Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 19 votes

Horrible 2014 sound [merged]


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3997 replies to this topic

#3951 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 4,001 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 December 2014 - 19:40

That is just wrong.  The fuel flow restriction was added to reduce engine power output.  The sliding scale stops at 10,500 RPM.  After that you are not allowed any higher fuel flow for any higher RPM.  This pretty much obliterates any reason to rev any higher.


The flow restriction was introduced tp cap power. The sliding scale was added to make sure that they used more rpm. 
 
The reason to rev higher than 10,500rpm is that there is more power above that than below 10,500rpm with the reduced fuel flow. 

 

 

If the fuel flow restriction was removed it is likely that they would use less rpm.

That doesn't make any sense at all.  Stop listening to whoever told you that.

 


No sense to you, perhaps.

 

The fact is that if the fuel flow restriction was flat they would use the least rpm possible. This is because higher rpm causes higher friction losses and thus less power. The RPM would be set by the air flow required to use the full fuel flow. I have no doubt that with unrestricted boost (as these engines have) that will be at an engine speed lower than 10,500rpm.

 

In the early 80's the engines were limited by mechanical valve springs and 12,000 RPM was indeed high RPM.  It wasn't like they had any choice to go higher.  Pneumatic valves started to show up in 1986 and in a few years became standard and with them came higher RPM.

 

They were also, from 1985, boost limited. If you can't stuff more air in with extra boost then you need to rev higher.

 

The Honda RA186E engine of 1988 still only had a maximum speed of 13,000rpm.



Advertisement

#3952 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 24 December 2014 - 20:18

 

No sense to you, perhaps.

 

The fact is that if the fuel flow restriction was flat they would use the least rpm possible. This is because higher rpm causes higher friction losses and thus less power. The RPM would be set by the air flow required to use the full fuel flow. I have no doubt that with unrestricted boost (as these engines have) that will be at an engine speed lower than 10,500rpm.
 

 

You said "If the fuel flow restriction was removed it is likely they would use less rpm."    Still wrong.  They would use more fuel and more RPM to get more power because they want to beat the other cars and win the race, get points, get money and be happy.

 

Now you are changing what you say - "if the fuel flow restriction was flat".  That is a different scenario completely, totally unrelated to removing the fuel flow restriction.



#3953 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 2,333 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 December 2014 - 21:57

If sound doesn't matter to him, would he hear anyone complaining? ;)



#3954 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 4,001 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 December 2014 - 22:19

You said "If the fuel flow restriction was removed it is likely they would use less rpm."    Still wrong.  They would use more fuel and more RPM to get more power because they want to beat the other cars and win the race, get points, get money and be happy.

 

Now you are changing what you say - "if the fuel flow restriction was flat".  That is a different scenario completely, totally unrelated to removing the fuel flow restriction.

 

No, it would still be that they woudln't use more rpm, and probably use less.

 

The proposition was that they would keep the race fuel allowance. This would put a cap on what they would want to use, at least in terms of the race. They may go all out for qualifying, but there is still no reason to increase rpms.

 

So, with a race fuel cap and unlimited fuel flow rate they would run less rpm to maintain consumption within limits, maybe allowing for short bursts at higher power, but still not necessarily involving higher rpm.



#3955 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 4,001 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 December 2014 - 22:43

To try to explain further.

 

The reason why the V8s and V10s used higher rpm is because that was required to get the airflow through the engine in able to burn more fuel and thus make more power.

 

In turbocharged engines you can do that or increase boost to increase air flow. Using the turbo to deliver more air is the preferred method since it involves some measure of recovering energy (the turbine in the turbocharger to drive the compressor) and there is less friction in the engine.

 

Whne the '80s turbo cars had unlimited boost and fuel they didn't need to rev much more than 10-12k. And they had substantially more power than today's engines.

 

To have them use more rpm the FIA would have to force them to do it. Either by using the fuel flow rate, adjusting the point of maximum rate higher in the rpm scale, or by reducing the amount of air that the turbo can pass (ie a boost limit). The second may not be that effective.



#3956 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 4,001 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 December 2014 - 07:28

So, the waste gate, can't just blow off high energy exhaust gas somewhere (like the indycar engines do), which doesn't help with the sound.

But do you/we want to "open Pandora's box again", and have endless "blow this, blow that" arguments/discussions?

