Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

2014 F1 engines shifting at 10-11k RPM's...


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:35

One thing we learned at todays FP's was that they shortshift these new engines massively. At least they did during todays free practice's.

 

If we watch the video's I link to below, we will see that they keep the revs around 8-11k most of the time. On the odd occation we see 12k, but never higher. Not strange that the sound is a bit low frequency compared to last year, as the drop in max rpm isn't from 18k to 15k, it's down to 10-11k!!!

 

Of course the nengines have loads of torque in the mid range, but for maximum power the higher you can rev, the better (more combustions per minute). So, there must be a reason why they shortshift the way they do.

 

My view is that they probably need to keep the revs at around 10k to maximize their fuel efficiency and perhaps also because of the max fuel flow limits. Going above 11-12k makes no sense as they both consume to much fuel at that part of the rev range and also perhaps because they can't flow enough fuel to make any more power above those rpm's.

 

I guess qualifying tomorrow will answer whether it's just fuel conservation that is the reason behind this or whether the fuel flow limit also is a factor. Because there is no need to save fuel during qualy they should be able to rev to 15k to extract maximum Power. If they don't rev to 15k, then there seems to not be enough fuel flow to support an increase in power above 11-12k...

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=TcMawL4278Q

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=EWCKjwnHXx0



Advertisement

#2 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,954 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:38

One thing we learned at todays FP's was that they shortshift these new engines massively. At least they did during todays free practice's.

 

If we watch the video's I link to below, we will see that they keep the revs around 8-11k most of the time. On the odd occation we see 12k, but never higher. Not strange that the sound is a bit low frequency compared to last year, as the drop in max rpm isn't from 18k to 15k, it's down to 10-11k!!!

 

Of course the nengines have loads of torque in the mid range, but for maximum power the higher you can rev, the better (more combustions per minute). So, there must be a reason why they shortshift the way they do.

 

My view is that they probably need to keep the revs at around 10k to maximize their fuel efficiency and perhaps also because of the max fuel flow limits. Going above 11-12k makes no sense as they both consume to much fuel at that part of the rev range and also perhaps because they can't flow enough fuel to make any more power above those rpm's.

 

I guess qualifying tomorrow will answer whether it's just fuel conservation that is the reason behind this or whether the fuel flow limit also is a factor. Because there is no need to save fuel during qualy they should be able to rev to 15k to extract maximum Power. If they don't rev to 15k, then there seems to not be enough fuel flow to support an increase in power above 11-12k...

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=TcMawL4278Q

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=EWCKjwnHXx0

Nope, not with a turbo engine and especially not with 8 gears available.


Edited by peroa, 14 March 2014 - 21:39.


#3 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:41

It's not short-shifting if 11k is the top of the power curve. Why waste revs on no extra power?


Edited by DanardiF1, 14 March 2014 - 21:42.


#4 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:42

Nope, not with a turbo engine.

 

What do you mean "not with a turbo engine"?

 

You can make a turbo engine that runs out of breath at high rpm's if you want to emphasize mid range torque. You can also make a turbo engine that has a turbo that is able to flow enough air to support increasing power all the way to a high redline!



#5 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,562 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:46

What do you mean "not with a turbo engine"?

You can make a turbo engine that runs out of breath at high rpm's if you want to emphasize mid range torque. You can also make a turbo engine that has a turbo that is able to flow enough air to support increasing power all the way to a high redline!

not with a fuel flow limit.

#6 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:46

It's not short-shifting if 11k is the top of the power curve. Why waste revs on no extra power?

 

Sure, that is my point as well. If the fuel flow limit is so low that they won't make more power above 11k, then there is no point going above 11k. It's kinda still shortshifting when the official rev limit is 15k...

 

That's what qualy will show tomorrow. I suspect that we won't see higher rpm's then either. There simply isn't enough fuel flow to support an increase in power above 11-12k.

