttle pedal. So no extra buttons etc, but I assume the driver will be able to switch different (K)ERS maps. The time is a derivative of a maximum power per lap limit.

#54 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:47

Weigh every car before and after the race? It's not that hard. Take the wheels off though for the measurement though, too easy to cheat.


So it will be even less fuel then 100 kh if other lost fluids etc are taken into account. Make it tough on these F1 chaps. :D

That's not that hard, no. But it would still be easier to just mandate a capacity limit.

Edit: Heh, looks like i didn't look close enough. There's an ERS power flow diagram on the last page of the Technical Regulations that lists "Race fuel allowance (F1 Sporting Regulations)" as an engine limitation. flyinglow and Allen were absolutely right then. Still don't get why this is even necessary.

Edited by dau, 12 January 2013 - 13:15.


#55 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,753 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 12 January 2013 - 13:15

That's not that hard, no. But it would still be easier to just mandate a capacity limit.

The maximum fuel flow rate is present in the technical regulations.

Fuel flow rate can be measured with highly accurate FIA mandated fuel flow rate sensors and will be monitored via the FIA ECU.

Edit: obviously fuel flow rate and fuel allowance are two different things and both will be mandated.

Edited by Timstr11, 12 January 2013 - 13:29.


#56 flyinglow

flyinglow
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 January 2013 - 13:42

That's not that hard, no. But it would still be easier to just mandate a capacity limit.

Edit: Heh, looks like i didn't look close enough. There's an ERS power flow diagram on the last page of the Technical Regulations that lists "Race fuel allowance (F1 Sporting Regulations)" as an engine limitation. flyinglow and Allen were absolutely right then. Still don't get why this is even necessary.


It's probably worth remembering that the journos writing on this topic - Allen, Noble and others - all spent yesterday talking to the guys who are designing these engines, and their explanations came from the experts.

So they are not plucking information out of thin air and have probably been given a better insight into the overall context than simply reading the currently published rules affords.

Same is true for the rules, I guess. Written by the FIA and experts who are the guys with the most available knowledge. So if they are written that way, isn't it more a question of figuring out the reasons why that's been done rather than assuming we can know what would be "better" or "easier"?

#57 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 13:54

It would have been interesting had the journos actually asked some decent questions. However the truth is a combination of them not all understanding what fans think is interesting, the fact that what I find is interesting a lot of other people don't, and that Merc won't reveal the type of information that's really juicy it might be perceived to give the competition an advantage.

The dyno simulated run - what was it revving to? How much fuel did that use? Have they simulated the possible range between the engine running lean (i.e. maps low & minimal ERS) and rich. Are we going to see any massive issues when ERS systems fail? Will it be like KERS is now? Have they simulated the likely laptime difference between using ERS in a normal way and using it defensively. Gonna have to just wait..

#58 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 14:03

It's probably worth remembering that the journos writing on this topic - Allen, Noble and others - all spent yesterday talking to the guys who are designing these engines, and their explanations came from the experts.[...]

Well, obviously, but mistakes can still happen and while i had not heard of a 100kg fuel allowance before, the 100kg/h fuel flow limit was widely known.

[...]Same is true for the rules, I guess. Written by the FIA and experts who are the guys with the most available knowledge. So if they are written that way, isn't it more a question of figuring out the reasons why that's been done rather than assuming we can know what would be "better" or "easier"?

That's what i'm trying to do. I didn't say it was stupid or anything, i just can't think of a reason why it would be necessary with a fuel mass flow limit in place anyway.

Sure, it does save the teams some calculations and prevents something like the Virgin disaster from a few years ago. But other than that, i can't see the point. Why would we even need the expensive mass flow sensors when there's a maximum fuel allowance? If you have any idea, please explain.

Edited by dau, 12 January 2013 - 14:06.


#59 vlado

vlado
  • Member

  • 195 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 12 January 2013 - 14:04

So we have nothing from the past, or another series, that might sound kind of like what they are describing here ?

How many have though? The unrestricted V10's and the turbos in their final years (excluding qualifying spec)?


The V10 were hitting 1000 hp in 06 ? I don't remember that, but I do remember the glorious sound before they limited the revs.. 2004-2006



goosebumps.. every time :love:

Advertisement

#60 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,819 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 14:32

So we have nothing from the past, or another series, that might sound kind of like what they are describing here ?