 

With the exhaust location as it is the blown aspect is not as much of a problem, as long as the rule remains that requires all gasses that enter the compressor leave via the exhaust.



#3957 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 1,065 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 25 December 2014 - 13:37

i had a filling recently and when the dentist was drilling my tooth, i closed my eyes and immediately pictured an on-board video of a mercedes W05. no joke. alright, it was a joke. it was actually when i was using a hammer drill to put up a shelf and it was a red bull RB10.

 

:cat:

 

merry christmas.


Edited by SanDiegoGo, 25 December 2014 - 13:39.


#3958 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 27 December 2014 - 01:42

 

Whne the '80s turbo cars had unlimited boost and fuel they didn't need to rev much more than 10-12k. And they had substantially more power than today's engines.

 

 
All the examples of the turbo cars in the 80's had one thing in common.  They were near their max RPM at 12K or whatever similar number you prefer.  They had mechanical valve springs.  They did not have the option of increasing RPM so of course they didn't.
To get more power they simply cranked up the boost.  This does not mean that is the only way to run a turbo engine, it just means it is the only choice they had.
When they cranked up the boost on the turbo engines they did get more power but they sacrificed reliability by placing tremendous loads on the bottom end.  Those 80's turbo cars had huge problems with reliability.  In fact some of the spectacular engines making wonderful horsepower well over 1000 were qualifying engines that were designed to only run for five laps or even less.  In those days when the engine went south you could just throw on another lump and get in the next race.  These days the engines have to last longer, through qualifying and the race for about 3.8 races on average.  So just piling on the boost at 10,500 RPM or less might not work very well for the second, third or fourth race.
Also, since the good old 80's, mostly during the V10/V8 years, there have been huge gains made in bearing technology and heat handling so the friction losses that used to be such a big deal back then are not so much now.  The bearings in the 20K V8's are actually tiny compared to the bearings in the 12K turbo engines of the 80's.
I think everybody agrees that the reason they currently run the engines where they do now is because of the regulations that force everybody toward 10,500 RPM.  That is where the regulations allow the maximum fuel flow rate of 100 l/hr.  You don't get any more fuel to run higher RPM and you get less fuel if you run lower RPM.  It is the fuel flow limit that keeps them from going higher or lower.  Obviously the engines do not run at a fixed RPM, they run over a range of RPMs when they shift gears etc.  So in order to get the most power you need to be near the highest allowable fuel flow rate so the range of RPMs to get the most power will be near 10,500, say 9,500 to 12,000.  Pick you favorite numbers here too.  It will depend on your engineers and the gear ratio choices etc.
Remi Taffin says - "It's important to say it's based on the regulations, because they set 15,000 as a maximum, but the fuel-flow limitation means the maximum we're running, whether it's a Ferrari, a Mercedes, or a Renault, is 12,000 and at the end of the straight it could be 10 or 11,000."
 
I definitely believe if they removed the fuel limits they would run the engines at higher RPM.


#3959 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 27 December 2014 - 03:38

 

 
All the examples of the turbo cars in the 80's had one thing in common.  They were near their max RPM at 12K or whatever similar number you prefer.  They had mechanical valve springs.  They did not have the option of increasing RPM so of course they didn't.

 

Lotus T98 (1985) had pneumatic valve springs.



Advertisement

#3960 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 4,001 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 December 2014 - 04:27

All the examples of the turbo cars in the 80's had one thing in common.  They were near their max RPM at 12K or whatever similar number you prefer.  They had mechanical valve springs.  They did not have the option of increasing RPM so of course they didn't


The BRm V-16 could rev to 12,000rpm in 1950 with mechanical valve springs.

Renault introduced pneumatic valve springs in 1986, but the rpm didn't shoot up thereafter. It remained the same.

I doubt the engines were mechanically limited to ~12,000rpm but were rather designe dto operate at that speed.

 

To get more power they simply cranked up the boost.  This does not mean that is the only way to run a turbo engine, it just means it is the only choice they had.


I'd suggest that extra boost was the preferred option - not the only option available.

Boost increases give more benefit than rpm increases.