 

If the reaction to the sound is bad, at least this gives us hope that FIA could increase the fuel flow limit for next year and thereby allowing engines to rev to 15k with a increase in power all the way to 15k...



#7 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,954 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:47

But will it be efficient?

These cars seem to be operating like modern turbo  diesel engines, always in the optimum narrow-sh torque window.



#8 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:48

not with a fuel flow limit.

 

That I agree on, but the fuel flow limit hasn't got anything to do with it being a turbo engine! Any engine will be limited by a fuel flow limit, a NA engine would also hit a HP ceiling at a certain RPM if it had a fuel flow limit...



#9 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,954 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:49

Sure, that is my point as well. If the fuel flow limit is so low that they won't make more power above 11k, then there is no point going above 11k. It's kinda still shortshifting when the official rev limit is 15k...

 

That's what qualy will show tomorrow. I suspect that we won't see higher rpm's then either. There simply isn't enough fuel flow to support an increase in power above 11-12k.

 

If the reaction to the sound is bad, at least this gives us hope that FIA could increase the fuel flow limit for next year and thereby allowing engines to rev to 15k with a increase in power all the way to 15k...

The fuel flow limit is IMHO totally unnecessary if you have a 100kg fuel limit for the race.



#10 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:49

The regulation rev limit may be 15k revs, but that doesn't mean that the engine has to be made to rev to that limit. If the engines have too flat a power curve from 11k to 15k they won't use the revs, no matter what the fuel flow limit.

 

Like I said, it's wasted revs if they are producing full power at 11k to go to 15k. They have all that low end torque and 8 gears... they don't need to rag the things at top revs to get the power.



#11 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,504 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:50

Old news tbh, they said this last year.



#12 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:55

The regulation rev limit may be 15k revs, but that doesn't mean that the engine has to be made to rev to that limit. If the engines have too flat a power curve from 11k to 15k they won't use the revs, no matter what the fuel flow limit.

 

Like I said, it's wasted revs if they are producing full power at 11k to go to 15k. They have all that low end torque and 8 gears... they don't need to rag the things at top revs to get the power.

 

I think we agree. My point is that without a fuel flow limit, they could actually have designed a engine that developed way more power at 15k than the current one does at 11k. By imposing a fuel flow limit as it is today really means that the 15k rev limit is just a joke. The engines seem to hit their performance ceiling at 11-12k. If they could be fed more fuel, more power could definitely be made above 11-12k.

 

It's not like they couldn't make more HP at higher revs with unlimited fuel flow.


Edited by DFV, 14 March 2014 - 21:58.


#13 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:56

Old news tbh, they said this last year.

 

That the engines wouldn't rev higher than 11-12k?

 

I never read that anywhere...



#14 0Fritz

0Fritz
  • Member

  • 352 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 14 March 2014 - 21:59

That the engines wouldn't rev higher than 11-12k?

 

I never read that anywhere...

 

Me neither but it explains a lot why these engines sound like muffled lawn mowers. Back to pre 90's revs then.



#15 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:03

Me neither but it explains a lot why these engines sound like muffled lawn mowers. Back to pre 90's revs then.

 

;)



#16 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:07

Me neither but it explains a lot why these engines sound like muffled lawn mowers. Back to pre 90's revs then.

 

What does that even mean? A 1.6 turbo that revs even to 15k is a remarkable achievement compared to what was possible in the 80's and 90's.

 

This is a completely new type of powerplant, so comparing it to 20k revving V10's from the 2000's, 16k V12's from 1990 or anything else is just silly.



#17 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:08

That the engines wouldn't rev higher than 11-12k?

 

I never read that anywhere...

 

But if you knew anything about Turbo engines, you'd know that the power and torque curves tend to meet at a peak in this kind of rev range.



#18 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:10

There's not really much point arguing about it... there are 3 different engine manufacturers who all happen to have fallen on the same/similar rev range for their best power and torque outputs... funny that isn't it?


Edited by DanardiF1, 14 March 2014 - 22:10.