V6 turbo from years gone past in F1, 1.5 liters, twin-turbo:

V6 turbo from Indycar last year (and this year and the next few years), 2.2 liters, twin-turbo:

#61 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 14:50

That's entirely possible of course, but it would be a bit odd - how are they gonna enforce something like that if not via fuel tank size? Also, Allen's article talks about "a maximum one 100 kilos of fuel [...] rather than 150kg today" and there's nothing regarding a 150kg limit in either Technical or Sporting Regulations. It also seems unnecessary to have both a capacity and mass flow limitation.

Guess we can only wait until they publish the final regulations.


Not really. The flow rate means they can control the power output, controlling the capacity wouldn't do that.


#62 ArnageWRC

ArnageWRC
  • Member

  • 1,082 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:03

I think it's a step in the right direction. More and more ALL Motorsport has to be road relevant - whether you like it or not. Downsizing is what is happening, F1 has to follow, as other series have done/ are doing.

#63 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:04

The 740 hp figure itself is meaningless and can easily become useless if the chassis is not up to it.
Did you consider the weight, downforce, drag and mechanical grip figures of an SLS vs that of an F1 car?


F1 for a long time, was far removed from "common experience" in just about every aspect, including hp. There are people that put Hayabusa engines on karts, and get even more over the top power to weight ratios than F1, but that doesn't make it "F1".

#64 flyinglow

flyinglow
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:07

It would have been interesting had the journos actually asked some decent questions. However the truth is a combination of them not all understanding what fans think is interesting, the fact that what I find is interesting a lot of other people don't, and that Merc won't reveal the type of information that's really juicy it might be perceived to give the competition an advantage.

The dyno simulated run - what was it revving to? How much fuel did that use? Have they simulated the possible range between the engine running lean (i.e. maps low & minimal ERS) and rich. Are we going to see any massive issues when ERS systems fail? Will it be like KERS is now? Have they simulated the likely laptime difference between using ERS in a normal way and using it defensively. Gonna have to just wait..


How do you know what questions were asked? Or what makes you assume decent ones weren't?

As you say, Merc won't reveal juicy info as it would help competitors. I'd imagine all those things you mention would count as "juicy". Or don't yet have final answers.

Edited by flyinglow, 12 January 2013 - 15:09.


#65 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:08

I think it's a step in the right direction. More and more ALL Motorsport has to be road relevant - whether you like it or not. Downsizing is what is happening, F1 has to follow, as other series have done/ are doing.


No it doesn't, and it won't be.

#66 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:08

Not really. The flow rate means they can control the power output, controlling the capacity wouldn't do that.

Power output is already being controlled by all the restrictions on engine design, fuel pressure, rev limit etc. Which seems to have worked pretty well over the past decades. Do we really need another restriction?

#67 flyinglow

flyinglow
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:11

No it doesn't, and it won't be.


Well, it does if you want people investing in it from the automotive sector and spending money - which in turn drives up the competitive level.

Without the new rules, Renault would have walked from F1. That wouldn't have been good for the sport - F1 cars with no engines sound pretty rubbish...;)



#68 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:13

Power output is already being controlled by all the restrictions on engine design, fuel pressure, rev limit etc. Which seems to have worked pretty well over the past decades. Do we really need another restriction?


If all the other restrictions had worked so well then there wouldn't be the constant tinkering to slow things down.

#69 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:16

Well, it does if you want people investing in it from the automotive sector and spending money - which in turn drives up the competitive level.

Without the new rules, Renault would have walked from F1. That wouldn't have been good for the sport - F1 cars with no engines sound pretty rubbish...;)


Nonsense. There would always be someone willing to supply engines. If Renault etc.walked away then Cosworth would have filled the gap and actually been able to make some money from the venture. This new generation of engines will have no road relevance, just as it has been for decades.


#70 flyinglow

flyinglow
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:17

If all the other restrictions had worked so well then there wouldn't be the constant tinkering to slow things down.


The fuel flow limit also stops them chasing power by just bunging more fuel in.

From what we've read, the whole point of the rules is to be quick by being efficient - cap fuel flow rate and you need better combustion, better turbo, better ERS.

The same is true for the race fuel allowance

Edited by flyinglow, 12 January 2013 - 15:29.