 

When they cranked up the boost on the turbo engines they did get more power but they sacrificed reliability by placing tremendous loads on the bottom end.  Those 80's turbo cars had huge problems with reliability.  In fact some of the spectacular engines making wonderful horsepower well over 1000 were qualifying engines that were designed to only run for five laps or even less.  In those days when the engine went south you could just throw on another lump and get in the next race.  These days the engines have to last longer, through qualifying and the race for about 3.8 races on average.  So just piling on the boost at 10,500 RPM or less might not work very well for the second, third or fourth race.


Yes, the old turbo cars did have serious reliability issues. But the N/A engines of the late 1980s also had more reliability issues than the V8s of last year.

With the rules precluding special qualifying engines and parc ferme I doubt they would push too hard for qualifying.

More rpm will also affect the longevity of the engine. It will wear the cylinders abd cause th eloss of power.

 

Also, since the good old 80's, mostly during the V10/V8 years, there have been huge gains made in bearing technology and heat handling so the friction losses that used to be such a big deal back then are not so much now.  The bearings in the 20K V8's are actually tiny compared to the bearings in the 12K turbo engines of the 80's.


Friction reduction improvements also help with lower rpm. Friction will still increase with rpm.

The turbo engines will need stronger bearings than the N/A engines do, as cylinder pressures will be higher. Thus they will be larger.

 

I think everybody agrees that the reason they currently run the engines where they do now is because of the regulations that force everybody toward 10,500 RPM.  That is where the regulations allow the maximum fuel flow rate of 100 l/hr.  You don't get any more fuel to run higher RPM and you get less fuel if you run lower RPM.  It is the fuel flow limit that keeps them from going higher or lower.  Obviously the engines do not run at a fixed RPM, they run over a range of RPMs when they shift gears etc.  So in order to get the most power you need to be near the highest allowable fuel flow rate so the range of RPMs to get the most power will be near 10,500, say 9,500 to 12,000.  Pick you favorite numbers here too.  It will depend on your engineers and the gear ratio choices etc.


The only reason why they run to 10,500rpm and beyond is because of the sliding fuel flow rate. If it was a fixed maximum the rpms would definitely be lower.

If there was no fuel flow limit the amount of power they could make would be quite high before they needed to increase rpm. And that is why they introduced the fuel flow limit - to limit power.

If the race fuel limit remained, but nop other restriction, most of the race would be, in effect, in fuel saving mode. So lower rpm and lower power.
 



#3961 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,187 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 27 December 2014 - 10:52

A few posts removed - apparently some did not think much of the old Chistmas "peace to all mankind" saying... :|



#3962 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,805 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 27 December 2014 - 18:58

That is just wrong. The fuel flow restriction was added to reduce engine power output. The sliding scale stops at 10,500 RPM. After that you are not allowed any higher fuel flow for any higher RPM. This pretty much obliterates any reason to rev any higher.


You're the wrong one. They initially had a 100kg/hr limit with no rpm relationship. They added the sliding scale to FORCE them to rev to at least 10,500rpm so they'd make a nicer noise. Of course the limit in general would limit power.

#3963 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 27 December 2014 - 19:50

You're the wrong one. They initially had a 100kg/hr limit with no rpm relationship. They added the sliding scale to FORCE them to rev to at least 10,500rpm so they'd make a nicer noise. Of course the limit in general would limit power.

 

WTF - I said the fuel flow restriction was added to limit power and you are saying no that is wrong.  Then you say of course it would limit power.  I don't understand, are you just being a troll?



#3964 Jamiednm

Jamiednm
  • Member

  • 2,097 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 27 December 2014 - 20:16

I prefer the sound of the old V8s, but it didn't stop me going to two races in 2014 and won't stop me planning to go to at least one rce in 2015. The racing has been the best it had been for a long, long time this year and that is what ultimately matters. Impressive sounding cars quickly become boring if they are involved in a processional race

The technology is more important than the sound in my opinion. While I'd love the cars to scream again, it would be artificial and regressive to reintroduce an engine formula that produces 800bhp cars that are significantly louder than the current generation.

#3965 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,805 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 27 December 2014 - 20:30

WTF - I said the fuel flow restriction was added to limit power and you are saying no that is wrong. Then you say of course it would limit power. I don't understand, are you just being a troll?


Read the chain again. You're not getting it.