#19 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:13

This was fairly common knowledge to those with a solid understanding of engines. I expected them to maybe stretch to 12k but it's roughly where I knew t would be.

Reason being fuel flow limits at 10,500rpm so going beyond that point means a reduction in power output due to increased friction.

Advertisement

#20 scandyman

scandyman
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:15

Toni Vilander (finnish MTV3 commentator) speculates that teams are just saving engines.



#21 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:16

This was fairly common knowledge to those with a solid understanding of engines. I expected them to maybe stretch to 12k but it's roughly where I knew t would be.

Reason being fuel flow limits at 10,500rpm so going beyond that point means a reduction in power output due to increased friction.

 

I think in qualifying trim once they've got more comfortable with the reliability they could stretch them out to 12-12.5k...



#22 0Fritz

0Fritz
  • Member

  • 352 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:19

What does that even mean? A 1.6 turbo that revs even to 15k is a remarkable achievement compared to what was possible in the 80's and 90's.

 

This is a completely new type of powerplant, so comparing it to 20k revving V10's from the 2000's, 16k V12's from 1990 or anything else is just silly.

 Running engines around 10k revs is 1990 levels of F1 rpm. I dont see whats so silly just stating that? IM sure its a remarkable achievement by the format, but coming back from what weve had the last 15 years a tad underwhelming. Thats all.



#23 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:21

 Running engines around 10k revs is 1990 levels of F1 rpm. I dont see whats so silly just stating that? IM sure its a remarkable achievement by the format, but coming back from what weve had the last 15 years a tad underwhelming. Thats all.

 

No it's not. That was 1990 levels for naturally-aspirated engines, before pneumatic valve-timing sent rev limits skyrocketing upwards.

 

Rev limit alone is not an arbiter of technology level. Far from it.



#24 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,333 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:26

The fuel flow limit is IMHO totally unnecessary if you have a 100kg fuel limit for the race.


Seriously. 



#25 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:27

What does that even mean? A 1.6 turbo that revs even to 15k is a remarkable achievement compared to what was possible in the 80's and 90's.

 

This is a completely new type of powerplant, so comparing it to 20k revving V10's from the 2000's, 16k V12's from 1990 or anything else is just silly.

 

The 80's F1 1.5 Honda V6 turbo engines revved to 14.000rpm in qualy trim. How is a engine that shifts at 11-12k remarkable?



#26 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:34

But if you knew anything about Turbo engines, you'd know that the power and torque curves tend to meet at a peak in this kind of rev range.

 

Based on your statement I take it that you don't really know that much about turbo engines, but just make general comments?

 

Show me a few dyno graphs that shows a general trend for turbo engines to have power and torque meet at a peak around 10-11k!

 

It all depends on turbo size, boost strategies and fuelling.

 

There was a reason why they pushed the rev limits during qualifying in the previous turbo era in F1. It was to make more power!!!



#27 0Fritz

0Fritz
  • Member

  • 352 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:36

No it's not. That was 1990 levels for naturally-aspirated engines, before pneumatic valve-timing sent rev limits skyrocketing upwards.

 

Rev limit alone is not an arbiter of technology level. Far from it.

 

I wasnt necessarily speaking from a technological perspective. Speaking from a noise point of view, it rather is underwhelming for me. 



#28 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:37

This was fairly common knowledge to those with a solid understanding of engines. I expected them to maybe stretch to 12k but it's roughly where I knew t would be.

Reason being fuel flow limits at 10,500rpm so going beyond that point means a reduction in power output due to increased friction.

 

I'm sure you also posted and shared your knowledge back then so that we all could have been prepared?

 

I also "knew" that during testing in Bahrain that they would post times similar to last years cars. I just didn't want to tell anyone about it before it happened LOL



#29 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:40

No it's not. That was 1990 levels for naturally-aspirated engines, before pneumatic valve-timing sent rev limits skyrocketing upwards.

 

Rev limit alone is not an arbiter of technology level. Far from it.