#71 flyinglow

flyinglow
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:18

Nonsense. There would always be someone willing to supply engines. If Renault etc.walked away then Cosworth would have filled the gap and actually been able to make some money from the venture. This new generation of engines will have no road relevance, just as it has been for decades.


Again, the experts say different. What makes you so adamant?

#72 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:18

money well spent as these technologies will find their way to road cars and it will help them with raising the sport's and their brand's profile at the same time.


Street cars are going electric, not small turbo. If they want to have "street car relevance" build F1 around street car engine blocks. I don't want a small engined Mercedes, and Montezemolo has already said Ferrari doesn't like the way things are headed. Renault, if they really want to compete with Toyota and Honda, would be putting their money into electric research - 6 cylinder turbo F1 engines has nothing to do with street cars.

If their shareholders can be convinced that somehow it does relate technically, then shame on them both. If they were running stock blocks, or the same gearbox design, the same hybrid system as their street cars - that would be different. F1 exists because it is entertainment, not as a testbed for the manufacturer's oblique streetcar interests.

I would love to see an honest "race on sunday/buy on monday" series, but it doesn't exist and F1 is as far from that at this point as it gets.


#73 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:21

The fuel flow limit also stops them chasing power by just bunging more fuel in.

From what we've read, the whole point of the rules is to be quick by being efficient - cap fuel flow rate and you have to differentiate through better combustion, better turbo, better ERS.

The same is true for the race fuel allowance


It also means that they can't run the engines at higher power rates if they have saved fuel during the race. IE after an extended SC period.

#74 flyinglow

flyinglow
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:27

Street cars are going electric, not small turbo. If they want to have "street car relevance" build F1 around street car engine blocks. I don't want a small engined Mercedes, and Montezemolo has already said Ferrari doesn't like the way things are headed. Renault, if they really want to compete with Toyota and Honda, would be putting their money into electric research - 6 cylinder turbo F1 engines has nothing to do with street cars.

If their shareholders can be convinced that somehow it does relate technically, then shame on them both. If they were running stock blocks, or the same gearbox design, the same hybrid system as their street cars - that would be different. F1 exists because it is entertainment, not as a testbed for the manufacturer's oblique streetcar interests.

I would love to see an honest "race on sunday/buy on monday" series, but it doesn't exist and F1 is as far from that at this point as it gets.


Renault are putting their money in electric - and the new V6 also has a lot of electric on it...

Every manufacturer, Merc and Ferrari included, are downsizing to deliver the same power with improved emissions.

And they seem to be saying that this new engine is relevant for street cars, rather than the opposite. I'm assuming they know what they're talking about.

But F1 exists as a mix of all of entertainment and technology research, surely, as the pinnacle?

Nobody is saying that the engines are the same and the lessons directly applicable.

But once you learn something new - as you do with new rules - then that knowledge can surely be adapted and transferred...

Edited by flyinglow, 12 January 2013 - 15:28.


#75 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:28

If all the other restrictions had worked so well then there wouldn't be the constant tinkering to slow things down.

They constantly tinker with aero rules, not engine regulations. The 18k rev limit was introduced for cost reasons, not performance reduction.

Edited by dau, 12 January 2013 - 15:30.


#76 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:29

Serious question... When did you start actively following F1? I only ask because I enjoy the V8s, but after having heard the V10 and V12 engines in anger from earlier eras, I know that we've already fallen a long way in terms of impressiveness and I'm actually looking forward to a change. I hope that the different engine brands have distinct notes... I still remember being able to tell each car apart in the late 90s based on sound alone.



2005 I think was the last of hearing a distinction, the McLaren exhausts definitely sounded different. Although you could tell last year when an HRT was driving off because it would actually sputter.

The regulations push them to having the same displacement, bore, stroke, and with one exhaust outlet - that will no doubt be optimized to the hilt at the start of the season - there isn't going to be anywhere for any differentiation to occur.

Think of the exhaust as a horn - because literally, that's what it is. We went from 12, 10 horns, down to two - and now 1. I can really only think of one reason for that: at some point we're going to have mufflers. Then the "argument" will be "it's still going to be louder, just a little bit less loud. And, see, it wasn't that big of a deal when we went from V8's to smaller V6's, this will be not much different".

It's called "the slippery slope", F1 is on it.






#77 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:44

Renault are putting their money in electric - and the new V6 also has a lot of electric on it...