#3966 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 861 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 11 January 2015 - 09:28

I guess it will get a little bit more quiet about the sound in the next season. Not because it is no issue anymore (we'll see if ticket sales decrease) but because we're getting new engines 2016/17. Hopefully they'll sound better. Otherwise the discussion will start again.



#3967 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 1,065 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 11 January 2015 - 14:13

I guess it will get a little bit more quiet about the sound in the next season. Not because it is no issue anymore (we'll see if ticket sales decrease) but because we're getting new engines 2016/17. Hopefully they'll sound better. Otherwise the discussion will start again.

 

so, that's been decided then, has it?



#3968 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 861 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 11 January 2015 - 16:01

so, that's been decided then, has it?

 

Almost, as far as I know. They all agreed that changes regarding the engine are necessary.



#3969 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 284 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 January 2015 - 12:25

I would not really be in favour of artificial rules to increase the sound quality but why not just take the current rule further and give an increased fuel flow again if they rev above 17000rpm.

It is a case of balancing safety, engine life and sound quality but I expect they could find a compromise that all parties are happy with.



#3970 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 13 January 2015 - 18:30

I would not really be in favour of artificial rules to increase the sound quality but why not just take the current rule further and give an increased fuel flow again if they rev above 17000rpm.

 

Reving to 17000rpm in a turbo engine would be artificial and stupid from an engineering point of view.


Edited by morrino, 13 January 2015 - 18:31.


#3971 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 5,012 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 January 2015 - 21:33

So are open wheels.



#3972 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,428 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 January 2015 - 13:58

So are open wheels.

 By chance a fan of the current Dallara DW12 Indycar?

At least that one has its rear wheels clad in bodywork already.

Not yet all wheels surrounded by bodywork but it's a start, it's a start....

 

 

Henri



#3973 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 14 January 2015 - 14:17

The BRm V-16 could rev to 12,000rpm in 1950 with mechanical valve springs.

Renault introduced pneumatic valve springs in 1986, but the rpm didn't shoot up thereafter. It remained the same.

I doubt the engines were mechanically limited to ~12,000rpm but were rather designe dto operate at that speed.

 

 

 

 Springs can only move so fast.  Springs in a V16 are working less at 12,000 rpm than they are in a V6 at the same rpm.



#3974 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 14 January 2015 - 14:19

The technology is more important than the sound in my opinion. While I'd love the cars to scream again, it would be artificial and regressive to reintroduce an engine formula that produces 800bhp cars that are significantly louder than the current generation.

 

 

 It would be if the "technology" was actually something progressive itself, but it is not.  If anything going to a V6 turbo is going backwards to the 80's, and strapping an electric dynamo to the crank isn't exactly "progressive" when we have Priuses and Teslas driving around town right now.



#3975 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,428 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 January 2015 - 14:47

 Springs can only move so fast.  Springs in a V16 are working less at 12,000 rpm than they are in a V6 at the same rpm.

 

Explain that one to me; If a BRM V16 and a current F1 V6 both rev at 12000 rpm you wanna tell me that the springs of a V6 work less hard than those on the V16?

Though both engines have about the same size of valves too?

I can't follow that one.

 

Another thing I can't follow:

 

You say the change from atmo V8 to Turbo V6 is a throw back in time to the 80's.

When the turbos were retired in 88 and we went atmo again: was that a step forward in your opinion and not a step back in time when we actually saw 3.5 litere versions of the engines that had been replaced by the turbos? An engine that started life in 1967 being re-introduced in a 3.5 liter , was that progression for you?

What for heavens sake do you think to be progress in retaining atmo engines that are not capable to generate more power out of the given fuel than the current PU's can?

 

Henri



#3976 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 14 January 2015 - 15:41

 It would be if the "technology" was actually something progressive itself, but it is not.  If anything going to a V6 turbo is going backwards to the 80's, and strapping an electric dynamo to the crank isn't exactly "progressive" when we have Priuses and Teslas driving around town right now.

 

Using a lot less fuel than the V8s to achieve the same performance is progressive. Like it or not.



#3977 Sash1

Sash1
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 14 January 2015 - 16:08

Turbo's are the most popular item to improve engine efficiency at the moment. Every manufacturer (except Detroit) is moving towards ultra small turbo engines. VAG, Fiat, Opel, Ford, Citroen etc etc. Ford for example is throwing Ecoboost engines into as many cars as possible, with a lot of 999cc Turbo's making up to 123bhp. Something that used to be achieved with 1.6 and 2L engines.