 

The NA engines revved past 10k in the 90's. Every Turbo engine in F1 even revved past 10k in the 80's. Honda did 14k during qualifying with their 1.5l V6 turbo.

 

And Renault introduced pneumatic valves in their turbo engines in the 80's...


Edited by DFV, 14 March 2014 - 22:40.


#30 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:45

The NA engines revved past 10k in the 90's. Every Turbo engine in F1 even revved past 10k in the 80's. Honda did 14k during qualifying with their 1.5l V6 turbo.

 

And Renault introduced pneumatic valves in their turbo engines in the 80's...

 

Those qualifying engines didn't last very long though did they? These new engines have to last a fifth of a whole season.

 

I didn't say Renault didn't introduce pneumatic valves, but they were the main reason for NA engines being able to rev more, weren't they?

 

I don't know what you're arguing for, this is just what these engines rev to, why is that bothering you so much?



#31 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:45

There's not really much point arguing about it... there are 3 different engine manufacturers who all happen to have fallen on the same/similar rev range for their best power and torque outputs... funny that isn't it?

 

Not funny at all. It's simply chemistry and how much power that can be made out of a maximum amount of fuel. If you are allowed X amount of fuel into you engine, then they will all hit the HP and rev ceiling at pretty much the same spot. It's down to ICE, BSFC etc. specifications between the engines that makes them vary in HP and max rpm that HP is achieved at.

 

Give them more fuel and you would see more HP and more RPM's



#32 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:47

Not funny at all. It's simply chemistry and how much power that can be made out of a maximum amount of fuel. If you are allowed X amount of fuel into you engine, then they will all hit the HP and rev ceiling at pretty much the same spot. It's down to ICE, BSFC etc. specifications between the engines that makes them vary in HP and max rpm that HP is achieved at.

 

Give them more fuel and you would see more HP and more RPM's

 

The whole point is trying to save fuel... to see how far you can get on a limited amount, which is what every manufacturer is doing with their road cars, trying to get more and more MPG from each new engine.

 

I just don't get why it is eating at you so much.



#33 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:50

Those qualifying engines didn't last very long though did they? These new engines have to last a fifth of a whole season.

 

I didn't say Renault didn't introduce pneumatic valves, but they were the main reason for NA engines being able to rev more, weren't they?

 

I don't know what you're arguing for, this is just what these engines rev to, why is that bothering you so much?

 

No they didn't, but they made tons of power at those rpm's. And it's not like 15k is high. Last year they ran to 18k and survived...

 

Renault introduced pneumatic valves on their turbo engines so that they also could rev higher. And they did that before the 90's which you mentioned...

 

I'm just disappointed that the engines don't sound great and that a part of the reason is the low rpm's they run at... I was hoping that we would actually see engines revving to 15k... Nothing more than that. Sound is a big part of F1 to me, and hearing a engine that only revs to 11k isn't really exciting. It's not like it's the most amazing racing series sound anymore...


Edited by DFV, 14 March 2014 - 22:58.


#34 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:55

The whole point is trying to save fuel... to see how far you can get on a limited amount, which is what every manufacturer is doing with their road cars, trying to get more and more MPG from each new engine.

 

I just don't get why it is eating at you so much.

 

I get the "save fuel" issue.

 

My argument was your claims about turbo engines that made no sense, especially compared with the previous turbo era in F1. It's not like there is a magic limit at 10-11k for a turbo engine where max power and torque numbers are reached, as you implied... The reason they max out at 10-11k is because of fuel flow limitations, not because it's a turbo engine.

 

That's why it makes no sense to have a 15k rev limit and limit fuel flow to a level where it only can support 10-11k... To me, that is a disapointment!


Edited by DFV, 14 March 2014 - 22:56.


#35 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 22:58

I get the "save fuel" issue.

 

My argument was your claims about turbo engines that made no sense, especially compared with the previous turbo era in F1. It's not like there is a magic limit at 10-11k for a turbo engine where max power and torque numbers are reached, as you implied... The reason they max out at 10-11k is because of fuel flow limitations, not because it's a turbo engine.