My point is that the future is electric, not V6 turbos. The energy recovery systems don't care if they're hooked up to a V6, V4, V10, turbo or not.


Every manufacturer, Merc and Ferrari included, are downsizing to deliver the same power with improved emissions.


.... Ferrari, unlike Renault on the other hand, does not have an all electric future to look forward to in 10 years. They will not be trying to sell an all electric car "that Enzo would have been proud of". IC street cars are on the way out; 125,00 rpms are not going to show up in a Mercedes $8000 econo box to compete with a Renault electric car one day. There is no relevance.


And they seem to be saying that this new engine is relevant for street cars, rather than the opposite. I'm assuming they know what they're talking about.


I am assuming they know what they *want*, but it doesn't mean that matches what they're *saying* they want.


But F1 exists as a mix of all of entertainment and technology research, surely, as the pinnacle?


No, F1 exists as entertainment, period. Everything else is secondary. Partly because it's supposed to be the pinnacle in car performance; not the "pinnacle of possible street car oblique relevance".


But once you learn something new - as you do with new rules - then that knowledge can surely be adapted and transferred...


I'm not saying it can't be, I'm sure they'll learn things about bearing failure, injector nozzles, integrating ERS, a lot of things. But that is a knock-on feature, not by design - if they wanted it to really be street car relevant, they'd make the electric side wide open and we'd see the benefit of a ton of money dumped into research for smaller, lighter batteries and so forth. 125,000 rpm turbos, and 500 bar injection is NOT going to end up in a street car most people will ever be able to purchase in the future.

On the other hand, tricky regs like that does prevent an upstart company... say, one started by a former F1 team boss, or a smaller company from maybe .. Korea.... from actually being competitive against the Big Boys. If they had wanted to actually control costs they would simply have used the same engines, would they not? Instead, they will be throwing a ton of money at arcane, diminishing returns IC technology, that smaller companies obviously can't compete at.

Edited by Rubens Hakkamacher, 12 January 2013 - 15:44.


#78 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:48

I think it's a step in the right direction. More and more ALL Motorsport has to be road relevant


No it doesn't. All it has to do to exist is to be entertaining to an audience. Otherwise it ceases to exist.


#79 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:51

They constantly tinker with aero rules, not engine regulations. The 18k rev limit was introduced for cost reasons, not performance reduction.


Really? So the engine regs have remained constant then?


Advertisement

#80 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:52

No it doesn't. All it has to do to exist is to be entertaining to an audience. Otherwise it ceases to exist.


:up: :up: :up: :up:

#81 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,547 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:55

No it doesn't. All it has to do to exist is to be entertaining to an audience. Otherwise it ceases to exist.

Chariot racing was quite popular but it still died out.

#82 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,753 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 12 January 2013 - 16:34

No it doesn't. All it has to do to exist is to be entertaining to an audience. Otherwise it ceases to exist.

Yes, I fully agree it has to exist to entertain the audience.
A significant part of entertainment for me (and I'm sure many other members of the F1's audience) is reading about and trying to understand the technical developments in F1. The fact that I'm spending a lot of my free time on this forum discussing and debating tech stuff indicates that.

It has already been said that the new powertrain will have the same power as the current engines with much more torque for the amount of available grip, so I'd say the entertainment value will go up a notch for those who enjoy looking at cars struggling to put power down. The journos seem very happy with the engine note. Shouldn't we all be happy?

Edited by Timstr11, 12 January 2013 - 16:35.


#83 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,913 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 17:22

No it doesn't, and it won't be.

And never really was.

It's all marketing and politics.

#84 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 17:34

Yes, I fully agree it has to exist to entertain the audience.
A significant part of entertainment for me (and I'm sure many other members of the F1's audience) is reading about and trying to understand the technical developments in F1. The fact that I'm spending a lot of my free time on this forum discussing and debating tech stuff indicates that.

It has already been said that the new powertrain will have the same power as the current engines with much more torque for the amount of available grip, so I'd say the entertainment value will go up a notch for those who enjoy looking at cars struggling to put power down. The journos seem very happy with the engine note. Shouldn't we all be happy?


Why should we be happy when we haven't heard them for ourselves? What has been heard so far is with an engine sitting in a workshop and the finished product out on track could sound vastly different.