Small turbo's are the future for most manufacturers. It makes no sense at all to build normal aspirated old tech as none of them can get green enough to pass tests or get favourable tax excemptions.

 

It is actually old tech that they use a V6 instead of inline 4.



#3978 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 14 January 2015 - 16:21

 Springs can only move so fast.  Springs in a V16 are working less at 12,000 rpm than they are in a V6 at the same rpm.

 

The springs would be doing the same number of cycles per second in both engines.  So the work they do would depend on the size of the valves.  The current F1 specs say exactly 4 valves per cylinder.  The size of the valves would be dictated in large part by the displacement of each cylinder.  If you are saying the V16 likely has a lower displacement per cylinder than the V6 then the V16 valves springs would indeed be doing less work.  However if the displacement per cylinder were the same they would be doing the same work.



#3979 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,428 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 January 2015 - 18:18

The springs would be doing the same number of cycles per second in both engines.  So the work they do would depend on the size of the valves.  The current F1 specs say exactly 4 valves per cylinder.  The size of the valves would be dictated in large part by the displacement of each cylinder.  If you are saying the V16 likely has a lower displacement per cylinder than the V6 then the V16 valves springs would indeed be doing less work.  However if the displacement per cylinder were the same they would be doing the same work.

 

I have once seen a piston of a BRM V16.

Put it on it head and fill it with the finest scotch or strong liquers, you're not getting driunk form what one single piston can contain.

Knowing it had two valves per cylinder, I estimate that the valves of the BRM V16 come fairly close in size to the ones used in the current V6 engines, even keeping in mind these have fourvalve cylinder heads.

 

Henri



Advertisement

#3980 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 5,012 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 January 2015 - 20:20

 Springs can only move so fast.  Springs in a V16 are working less at 12,000 rpm than they are in a V6 at the same rpm.

Sorry chip, you're wrong here. Each valve will pop every other crank rotation no matter how many cylinders in an Otto engine.



#3981 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 4,001 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 January 2015 - 23:00

 Springs can only move so fast.  Springs in a V16 are working less at 12,000 rpm than they are in a V6 at the same rpm.

 

The springs work harder if the valves are heavier.

 

The BRM V16 had, as Henri noted, 2 valves per cylinder opposed to the modern engine's 4 valves per cylinder. So it is by no means certain that the new engine's valves are heavier.

 

Add to that modern materials technology and the spring will have greater capacity for load and cycles.



#3982 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:52

Turbo's are the most popular item to improve engine efficiency at the moment. Every manufacturer (except Detroit) is moving towards ultra small turbo engines. VAG, Fiat, Opel, Ford, Citroen etc etc. Ford for example is throwing Ecoboost engines into as many cars as possible, with a lot of 999cc Turbo's making up to 123bhp. Something that used to be achieved with 1.6 and 2L engines.

Small turbo's are the future for most manufacturers. It makes no sense at all to build normal aspirated old tech as none of them can get green enough to pass tests or get favourable tax excemptions.

 

It is actually old tech that they use a V6 instead of inline 4.

Ford is Detroit.



#3983 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 6,477 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 15 January 2015 - 07:32

It is actually old tech that they use a V6 instead of inline 4.

 

Ferrari wanted a V6. Bastards. I4 FTW  :up:

 

 

they sound even worse than f1 though  :blush:



#3984 Sash1

Sash1
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 15 January 2015 - 10:06

Ford is Detroit.

 

Ford's activity on the European market seems to differ a lot from what they do in North America. That applies to most US brands. 



#3985 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 15 January 2015 - 13:54

Ford's activity on the European market seems to differ a lot from what they do in North America. That applies to most US brands. 

Yes, it does, but Ford in US is on a big turbo-smaller-engines route and has been for a few years. Other Detroit offerings are not there.



#3986 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,805 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 15 January 2015 - 15:05

Ford's activity on the European market seems to differ a lot from what they do in North America. That applies to most US brands. 

 

Because Ford of Europe (who I work for) designs the products for Europe, in general. Vastly different from FNA.