 

That's why it makes no sense to have a 15k rev limit and limit fuel flow to a level where it only can support 10-11k...

 

I wasn't implying that, I apologise for getting my point mixed up... I meant that they have designed the engine to have power and torque curves that are complimentary to each other all the way through the rev range, and that once they are getting to 11k they are probably finding that one or the other is flattening out to an extent that the revs are not useable.



#36 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 23:04

I wasn't implying that, I apologise for getting my point mixed up... I meant that they have designed the engine to have power and torque curves that are complimentary to each other all the way through the rev range, and that once they are getting to 11k they are probably finding that one or the other is flattening out to an extent that the revs are not useable.

 

No problem :)

 

Of course they have designed the engines based on the criterias they where handed. With limited fuel flow they obviously have figured out that running above 11k makes no sense as max power seems to be made at around 10-11k. So they designed their engines to be most powerful and efficient at that part of the rev range.

 

My point is that I find that disapointing since the FIA has made us believe that the 2014 engines would rev to 15k as that is the official rev limit. Limiting fuel flow so much that the engines doesn't have enough fuel to make more power above 11k is strange when they said 15k is the rev limit...

 

My second point is that if the engine designers had been given a higher fuel flow limit, then they would have designed a engine that continued to build power above 11k. Preferrably enough fuel to support max power at 15k, as that would have made for a more spectacular noise from the engines :)



#37 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 14 March 2014 - 23:06

I'm sure you also posted and shared your knowledge back then so that we all could have been prepared?

 

I also "knew" that during testing in Bahrain that they would post times similar to last years cars. I just didn't want to tell anyone about it before it happened LOL

 

Yes, I did. Read the Power Unit threads. If you look at rpm vs allowed fuel flow (and therefore torque) you will see that at about 12,000rpm they really should have already shifted up. Just the way the regs are written.

 

I agree the 15,000rpm rev limit is odd. It's really not necessary because of the way the fuel flow regs are written. Perhaps it was to make sure 100% that the designers didn't find some odd loophole in the regs.


Edited by Scotracer, 14 March 2014 - 23:08.


#38 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 23:07

No problem :)

 

Of course they have designed the engines based on the criterias they where handed. With limited fuel flow they obviously have figured out that running above 11k makes no sense as max power seems to be made at around 10-11k. So they designed their engines to be most powerful and efficient at that part of the rev range.

 

My point is that I find that disapointing since the FIA has made us believe that the 2014 engines would rev to 15k as that is the official rev limit. Limiting fuel flow so much that the engines doesn't have enough fuel to make more power above 11k is strange when they said 15k is the rev limit...

 

My second point is that if the engine designers had been given a higher fuel flow limit, then they would have designed a engine that continued to build power above 11k. Preferrably enough fuel to support max power at 15k, as that would have made for a more spectacular noise from the engines :)

 

I probably think the rev limit has been set with the future in mind, in case development takes these engines into a race for more and more revs.



#39 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,363 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 14 March 2014 - 23:11

Like many posters above mentioned the fuel flow is defined in the technical rules with a formula that maxes out at 10500rpm. So they don't bother to rev higher as they would need to run thinner fuel injection ratio.

Advertisement

#40 muelte

muelte
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 14 March 2014 - 23:23

I probably think the rev limit has been set with the future in mind, in case development takes these engines into a race for more and more revs.

Well, considering that in the future (don't know real schedule right now) fuel limit for races will be even lower than 100kg, I find it hard to think they will ever get those revs.



#41 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 15 March 2014 - 01:29

I get the "save fuel" issue.

 

My argument was your claims about turbo engines that made no sense, especially compared with the previous turbo era in F1. It's not like there is a magic limit at 10-11k for a turbo engine where max power and torque numbers are reached, as you implied... The reason they max out at 10-11k is because of fuel flow limitations, not because it's a turbo engine.