#85 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,753 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 12 January 2013 - 17:39

Why should we be happy when we haven't heard them for ourselves? What has been heard so far is with an engine sitting in a workshop and the finished product out on track could sound vastly different.

1) I trust the journalists when they say they sound will not disappoint.
2) I watched F1 in the turbo era as well and the sound was fine then.


#86 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,450 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 January 2013 - 17:43

1) I trust the journalists when they say they sound will not disappoint.
2) I watched F1 in the turbo era as well and the sound was fine then.


I don't trust the journo's, especially where F1 is concerned. They are all too worried about their credentials to rock the boat. Add to that the fact that it would be very easy for any manufacturer to make the engine sound anyway they liked in the workshop.

The previous turbo sounded OK, but the rules now are different so still to be heard how that will affect things.

Edited by Clatter, 12 January 2013 - 17:45.


#87 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,479 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 12 January 2013 - 17:52

They cannot do this. Too much information can be gleaned by competitors.



The could sow confusion by showing a running engine with a different audio track...

#88 BiH

BiH
  • Member

  • 2,328 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 12 January 2013 - 18:06

Concerning track tests: since there're probably just three pre-seaon tests in 2014 for the new engines, is there any rule which denies Mercedes - or Ferrari, Renault... - to put that power unit in whatever car they have available and give it a try? A SLS or FF or whatever.


They probably have thousands and thousands km's racked up, with computer simulation and dyno's so much more advanced these days they can probably develop everything on test bench.
....When development started for V8, Ferrari and others were running test engines in road cars, even when F1 testing was allowed.

#89 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 18:15

Really? So the engine regs have remained constant then?

The last reg change primarily intended to control power output was the 2006 switch to V8s. That's not "constant tinkering", is it?

#90 MrFondue

MrFondue
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 20:53

. All it has to do to exist is to be entertaining to an audience. Otherwise it ceases to exist.


Hell no, motorsport (football too, basically every sport ever) didn't start with entertainment in mind. It exists solely for the game.

I can't stand that kind of entitlement that's present in F1 and escpecially football these days.

Edited by MrFondue, 12 January 2013 - 20:54.


#91 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 21:41

Chariot racing was quite popular but it still died out.


No, it's outlawed. Give American football swords, lions and chariots, F1 would be forgotten.




#92 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 21:55

It has already been said that the new powertrain will have the same power as the current engines with much more torque for the amount of available grip, so I'd say the entertainment value will go up a notch for those who enjoy looking at cars struggling to put power down. The journos seem very happy with the engine note. Shouldn't we all be happy?


In words, presented like that, "everything is fine".

To the Potential New Fan, it doesn't mean anything.

The potential new fan of 2005 learned "19,000 rpm? Half a billion in development? Nearly 900 hp? 10 cylinders? Mystery surrounding more open engine/chassis/aero development? Cool! ",
then, the Potential New Fan goes to his first race in person - and hears 19,000 rpm and more torque revving from *a mile away*.

He's set, F1 has made a new fan.

Now - 15,000 rpm? "Well, that's kinda like a street bike. Don't ALMS cars rev that high?"... "650 hp without batteries? Johnny over south side has a Supra with a turbo that does that... My dad had a Vega with a blown 350 that did that".... "They can't make the engines better during the season...? Kinda like NASCAR? They all have to use the same geometry and basic design? The chassis has to be the same dimensions? They can't develop the aero except here and there? Don't LMP cars have a more open situation?"...

Then, at the first race - provided the Potential New Fan has made it that far, and is willing to pay the extortion fee - "yeah, the cars sound cool when they go by. Kinda like an IRL car".

"Whoopee".

The cars should be pushing 1,000 hp, V10's/12s, they should be louder than anything outside of a TF car and a military jet, out accelerate the most exotic street car, and should be allowed to be developed during the season.

IMO. YMMV (unless you're in F1 2014....).


/ aside: a journalist, listening to a *recording* of an engine *on a dyno*, without the *final exhaust*, in a *confined space* - is not exactly a way of convincing me "hey, these things sound JUST AS LOUD AND IMPRESSIVE AS THE OLD V10's! Rolling Stone thought Led Zeppelin sucked, you know.


Edited by Rubens Hakkamacher, 12 January 2013 - 21:57.