#3987 Lotus53B

Lotus53B
  • Member

  • 1,035 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 January 2015 - 15:15

Ferrari wanted a V6. Bastards. I4 FTW  :up:

I understood (or, more probably, given my knowledge of engineering, misunderstood) that one of the main problem about using an I-4 was that it couldn't be mounted in the same way (stressed member?) and would need a spaceframe mounting.



#3988 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,428 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 January 2015 - 17:36

I understood (or, more probably, given my knowledge of engineering, misunderstood) that one of the main problem about using an I-4 was that it couldn't be mounted in the same way (stressed member?) and would need a spaceframe mounting.

 

I know that Ferrari are the ones who wanted the V6 over the in-line 4. From what I have heard/read that was bacause Ferrari has little to no affection/connection with fours (other thansome 2 and 2.5 liter engines in GP racing from 1952 to 1956) while they have at least something of a history with the V6 concept. (Dino F1, sportscars and the streetversions as well as the mid eightties turbos) And of course, Ferrari's image has always revolted around as much cylinders under the hood as possible, even if a smaller number would do the job just as well. From what I recall, it gaved me the impression the the image aspect was more important than any possible construction difficulties. It has ben done before, using turbocharged I4's in F1 so it isn't something that was too complicated. Unless all that electrical stuff brings complications?

 

Henri



#3989 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 15 January 2015 - 18:08

I understood (or, more probably, given my knowledge of engineering, misunderstood) that one of the main problem about using an I-4 was that it couldn't be mounted in the same way (stressed member?) and would need a spaceframe mounting.

 

"The BBC learned from sources within the FIA that the new formula is a compromise solution that is acceptable to all parties. Apart from its additional 2 cylinders that would make the engine sound differently and more sporty than an I4, the V6 also provides a stiffness advantage which could make it easier to maintain the engine as a fully stressed member in F1 cars."

 

From f1technical - http://www.f1technical.net/news/16406



#3990 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 861 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 18 January 2015 - 06:52



#3991 TheRacingElf

TheRacingElf
  • Member

  • 645 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 18 January 2015 - 12:18

That's strange, almost every comment on that video is negative about the new v6 engines..I thought this forum had established that everybody loves the new engines and that there is just a very very small minority of people complaining about the noise?

 

Maybe, just maybe there are people on this forum who are stuck buried with their head in the sand...But that can't be it, can it?



#3992 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 861 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 18 January 2015 - 13:11

That's strange, almost every comment on that video is negative about the new v6 engines..I thought this forum had established that everybody loves the new engines and that there is just a very very small minority of people complaining about the noise?

 

Maybe, just maybe there are people on this forum who are stuck buried with their head in the sand...But that can't be it, can it?

 

Youtube does not count. As well as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the whole word. They are all negative dullards without any idea about F1. Only some people here and on F1fanatics know the truth.

 

Edit - And by the way: It's all about the FOM microphones!!!111


Edited by Tourgott, 18 January 2015 - 13:15.


#3993 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 6,477 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 18 January 2015 - 13:46

A key point is the DFVs were not that loud anyway.  Easily tolerated without ear plugs, heck probably quieter than a NASCAR stock car given the smaller displacement, and only meargely higher revs.

 

 

Therefore DFV -> V6T was a much smaller change, than high revving V8 to V6T.



#3994 tkulla

tkulla
  • Member

  • 3,414 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 18 January 2015 - 14:37

For some reason it occurred to me this morning that the new engines might sound better if the exhaust exited the car on its underside. I have no idea if this is based on fact at all - it just popped into my head. An exhaust outlet under the engine and pointing straight down would surely sound different, at least, if not better. It would definitely bring back the use of exhaust gasses for aero though (which Red Bull fans would like).

#3995 Moctecus

Moctecus
  • New Member

  • 9 posts
  • Joined: January 15

Posted 18 January 2015 - 15:14



#3996 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,805 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 18 January 2015 - 22:46

https://www.youtube....h?v=92aYYjK_0Ww


I actually think the Ferrari V6 sounds great. Not on the same level as the V10/V12 but easily more musical than the monotonous V8. Never did like them.

#3997 TheRacingElf

TheRacingElf
  • Member

  • 645 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 23 January 2015 - 18:48

An other website has posted the same video from above on facebook. I know there are people here who don't acknowledge the existence of facebook but maybe you can take a look at the comments https://www.facebook...152805981089442



#3998 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,985 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 February 2015 - 06:25

New season, new thread.