 

That's why it makes no sense to have a 15k rev limit and limit fuel flow to a level where it only can support 10-11k... To me, that is a disapointment!

To me, having a rev limit of 18,000 which every manufacturer could easily hit reliably with pretty much equalised power was far more disappointing.



#42 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,456 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 March 2014 - 01:34

Well, considering that in the future (don't know real schedule right now) fuel limit for races will be even lower than 100kg, I find it hard to think they will ever get those revs.

Certainly not with an homologated engine. Any future fuel savings will have to be found via greater use of the electrics.



#43 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 15 March 2014 - 03:38

Yes, I did. Read the Power Unit threads. If you look at rpm vs allowed fuel flow (and therefore torque) you will see that at about 12,000rpm they really should have already shifted up. Just the way the regs are written.

 

I agree the 15,000rpm rev limit is odd. It's really not necessary because of the way the fuel flow regs are written. Perhaps it was to make sure 100% that the designers didn't find some odd loophole in the regs.

 

Bookmark the thread. You'll need to read it again after qualifying.



#44 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 15 March 2014 - 07:41

Bookmark the thread. You'll need to read it again after qualifying.

 

Did anyone here have info on the RPM's they used in qualy (my TV broadcaster doesn't provide anything else than the main FOM broadcast)?

 

I'm guessing we didn't see 15k in qualy either...

 

On a positive note, it seems that they have turned up the mic volume. There definitely was more engine noise today. Not great, but better :)



#45 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,534 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 15 March 2014 - 07:43

They were going to 11.5k rpm in FP3.



#46 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:51

.... and they're not going to hit 15k tomorrow, either.  "Surprise".

 

:well:



#47 FatHippo

FatHippo
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:56

The 80's F1 1.5 Honda V6 turbo engines revved to 14.000rpm in qualy trim. How is a engine that shifts at 11-12k remarkable?


80's engines didn't have a fuel flow limit. Everything about 10.500 is wasteful as at that point the engine has the best fuel use/power ratio. You might get a lick more torque or power above 10.5K but at unproportionally higher fuel consumption, which is impractical for the Greenpeace memorial procession we're going to witness tomorrow.

#48 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,534 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 15 March 2014 - 11:06

80's engines didn't have a fuel flow limit. Everything about 10.500 is wasteful as at that point the engine has the best fuel use/power ratio. You might get a lick more torque or power above 10.5K but at unproportionally higher fuel consumption, which is impractical for the Greenpeace memorial procession we're going to witness tomorrow.


I think some people are getting confused about the context of some the complaints. I think its understood that its best to shift when they do, just that the 'downgrade' in noise is far worse than the drop to 15000rpm originally sounded, because in reality, we've gone from 18000rpm down to 12000. Its quite uninspiring for an F1 car.

#49 FatHippo

FatHippo
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 15 March 2014 - 11:13

I think some people are getting confused about the context of some the complaints. I think its understood that its best to shift when they do, just that the 'downgrade' in noise is far worse than the drop to 15000rpm originally sounded, because in reality, we've gone from 18000rpm down to 12000. Its quite uninspiring for an F1 car.


Everything has to be green, tree-hugging and touchy-feely these days. Loud engines don't fit for the ecomentalists. It's a fact of life and we have to deal with it.

#50 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 15 March 2014 - 11:14

You shift at a point where you can drop into the next gears powerband.

 

Or not as the case mya be in a turbo car.

 

if you watch stuff from the 80's you will see countless examples of drivers shifting early so that the engine is just coming on boost past the apex where they are starting to turn off the lock.

 

You could see it  alot today in the wet, but it is harder with these engines as they have so much additional non engine power.

 

Plus, they have the same gearbox all year, you cant change the ratios, so that makes a big difference too, a lot of guys were using 4th gear today when in the past they would have been shifting down into secpond for a chicane, I fid it very interesting and also it is so great to see the guys working so hard.