#93 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 22:06

Get a couple dozen non-F1 fans out to a track, and let them run a car with the new engine a mile away. 650 hp, single exhaust, turbo, 15,000 rpm.

Then, let them hear a 2005 spec V10 revving to 19,000 rpm at the same distance.

Let them do a 200 mph pass.


Then, ask them "hey, which one sounds NEATER?" I'd bet they all prefer the V10. Anyone want to take that bet?

You can only dilute a recipe so much before it just starts tasting like a tomato on a piece of bread.



#94 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 22:11

Hell no, motorsport (football too, basically every sport ever) didn't start with entertainment in mind. It exists solely for the game.


Uhmmm.... so, uhm... a game isn't for, you know... entertainment?


I can't stand that kind of entitlement that's present in F1 and escpecially football these days.


I do not grok that sentence or sentiment at all. If nobody wants to pay to be entertained by F1, how the frak is it going to exist????




#95 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 602 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 22:26

2005 I think was the last of hearing a distinction, the McLaren exhausts definitely sounded different. Although you could tell last year when an HRT was driving off because it would actually sputter.

The regulations push them to having the same displacement, bore, stroke, and with one exhaust outlet - that will no doubt be optimized to the hilt at the start of the season - there isn't going to be anywhere for any differentiation to occur.

Think of the exhaust as a horn - because literally, that's what it is. We went from 12, 10 horns, down to two - and now 1. I can really only think of one reason for that: at some point we're going to have mufflers. Then the "argument" will be "it's still going to be louder, just a little bit less loud. And, see, it wasn't that big of a deal when we went from V8's to smaller V6's, this will be not much different".

It's called "the slippery slope", F1 is on it.


Agreed. If you remember the Mclarens in 2000-2001, they were the only team running their exhausts in a certain configuration exiting into the undertray. Best V10 sound of all time, easily. I miss those days when one car would turn up with something special that just sounded fast.


#96 MrFondue

MrFondue
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 22:29

Uhmmm.... so, uhm... a game isn't for, you know... entertainment?




I do not grok that sentence or sentiment at all. If nobody wants to pay to be entertained by F1, how the frak is it going to exist????


They get their entertainment, but they have no right to make any sort of demands regarding regulations and such.

#97 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,913 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 22:47

Get a couple dozen non-F1 fans out to a track, and let them run a car with the new engine a mile away. 650 hp, single exhaust, turbo, 15,000 rpm.

Isn't it 600 hp? :)

#98 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:41

In words, presented like that, "everything is fine".

To the Potential New Fan, it doesn't mean anything.

The potential new fan of 2005 learned "19,000 rpm? Half a billion in development? Nearly 900 hp? 10 cylinders? Mystery surrounding more open engine/chassis/aero development? Cool! ",
then, the Potential New Fan goes to his first race in person - and hears 19,000 rpm and more torque revving from *a mile away*.

He's set, F1 has made a new fan.

Now - 15,000 rpm? "Well, that's kinda like a street bike. Don't ALMS cars rev that high?"... "650 hp without batteries? Johnny over south side has a Supra with a turbo that does that... My dad had a Vega with a blown 350 that did that".... "They can't make the engines better during the season...? Kinda like NASCAR? They all have to use the same geometry and basic design? The chassis has to be the same dimensions? They can't develop the aero except here and there? Don't LMP cars have a more open situation?"...

Then, at the first race - provided the Potential New Fan has made it that far, and is willing to pay the extortion fee - "yeah, the cars sound cool when they go by. Kinda like an IRL car".

"Whoopee".

The cars should be pushing 1,000 hp, V10's/12s, they should be louder than anything outside of a TF car and a military jet, out accelerate the most exotic street car, and should be allowed to be developed during the season.

IMO. YMMV (unless you're in F1 2014....).


/ aside: a journalist, listening to a *recording* of an engine *on a dyno*, without the *final exhaust*, in a *confined space* - is not exactly a way of convincing me "hey, these things sound JUST AS LOUD AND IMPRESSIVE AS THE OLD V10's! Rolling Stone thought Led Zeppelin sucked, you know.


Oh, just grow up and go to Goodwood.

#99 TF110

TF110
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:18

Just a quick question, are the aero rules changing in 2014 along with these power units, or is it the current rules?

Advertisement

#100 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:25

Oh, just grow up and go to Goodwood.

Yep.